Kimber 84M pro varmint

[trevort]

the latest CZ I bought is a 222 that will become a 17fb.
Shane wasnt super keen on customising that action, well in such that I wanted it that way, not him recommending.

[crowbuster]

Thanks for your input Blair. It's good to hear from another Kimber owner & get their impressions. I am definitely leaning towards the Kimber as although the CZs are nice, they're not AS nice as a Kimber. As someone wise once said " You soon forget the price you paid for quality, but you never forget the quality you bought" & I try an follow this philosphy where possible..........

What sort of accuracy is your Kimber capable of & do you reload for it.....

Regards

Peter M.

[Brooke]

Hi Peter

No I dont reload for my rifle. I have been using Winchester Supreme (in the black box) and also American Eagle from Federal. Both of these loads are 50 grainers and shoot the same point of impact. I would use the Winchester ammo all the time, however it is hard to obtain and is quite expensive.

I have not done any real group shooting with this rifle, as I used this rifle for mainly hunting. However the first time that I sighted it in, I put 5 shots in a group at 100 metres that could be covered with a fifty cent coin from the prone position . And on another session I shot a group from the sitting postion at fifty metres, which colud be covered with a twenty cent coin.

Before i brought my rifle I read a few articles where they were testing Kimber rifles, two which are covering the Kimber Pro Varmint are

New Zealand Guns & Hunting, Issue 95
Rifle Shooter March/April 2006.

There is also a testfire in a New Zealand Rod & Rifle of a Kimber Pro Varmint 204, which I am trying to find.

Summary of these articles are

Rifle Shooter-tested a Pro Varmint .223

Winchester Supreme - 3/4 of an inch at 100 yards
Black Hill 52 grain ammo- was a touch better.

In this article the aurthor had difficulty obtaining good groups with various FMJ loads. When using varmint style projectiles, the authur states that the rifle delivers 3/4 inch or smaller groups all day long.

New Zealand Guns & Hunting-tested a Pro Varmint in 22/250 was tested and with load development the rifle was shooting .75 of inch or better at 100 yards. The writer tried the rifle at 200 yards and achieved 3 shot groups of less than I inch.

Hope this helps you decide Peter.

cheers

Blair

[crowbuster]

Thanks very much for that info Blair. From those test results you mentioned, the pro varmint sounds accurate enough for my needs. I'm sure there are heavy varmint outfits that will probably shoot smaller than 0.75 moa, but for me the handling qualities of the Kimber far outweigh that slight improvement in accuracy with a heavier rifle.

I think I'll get the Kimber & will let you know how it works out. I still have a few more weeks waiting on my permit to acquire because we have such bullshit gun laws here in Australia.

Regards

Peter

[Brooke]

Hi Peter

I found the other article that was looking for and results were for a Kimber Pro Varmint in 204. these are 3 shot groups at 100 yards.

32 grain Hornardy factory load-0.375 of an inch
40 grain Hornday factory load-.75 of an inch
Reload with a 32 grain Sierra -.3 thru to .5 of an inch
Reload 39 grain Sierra-.75-1.25 inch

There are several other articles that I have read on Kimber .223 and they all seem to get the best results with Winchester Supreme ammo (in the black box).

Hope this helps

Cheers

Blair

[mozzie]

HEY So i guess zzsstt you don't really know the accuracy potential of your rifle ? Once I find a reliable , accurate load Like most people I shoot a series of 5 shot groups @ 100 & 200M then work out the average group from that .

[zzsstt]

HEY So i guess zzsstt you don't really know the accuracy potential of your rifle ? Once I find a reliable , accurate load Like most people I shoot a series of 5 shot groups @ 100 & 200M then work out the average group from that .

Then you are one step ahead of many! If you shot a series of 7 shot groups then your results would (statistically*) mean something. Most people shoot 3 shot groups and take the best, "oh, I pulled a shot on that group so it doesn't count".

But tell me, assuming you are talking about a hunting rifle rather than a benchrest one, how does knowing the absolute accuracy help you? Do you ever actually use the rifle in the same way as you test it? My point here is that even if I did know that my rifle produced an average group size of, say 0.4" at 100m from a concrete bench with rest and bag, how would that help me when I'm holding the rifle against a tree in a cross wind and guessing the range to a roo? Obviously I'm playing Devils Advocate here, but I'd like someone to explain it to me. By the way, we have already had "confidence in my rifle" as an answer, and I can understand that, although the manner of use is so different that I'm not sure it would give me too much confidence.

*I am not a statistician, but I used to work with a great many of them, and they stated that anything less than a seven shot group was not statistically meaningful/significant. I have no idea why 7 is the magic number.....

[Knackers]

G'day all, I've never handled a Kimber, but seen one in the flesh and it was a quality item, no doubt.

Lots of people making referance to the kimber being a better rifle! at $600 extra I would hope so. Lots mention quality. Well the CZ is a rifle of very good quality, with some very good features. The CZ quality of finish is not as prestiges as the quality of the finish on the Kimber, but the CZ rifle will function floorlessly for many many years, with proven design, is light weight and comes to the shoulder nicely and mine will shoot under .5 moa all day straight out of the box with hand loads. (and thats 6x5 shot groups zzsstt)

I would get the CZ and put the $600 saved into some excellent optics.

[crowbuster]

Thats my dilema Knackers. I know the CZs are a nice rifle, & I imagine the Kimber is even better but is it worth the extra dough I just don't know.
The $600 saved would certainly go a long way towards a nice Leupold scope for it, but until I see both rifles in the flesh side by side I can't decide.

Thanks to all for their helpful advice and opinions on this one.....

zzsstt, if 5 shots groups are meaningless, why is it the accepted standard by those who know for testing accuracy I understand that three shot groups don't mean a lot, but have never heard that seven is the magic number until now. Do any of your statitician friends shoot.....
I believe the "confidence" gained by benchrest testing of your rifle & loads, is very useful because it shows the potential accuracy of the equipment under "ideal" conditions & removes a lot of error. Sure it's not the same as using it in the field, but if you miss in the field you can only blame yourself or the conditions, but not the equipment.......

Regards

Peter

[Ned Kelly]

G'Day all,
boy this is a good 'un!

Confidence is made up of basicaly 3 parts
1. Knowing the accuracy "capability" of the rifle on a still day
2. Your shooting ability in the field and of range estimation to target.
3. Being able to read the wind

Now regardless of how many shots in the group, its your ability to hit what you aim at, this is directly related to the accuracy of the rifle and its loaded ammo.

The more shots you fire at known ranges in varying weather conditions the more confident you are able to make those shots.

In BR we mainly shoot 5 shot groups, a 10 shot group gives more confidence in your rifles abilty and is statistically a better indication of the rifles potential. Its all kinda academic, really.

But do you really need that info in a hunting rifle? What you need is confidence in being able to estimate range to target, hold off for a given wind condition and know that the rifle can deliver the required level of accuracy required to hit the target

Get a still air zero, and regulalrly check it with 3 shot groups to save your barrel life. And more importantly shoot it in every wind strength and angles you can to build your confidence in your ability while you confirm your rifles accuracy. This all builds confidence in you the shooter and this means you will enjoy your hunting more.

Do not fall into the trap of only ever shooting at 100yds on a nice day, shoot at 200 or 250, even 300yds, test yourself and ask why it didn't land where you were aiming. Shoot on a windy day, walk the range or paddock and see where the wind is strongest, ask why? is it a gully or speeding up past a clump of trees or around the hill, try to shoot when the wind is dropping off not picking up in speed. The error will, generally, be less. You will be surprised at just how far a bullet will move in the wind and you'll start to wonder about all those missed shots in the field.

When your confidence goes off the boil, go back and check your zero on a still day, and practice at the range on a windy day.

MORE PRACTICE = MORE CONFIDENCE!

Hope this helps!

Cheerio Ned

[zzsstt]

zzsstt, if 5 shots groups are meaningless, why is it the accepted standard by those who know for testing accuracy?

Probably because they are not statisticians! 5 shots is a nice easy number to use, and appears to be sensible. In fact, of course, the larger the number of shots fired the more meaningful are any conclusions drawn from them. From a statistics point of view, apparently, 7 is the number at which the levels of doubt and uncertainty drop to a point at which they can start to be disregarded. By the way, whilst 5 shots is statistically less meaningful than 7, obviously it is far better than 3! I guess it all comes down to how "accurate" you want your results to be (pun intended!). It may also be that because a 7 shot group is that much harder to get a good result from than a 5 shot group, people use 5 shots to make their numbers look a bit better. At the end of the day, when you think about it, what we are trying to establish is "the radius in which ALL shots will fall". All we are trying to do is to obtain this in a sensible way by using groups of 3,5,7 or whatever. Therefore we are instantly in the realms of statistical analysis, after all, that's what "averaging" is. But of course because we are shooters and not statisticians we do this in a way that does not meet the requirements of correct statistical analysis.

I understand that three shot groups don't mean a lot, but have never heard that seven is the magic number until now. Do any of your statitician friends shoot.....

No, but neither do they do many of the things they calculate statistics on! You do not have to "do" something to work out the numbers!

I believe the "confidence" gained by benchrest testing of your rifle & loads, is very useful because it shows the potential accuracy of the equipment under "ideal" conditions & removes a lot of error. Sure it's not the same as using it in the field, but if you miss in the field you can only blame yourself or the conditions, but not the equipment.......

Regards

Peter

Yep, that's the argument previously mentioned, and to a degree I can understand it. My counter argument would be that at the end of the day my intention is to hit my target for a clean, humane kill. Knowing that under ideal conditions my rifle can group 0.5" at 100m does not help me do this. When the conditions I am shooting under cause me to knock the lower jaw of an animal that then scurries off to die a slow and painful death, am I happy knowing that it was my fault rather than the rifles? Or would I have been better to know that under those conditions I can only guarantee a hit within 2" of my point of aim, and so use a heart/lung shot for a guaranteed kill?

Now obviously it is possible to know both the ideal conditions performance of your rifle, and the real world performance, so they are not mutually exclusive. However given that the real world performance is the knowledge that I will be "using" to judge my shots, the ideal conditions knowledge is purely theoretical..........

I must remind people here, I am a farmer. I have never in my life shot on a rifle range (full-bore pistols for a laugh once, but never rifles). I shoot almost every day, at anything from rabbits to roo's (permit). If I lived in a city and the only regular shooting was at a range, then perhaps I would be equally interested in absolute "ideal conditions" group knowledge.....

Edit: spelling!

[zzsstt]

G'Day all,
boy this is a good 'un!

MORE PRACTICE = MORE CONFIDENCE!

Hope this helps!

Cheerio Ned

Ned,

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. The only thing you have in my opinion neglected, is that if you are hunting you rarely have access to an ideal support for your rifle. So, for hunting, your practice should be shooting offhand, prone from a bipod, supported on a fencepost or tree etc. Whilst you can try to optimise your position and support, it is rare to find a tree of an ideal shape and size, so you end up shooting hunched up, or on tip-toe (more dangerous, try not to do it!). To me, this has far more of an impact on accuracy than a few tenths of an inch gained from a handload.

This is really the crux of my argument. Knowing how well the outfit (including shooter, rifle and ammo) perform, as you say in a cross wind, up a hill, at an best guess distance from your quarry, but also bent double with the rifle resting on a gate, THAT is what I consider to be important for real world shooting.

Knowledge of your accuracy under these real world conditions, combined with the guts to not take the shot if that knowledge tells you that you cannot guarantee a clean kill, is what makes a good hunter in my opinion. Oh, and the ability to find and stalk game!!!!

[Knackers]

I hear where your coming from zzsstt, but I'm thinking that you would know your potential but not your rifles, from your posts.
I'm a farmer too and shoot just about every single day and always have a rifle with me in the ute.
Agree with everyones statments about wind and poor rests and the need for experiance and confidence. But if you know you rifle will shot .5 @ 100 and 1" @ 200 and 1.5" @ 300, then maybe you would be more confident in a brain shot and not heart/lung shot.

As far as 7 shots for grouping goes, I will give it a go when I have time and shoot a 6 x 7 shot groups and post it up.

* edited because of poor comment *

[Dr G]

zzsstt, if 5 shots groups are meaningless, why is it the accepted standard by those who know for testing accuracy I understand that three shot groups don't mean a lot, but have never heard that seven is the magic number until now. Do any of your statitician friends shoot.....

G'Day crow buster

I do a lot of stats and i shoot but i have mates that i work with who are absolute guns at stats but other than this really have no life (except ultimate frisbee ) These guys would be able to take any data set irrespective of their personal experience and show trends and make predictions on the outcomes based on what you provide them. remeber the golden rule though garbage in=garbage out

zzsstt sums it up well, a 7 shot group has more meaning than a 5 shot vs a 3 shot. 3 is the smallest sample size you can make any statistical prediction on. In science if you tried to pass of something as meaning full data with just three samples you would be resoundingly criticised.

3 shot, 5 shot and 7 shot groups are still just raw data though. a more meaningfull statistic would be the mean distance from the point of aim. and the more shots you measured the more precise this statistic would become.

The other way to realisticly estimate and compare accuracy is to look at the mean group size from a sample of group sizes. For benchrest shooters of the likes of Rinso Ned Kelly and others shooting in controlled (low or mesurable variables) conditions i suspect they would be very small. For field shooters like zzsstt, Knackers and myself they would be a bit larger based on the other variations we encounter shooting in less than ideal conditions.

Taking your best ever group size and claiming this is the accuracy potential of your rifle is bad statistics as this value is an outlier and as meaningfull as your worst ever group.

About 3 months ago i shot about 25 shots into a single target set up 100m away from a door rest, just like i do when i am spotlighting (i was bored, as the cat traps were empty that morning). There were numerous clusters of shots in this group but all of them came in within a 1.5" group.

The best group i have ever shot at a paper target was also the worse, it depends on how you call it. It was three consecutive shots into about 0.3 of an inch, the next shot hit within 1 inch of these three and the final shot missed the target entirely. Do i have a 0.3 MOA rifle, i dont think so i would guess its really a 1.5 MOA rifle based on lots of shots in lots of different conditions.

As Ned, zzsst and others have said just get out there and practice and practice in lots of different conditions

[zzsstt]

But if you know you rifle will shot .5 @ 100 and 1" @ 200 and 1.5" @ 300, then maybe you would be more confident in a brain shot and not a jaw shot.

Why?

I am assuming here that you are talking again about that concrete bench, rest, bags etc. accuracy potential that we have been discussing, rather than knowing the groups you can guarantee from the roof of the ute?

Out of interest, does anybody have any comparitive figures of their field accuracy against "potential"? I would still be interested in seeing a group shot from the shoulder (or other "field" position) at an unknown distance from one of you guys who knows the benchrest capabilities of your rifles.

Lets take this to the extreme, just for the sake of argument. Lets say I gave my rifle to Australia's top benchrest shooter. He (or she) took it away and came back with a bunch of targets showing it was capable of shooting groups .25" at 100m, 0.5" at 200m. Now I know the absolute potential of my rifle. How does this help me?

Before the top benchrest guy made his assessment, I could guarantee a hit within a 1.5" radius at 200m in my shooting conditions. Does the fact that he has told me the rifle will group at 0.5" at 200m (under ideal conditions) mean that suddenly I will be able to do that? No, of course not. The inaccuracies brought on by field shooting, dodgy rests against trees, my own ability to judge distance and cross winds, these things will all remain and so I will still only be able to guarantee that 3" diameter.

The only possible difference is that perhaps now, under the mistaken belief ("knowledge"?) that those benchrest groups somehow apply out in the bush, I will attempt shots that previously I wouldn't. Now if I make those shots, I'll be happy, though it will be luck of the draw - I happened to hit the middle of that 3" circle. But if I cripple an animal that I then can't finish, in my view that makes me a bad hunter - not because it happened (it happens to everyone sometimes), but because I took a shot that I could not, sensibly, guarantee I could make.

So, whilst I do not have a problem with people knowing the accuracy potential of their rifles under ideal conditions, I am still much happier knowing what I can expect of mine under my real world conditions, and I will still use that knowledge to take or leave my shots.

In answer to your other question, then I guess that it is my potential that interests me, rather than that of the rifle in isolation. After all, that is what results in a clean kill.