Kimber Montanas and Husqvarna

buckchaser

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
Messages
48
Need to crowd source some opinions here. Unfortunately, due to inflexible work commitments and short local rifle seasons I spend much more time archery and muzzleloader hunting than rifle hunting. I have two Kimber Montanas - a 257 Roberts and a 280 Remington. They are great rifles, but expensive rifles to be basically gathering dust in my gun safe.

The Husqvarna 1600 (4000) series are readily available here in Canada and are considered by many to be a very high quality lighweight rifle. I can get a very good condition 1600 (4000) for about $500 Canadian. I could buy a couple of them and have quite a bit of $$$ left over after selling the Montanas.

I do a lot of still hunting, backpack hunting, etc. so I do need a lightweight rifle.

Would I be crazy to sell the Montanas and buy a couple Husqvarnas?
 

Runningwater

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
508
Location
Broomfield, CO
Can't help you much as I don't know much about that model Husqvarna. Is it stainless and synthetic? What do they weigh? I have an old sporterized model 96 Swede that I've shot tons of big game with - its a great rifle.

That said, if you're concerned about too much investment getting too little use you could just sell the 257 Montana and be in great shape for any big game hunt with the 280. That or perhaps sell the 257 and pick up a smaller caliber husqvarna and have of of each for awhile and see how they stack up.
 

Wapiti1

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Messages
2,078
Location
Indiana
Interesting question.

I really like the old husky rifles. They were well made and finished, typically accurate and reliable. The 1600 is an improved Mauser design, just like the Kimber is. They are all blued and wood stocked. Mostly in plain walnut, sometimes in beech wood, with somewhat coarse checkering usually only on the grip, not usually on the forearm. They were a working mans rifle, so no frills. Synthetic stocks are available, though, but at additional cost. They are probably a pound to pound and a half heavier than the Kimber, but you might find an example that has a less dense stock and is closer in weight. They came with a couple of triggers, and they were adjustable with a simple side safety. They also had simple iron sights and take small ring Mauser bases for a scope. Mauser triggers also work on them, so you could change the trigger if desired.

Two things to check. The bore, and pull it out of the stock and look for cracks at the recoil lug and wrist. Also pay attention to the wood under the rear tang and see if it seems soft and dark colored. That is oil soaked wood and it is soft. It will compress when you torque the action screw which can be a problem. All repairable, but that is additional cost. These are issues to look for, but they are not common. Similar issues you can find on any make wood stocked rifle.

What you should do is up to you. Either is a good option and will serve its purpose. If I were looking at the Husky, I'd look for one in 30-06 as those were common, or .270.

Kimber offers the option of stainless and synthetic if you think that is important. And they are lighter. Is a pound enough to care? Maybe, maybe not. I do think Kimber has a better safety with a side swing, but the husky isn't different than a Howa or Tikka in that regard.

A Husqvarna in good shape would be just fine and have some nostalgia that the Kimber doesn't, IMO.

Jeremy
 
OP
B

buckchaser

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
Messages
48
Thanks everyone. I took both Montanas to the range today and was reminded how much I enjoy them. Even though I'm not able to use them afield as much as I would like, I definitely would miss them if sold. They are the perfect rifle for how I hunt in many ways. They'll be staying in my gun safe.
 

slvrslngr

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
520
Good call. Those old Huskys are great guns but you would definitely have missed your Montana’s.
 

coiloil37

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
115
I had a 1600 in .308 and it was the worst recoiling rifle I’ve ever shot. Within 4-5 shots I would have a sore jaw and purple/black shoulder. I’ve hunted with 300 ultra mags and .338 edge, sub seven lb .338 win mags etc but that little .308 was the worst Ive ever shot. You couldn’t pay me to take one and I certainly wouldn’t sell a kimber to buy one.
The crown grade husqvarnas were a different story.
 

Steve O

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,700
Location
Michigan
Need to crowd source some opinions here. Unfortunately, due to inflexible work commitments and short local rifle seasons I spend much more time archery and muzzleloader hunting than rifle hunting. I have two Kimber Montanas - a 257 Roberts and a 280 Remington. They are great rifles, but expensive rifles to be basically gathering dust in my gun safe.

The Husqvarna 1600 (4000) series are readily available here in Canada and are considered by many to be a very high quality lighweight rifle. I can get a very good condition 1600 (4000) for about $500 Canadian. I could buy a couple of them and have quite a bit of $$$ left over after selling the Montanas.

I do a lot of still hunting, backpack hunting, etc. so I do need a lightweight rifle.

Would I be crazy to sell the Montanas and buy a couple Husqvarnas?

Yes you are crazy. Keep what you have.
 
Top