What are the issues with the Kimber hunters?

4IDARCHER

WKR
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
718
Location
Iowa
I have narrowed down my caliber (.270 win) and scope choice and thought I was all set on a Tikka T3X ultralight, but thought again about the Kimber Hunter. I hits my goals of a sub $1000, sub 6lb rifle and has at least my minimum of 22in barrel.

The benifits I see over the Tikka ultralight are 2in more barrel, a good think in a .270 and from the prices I have seen it is a bit less expensive then the ultralight. I have seen several comments on here about issues had with the hunter version but even with using the search feature I am haveing trouble finding out what those specific issues are. Can someone give me the Cliff notes version and weather the Hunter is a suitable comparison to the T3X ultralight?
 

elkguide

WKR
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
4,606
Location
Vermont
Both the Tikka and the Hunter have stocks that don't work for me so if I bought one, the first thing that I would do would be to replace the stock and by then, you might as well have bought a Kimber Montana. I have never shot a T3 or a Montana that wasn't a very good shooter. The .270 is a great caliber and I have shot a lot of animals with it but I bought a Montana in .270 WSM and will probably not ever go back to the plain .270
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
906
I don't own it but came real close to ordering one right when the hunter series came out.... The one negative trend I've seen in the hunter is issues w/ feeding from the poly magazine. It was pretty common early on, they may have remedied it by now? I was very close to purchasing one when folks started posting about it.... Sounded like a legitimate issue, not just one person trying to slander a company online. I've since handled them with the thinking I'd purchase one further down the road (once the bugs were worked out) and between the two I'd probably buy another tikka before I bought a kimber hunter.

The tikka's (T3, I don't own a T3X) stock is probably the best plastic stock I've ever used. I would imagine they only improved it with the T3X version? Unless you want to spend the money and jump up to carbon/kelvlar/etc... tikka's tupperware stock is actually pretty good. Kimber's left some to be desired.... the magazine on the tikka seems to lock up a little better also. I own a tikka and passed on the hunter. If you are capping yourself at this price, go with a tikka, I don't think you'll see any real world performance difference in the 22" tube on a .270win.... if you have a little extra $$ buy the Kimber montana.... my $.02
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
324
Location
Boise, Id.
If you RELOAD buy a .270 WSM as they are, freakin' LAZER'S, to 500 yards! and you can reload it "down" to .270 Win velocities for low recoil if, nec. Adjust the Trigger, put a Limb Saver and Voodoo Tactical cheek rest on it and don't look back ! The Tikka's feed, butter smooth and shoot, great! My .270 WSM with, 24 inch Bbl weighs 7.7 pounds with a 4.5X14 scope and Burris Zee steel rings, on it and easily shoots SUB, MOA!
Like backcountryhunter said, the Stock's are actually very good and strong with absolutely NO, POI "shifting" from, my sons and my, week to week ongoing testing of, 2 of them. Good luck with your choice and there's nothing wrong with a .270 Win either, IF,.. a Tikka !
 
Last edited:

luke moffat

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
102
Both the Tikka and the Hunter have stocks that don't work for me so if I bought one, the first thing that I would do would be to replace the stock and by then, you might as well have bought a Kimber Montana. I have never shot a T3 or a Montana that wasn't a very good shooter. The .270 is a great caliber and I have shot a lot of animals with it but I bought a Montana in .270 WSM and will probably not ever go back to the plain .270

I own both Kimber Montanas and Tikkas. What about the Tikkas is a deal breaker compared to the Montana. I am not in tune enough to say one is better than the other, but it is fun to be able to say my stock is Kevlar. ;)
 

wentrot

FNG
Joined
Mar 23, 2015
Messages
31
I heard of issues with the Hunters early on, I picked one up a while back and have had zero issues. Excellent rifle. That being said the tikkas are also wonderful shooters. Only answer is to buy both!
 

BigWoods

WKR
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
389
Location
NH
As others have mentioned, there were some early production magazines that were very hard to fit the 3rd round in. This made for rough feeding. My 6.5 Hunter that I purchased this past December has been flawless in the loading and feeding departments and from what I've read around the net the issue seems to be largely resolved.

The stock is nice and stiff for polymer and so long as you install the action right to be sure the barrel is centered up, it's just about impossible to warp the fore end so that it makes contact with the barrel.
 

satchamo

WKR
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
706
I have narrowed down my caliber (.270 win) and scope choice and thought I was all set on a Tikka T3X ultralight, but thought again about the Kimber Hunter. I hits my goals of a sub $1000, sub 6lb rifle and has at least my minimum of 22in barrel.

The benifits I see over the Tikka ultralight are 2in more barrel, a good think in a .270 and from the prices I have seen it is a bit less expensive then the ultralight. I have seen several comments on here about issues had with the hunter version but even with using the search feature I am haveing trouble finding out what those specific issues are. Can someone give me the Cliff notes version and weather the Hunter is a suitable comparison to the T3X ultralight?
I own a Hunter and if I was to do it all over again, I'd own a Tikka.

I made the short drive to Whitaker's almost totally convinced of the Tikka... Then I handled the Kimber. To me, the stock felt better, it was lighter, and it's just a plan better looking gun than a Tikka (IMO). So I walked out with the Kimber.

Now that I've spent some significant time behind it, it has its quirks... I wouldn't recommend a sub 7 lb gun to anyone who plans to A)shoot alot B) shoot far and C)enjoy shooting. I got mine in a 308 (yes a the lowly old 308) and it kicks the shit out of me to the point where I'm done at 20 rounds. Now if you took this same gun and added a pound or 2, I think it would be WAY more comfortable to shoot. Not to mention way more accurate. I'm not a crack shot but I'm lucky to hold 2 in groups off of sandbags at 100 yds using factory 168 federal Sierra Matchking. I'm reloading rounds for it to see what I can do with it as we speak. But the bottom line is light guns are hard to shoot with a ton of precision. That being said, this is a hunting rifle, not a PRS setup so the accuracy doesn't actually bother me as much.

The Kimber action is also far from what I'd call smooth. I did have issues feeding with it initially, but I called Kimber and found I was stacking the rounds in the wrong sequence in the mag. Even after straightening that issue out, it still is rough to load the first round.

The a few things I do like about the Kimber is it does have a great trigger for a factory rifle, it's controlled feed, and it's just a good looking gun.

All this said, Tikkas have wayyyy smoother actions, the option of going with a long action with no added weight, way more after market options in stocks.

The Kimber is a purpose and well built rifle. That purpose is for packing miles back and never shooting beyond 300 yards. A Tikka can be made to do whatever you want... This is my 2 cents. Take it or leave it!
 
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
707
The Kimber is a purpose and well built rifle. That purpose is for packing miles back and never shooting beyond 300 yards. A Tikka can be made to do whatever you want... This is my 2 cents. Take it or leave it!

That’s really the crux of it. Ultralight rifles are not all-around rifles. If I’m anticipating a 350 yard shot, I carry a heavier rifle. But after a day of tracking elk through lodgepole timber I wouldn’t trade an 84M for anything. Ditto a backpack hunt.
 

wentrot

FNG
Joined
Mar 23, 2015
Messages
31
Getting the barrel to site center in the stock is my only issue, it always sits close to the left edge.
 

dpep

FNG
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Messages
28
Location
NH
That’s really the crux of it. Ultralight rifles are not all-around rifles. If I’m anticipating a 350 yard shot, I carry a heavier rifle. But after a day of tracking elk through lodgepole timber I wouldn’t trade an 84M for anything. Ditto a backpack hunt.

Would you guys be willing to elaborate? Are you speaking for all lightweight rifles or just the Kimber? Curious why you shy away from a lightweight rifle for long range. Is it the shorter barrel lengths? Some cartridges perform well with minimal loss of velocity on shorter barrels. Would it be worth glass bedding the Hunter stock?

Not being facetious, just planning on an UL for my next rifle in 6.5 (who isn't) with hopes of 300-500 meters. I'm just getting into long range shooting and have a howitzer of or .308 and tripod for long range on the power lines but its heavy and I'd hate to carry it all day. Not a lot of long range hunting opportunities here in the Northeast so its all new to me.
 

thinhorn_AK

"DADDY"
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
10,341
Location
Alaska
Would you guys be willing to elaborate? Are you speaking for all lightweight rifles or just the Kimber? Curious why you shy away from a lightweight rifle for long range. Is it the shorter barrel lengths? Some cartridges perform well with minimal loss of velocity on shorter barrels. Would it be worth glass bedding the Hunter stock?

Not being facetious, just planning on an UL for my next rifle in 6.5 (who isn't) with hopes of 300-500 meters. I'm just getting into long range shooting and have a howitzer of or .308 and tripod for long range on the power lines but its heavy and I'd hate to carry it all day. Not a lot of long range hunting opportunities here in the Northeast so its all new to me.

I shoot my kimber out to 500yds with no problems, it takes a bit of practice because they don’t sit still as well as a heavier rifle but with practice it’s no big deal. I really think that people who make claims labout lightweight rifles not being accurate just haven’t taken the time to practice.
 

dpep

FNG
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Messages
28
Location
NH
Thanks Newmexican, That was kind of my thoughts. In the Army being able to shoot consistently out to 300m with a 5.56, 14in barrel on a two part receiver and a 4x optic piqued my interest in long range shooting. There's no reason to not be able to shoot out to 500 consistently with a bolt action platform.

As you said though, it certainly comes down to practice, and being comfortable taking game at those ranges gets even more complex.
 

BigWoods

WKR
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
389
Location
NH
As for action smoothness and loading that first round on the Hunter, I found that a little polishing work to the inside of the feed lips of the magazine did wonders.
 

thinhorn_AK

"DADDY"
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
10,341
Location
Alaska
I don’t care one bit about “action smoothness” as long as it reliably loads the rounds. I have a weatherby mkv with an incredibly smooth action but it weighs 9lbs...so what.

If a rifle has a smooth action, cool. I can’t imagine making a purchase based on the smoothness of the rifles action though.

I’m not bashing the tikka rifles, it just seems like a really stupid thing to nit pick. I lol at weight and accuracy.
 
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
707
Would you guys be willing to elaborate? Are you speaking for all lightweight rifles or just the Kimber? Curious why you shy away from a lightweight rifle for long range. Is it the shorter barrel lengths? Some cartridges perform well with minimal loss of velocity on shorter barrels. Would it be worth glass bedding the Hunter stock?

Not being facetious, just planning on an UL for my next rifle in 6.5 (who isn't) with hopes of 300-500 meters. I'm just getting into long range shooting and have a howitzer of or .308 and tripod for long range on the power lines but its heavy and I'd hate to carry it all day. Not a lot of long range hunting opportunities here in the Northeast so its all new to me.

It has nothing to do with the accuracy or the barrel length. The problem is taking shots in field conditions. I can set up at the range and shoot MOA out as far as I want with my light rifles. But I’ve missed an elk and nearly lost a deer when trying to make quick, longer shots in the field. Another elk I just passed on because the crosshairs wouldn’t settle down in time.

I’ve never had that issue with my heavier guns. The light rifles just don’t settle down very fast, and when you are out of breath, excited, using an improvised rest, and trying to kill an animal that may only stop for a few seconds, it turns into a pretty difficult shot at 300 yards.
 

satchamo

WKR
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
706
Would you guys be willing to elaborate? Are you speaking for all lightweight rifles or just the Kimber? Curious why you shy away from a lightweight rifle for long range. Is it the shorter barrel lengths? Some cartridges perform well with minimal loss of velocity on shorter barrels. Would it be worth glass bedding the Hunter stock?

Not being facetious, just planning on an UL for my next rifle in 6.5 (who isn't) with hopes of 300-500 meters. I'm just getting into long range shooting and have a howitzer of or .308 and tripod for long range on the power lines but its heavy and I'd hate to carry it all day. Not a lot of long range hunting opportunities here in the Northeast so its all new to me.

I'm speaking to ANY sub 7 lb (fully scoped) rifle though my experience is limited to my kimber hunter. I was hitting 12 in steel plates @ 500 yesterday with it, no problem. BUT I was on bags and it took me while to find my drop with on the VX2. There is no way in hell I was pulling that off free hand, or at least not with out a pretty solid rest. The issue is a light weapon is just hard to keep stable. Every breathe, heart beat, or twitch seems to throw the scope off.

Part of the limiting factor for me is I put a capped turret, standard crosshair VX2 on it because I wanted to keep the overall setup light, and simple. If you want to dial, and aren't concerned about an extra pound of scope, throw that exposed turret scope on there and extend your range, but even then, I think you will struggle without a bipod or other rest (which is just more weight on the gun). I chose not to because I bought the rifle for a pretty specific purpose which is a lightweight, simple rifle I can pack into the mountains fully understanding it would NOT be my longe range gun.

I'm not saying lightweight rifles are bad, or inaccurate, just for me personally, they are limited range guns built on simplicity and low weight.
 

wyo_gasman

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
219
Location
Kemmerer,Wy
I shoot my KH 6.5 Creedmoor out to 700 no problem. The stock feels cheap, thats my only issue with it. Its a very accurate rifle.
 

R H Clark

FNG
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
87
Location
Alabama
I think you will have a better chance of having a better shooting rifle with the Tikka. If I was interested in shooting longer range though I would get the CTR in 24" 6.5 Creedmoor.LOL
 

aMonster

FNG
Joined
Nov 15, 2018
Messages
2
Location
Vancouver
I just picked up one of these Hunter's (.308) a day or so before heading out on a hunt over the November long weekend and immediately noticed a very severe feeding problem. Seems the first round jams quite badly unless you really ram the bolt, which then chews up the bullet.

I read at the beginning of this thread that some have heard of early iterations of this rifle having this issue but have not found any supporting information. I took the rifle back off where I bought it so I'm waiting to see what happens but I can say that in the store they fed some pretty smooth dummy rounds through it with no problem, but then when I insisted they remove the firing pin and try some real brass, sure enough the problem was self evident.

I'll update when I hear back from the store.
 
Last edited:
Top