Kimber 84L vs Remington 700
- Thread starter hoser
- Start date
BusGunner007
New member
Lloyd Smale
Moderator
i wanted an accurate 257 roberts. There hard to find. I looked into the kimber but after hearing just to many horor storys about guys paying big bucks for them and finding them not to be accurate i decided to pass.
the Kimber is a really nice rifle, if it were me I'd find that in a light as Kimber that is made, recoil won't be bad in the .270, plus you can tote it effortless all day. Between all three the Ruger is pretty cool but the Rem is deadly accurate mostly, I really like the Kimber though!
( i can't decide either), Best to get the lightest rifle if you aim to pack it far.
( i can't decide either), Best to get the lightest rifle if you aim to pack it far.pabuckslayer08
New member
When I bought my .270 over the summer I held a CDL classis up to a Kimber 84 and both were equally eye catching however the action and trigger on the Kimber were better. After that I still couldnt decide and I compared the 84 to a Browning A bolt and ended up with the A bolt. It came with a adjustable trigger, floated barrel, and the action is equally as smooth as the kimber. Imo they are almost identicle but the A bolt was 400 bucks less. I shot it in with a Nikon scope and can achieve quarter size groups at 100 yards and nearly the same at 200.
I shot a Remington 700 and a Winchester M70 both in .270 side by side with the same ammo.
The Remington recoil was significantly higher than the M70, so much so that the two of us shooting them off the bench eventually put down the Remington 700 and shot the M70.
We attributed that to the butt pad on the 700 being less robust and the fact that its weight was lighter than the M70.
That lighter weight is valuable when hunting, especially carrying it.
But when firing, you pay in recoil.
BUT when have you ever heard of a hunter who felt the recoil on the killing shot on a deer?
You do pay the price when practicing and you could learn to flinch just zeroing it in.
The accuracy of the two guns was so similar with 130 grain ammo that you couldn't decide between them based upon that factor. Both were 1 MOA +/- 0.1 depending upon the ammo.
The M70 was more partial to 140 grain bullets (under 0.9 inches) and was even more accurate than with the 130s. The Remington seemed to prefer the lighter ammos.
Neither was particularly accurate with 150 ammos - about 1.4 MOA.
The Kimber's decelerator butt pad should effectively compensate for their light rifle. That is good engineering. But I have been concerned about the reports that Kimber accuracy is too variable to make it worth the investment in a Kimber when the Savage, and Remington 700s that I have are great shooters and deserve their reputations IMO. Even my Winchester M70 is just about at 1 MOA out of the box.
Every time I get the urge to buy a new Kimber in .30-06 or 300 WSM, I pick up my Savage 10 FPC (under $700) in .308 and smile when it shoots under 0.75 inch groups consistently or my Remington 700 SVS Varmint (under $450 on sale) in .22-250 that does just a bit better. I did have to replace the Remington trigger with a Timney but that cost $89 and was basically a drop in with a bit of filing to give the trigger adjusting bolt some room for a lighter setting.
I suspect that the next rifle will be a Savage or Remington instead of a much more expensive Kimber.
The Remington recoil was significantly higher than the M70, so much so that the two of us shooting them off the bench eventually put down the Remington 700 and shot the M70.
We attributed that to the butt pad on the 700 being less robust and the fact that its weight was lighter than the M70.
That lighter weight is valuable when hunting, especially carrying it.
But when firing, you pay in recoil.
BUT when have you ever heard of a hunter who felt the recoil on the killing shot on a deer?
You do pay the price when practicing and you could learn to flinch just zeroing it in.
The accuracy of the two guns was so similar with 130 grain ammo that you couldn't decide between them based upon that factor. Both were 1 MOA +/- 0.1 depending upon the ammo.
The M70 was more partial to 140 grain bullets (under 0.9 inches) and was even more accurate than with the 130s. The Remington seemed to prefer the lighter ammos.
Neither was particularly accurate with 150 ammos - about 1.4 MOA.
The Kimber's decelerator butt pad should effectively compensate for their light rifle. That is good engineering. But I have been concerned about the reports that Kimber accuracy is too variable to make it worth the investment in a Kimber when the Savage, and Remington 700s that I have are great shooters and deserve their reputations IMO. Even my Winchester M70 is just about at 1 MOA out of the box.
Every time I get the urge to buy a new Kimber in .30-06 or 300 WSM, I pick up my Savage 10 FPC (under $700) in .308 and smile when it shoots under 0.75 inch groups consistently or my Remington 700 SVS Varmint (under $450 on sale) in .22-250 that does just a bit better. I did have to replace the Remington trigger with a Timney but that cost $89 and was basically a drop in with a bit of filing to give the trigger adjusting bolt some room for a lighter setting.
I suspect that the next rifle will be a Savage or Remington instead of a much more expensive Kimber.
Last edited:
billnourse
New member
Have never shot a Kimber 84L, but had the opportunity to handle one beside the 700 Rem. on a recent trip to Denver. Hands down the Kimber is the winner in style, workmanship and feel. I have heard that Kimber had some accuracy issues at one time, but I think they have been resolved. By the same token, I have had Remingtons that had accuracy issues.
The Kimber is a little more money, but it is what I would go with. Wish they made it in left hand. They would be replacing my Coopers as we speak.
Bill
The Kimber is a little more money, but it is what I would go with. Wish they made it in left hand. They would be replacing my Coopers as we speak.
Bill
As far as Savage goes they make some good guns. One of the worries with Savage is that some of the stocks they use are rather cheap. If you want a Savage that compares to the Kimber and Remington 700's you should look at the Weather Warrior series in either 16 FHSS or 116 FHSS. Both come with the new Accustock which has an aluminum bedding block in it and Both have a floated barrel. Both come with the Accutrigger which is better than the M700's new trigger and has an adjustable pull weight. The model 16 is short action, you could look at the .270WSM. The model 116 is long action for the old fashion .270.
I recently purchased a model 16 in .300WSM. It took me 3 shots to get zeroed at 100 yards then I let the gun cool. The next 3 shots were all touching at 100 yards and measured .541" center to center. It continues to impress me as it seems to shoot any ammo well. I think anyone would be totally happy about a Savage 16 or 116. I prefer the WSM chamberings because of the way the brass has to be made and how much faster I can push the bullets. They seem to be much more accurate than long action guns that I own.
I recently purchased a model 16 in .300WSM. It took me 3 shots to get zeroed at 100 yards then I let the gun cool. The next 3 shots were all touching at 100 yards and measured .541" center to center. It continues to impress me as it seems to shoot any ammo well. I think anyone would be totally happy about a Savage 16 or 116. I prefer the WSM chamberings because of the way the brass has to be made and how much faster I can push the bullets. They seem to be much more accurate than long action guns that I own.
pabuckslayer08
New member
I have a question concerning the accu triggers. Why does anyone like them, I hate that feeling of flimsy squezzing and then boom. You barely tough the actual trigger and it goes off. I prefer a 4lb trigger that I can lay my finger on and feel it then start squezzing
Hog Hunter
New member
HAHAHAHA!!!!!
warbirdlover
New member
I've looked at the Sako A7. Pretty cheaply made IMHO. I'd own a 85 but who has that kind of money?
The Kimbers I've picked up at Ganders don't impress me all that much.
I bought a Remington. The new X-Mark Pro trigger is pretty nice.
The Kimbers I've picked up at Ganders don't impress me all that much.
I bought a Remington. The new X-Mark Pro trigger is pretty nice.
Remington makes many different versions of the 700. If you are going to compare comparable features you should probably compare the Kimber to the 700 mountain rifle.
I've not yet personally seen the 84L yet, but own an 84M. There is no comparison as to quality. The Kimbers are much better built, but Remington is not bad at all and would likely make an excellent rifle as well. I think it just comes down to how much money you want to spend and how much the Kimber features are worth to you.
I much prefer the Kimber's safety and CRF. The stock shape is much more pleasing to my eye plus it will be significantly lighter than even the Remington mountain rifle. More than 2 lbs lighter than a standard Remington CDL.
I've not yet personally seen the 84L yet, but own an 84M. There is no comparison as to quality. The Kimbers are much better built, but Remington is not bad at all and would likely make an excellent rifle as well. I think it just comes down to how much money you want to spend and how much the Kimber features are worth to you.
I much prefer the Kimber's safety and CRF. The stock shape is much more pleasing to my eye plus it will be significantly lighter than even the Remington mountain rifle. More than 2 lbs lighter than a standard Remington CDL.
skydiver3346
New member
Kimber or Rem?
I own a Kimber .257 Roberts (as well as others in different calibers (6mm, .270). They are all very accurate and certainly well made.
However, all the Rem. 700's I have owned have been very accurate too and better than most, (one in 7mm-08 had a bad trigger and misfired on me).
Note: Don't short change the new Ruger Hawkeye in .257 Roberts. It shoots very well (my wife's gun) and is a great hunting rifle and love the matte finish too.
I own a Kimber .257 Roberts (as well as others in different calibers (6mm, .270). They are all very accurate and certainly well made.
However, all the Rem. 700's I have owned have been very accurate too and better than most, (one in 7mm-08 had a bad trigger and misfired on me).
Note: Don't short change the new Ruger Hawkeye in .257 Roberts. It shoots very well (my wife's gun) and is a great hunting rifle and love the matte finish too.
hoser
I can't vouch for any but the two .308 model 10 FCs (one is a law enforcement model with an internal magazine and the other is similar model with a detachable magazine) that I have actually shot, measured groups for and tabulated the results for. So far our total measured group count is 357 with my rifle and 131 with my buddy's rifle. I initially shot 40 groups of factory ammo and then started hand loading. My buddy has shot mostly factory but also shot 9 groups with my hand loads to see what his rifle liked in terms of seating depth.
We both measure everything and I keep a tally of our results so I guess that I can attest that they both shoot great right out of the box.
They shot so great that several others at our range have bought Savage .308s of the same type after they shot one of ours.
I have gotten so that I put out 1 inch stick on circles on an 8 1/2 x 11 inch sheet of paper at 100 yards and can put all the rounds in a group in the circle on all 12 circles. Not every group will have all rounds completely within the circle but all will have all rounds touch inside the circle. The two rifles have shot single best groups of 0.107 and 0.140 at 100 yards with their favorite ammos.
I even started reloading seriously to see just what I could get out of my rifle and my buddy got to sample my best results. His rifle and mine both improved the average accuracy by 0.2 inches over factory ammo when we understood their preferences. With the favorites, my rifle improved 0.35 inches in average over the factory averages.
The accu-triggers on both were under 3 lbs from the factory and break clean as a pane of glass.
Trigger adjustments are easy, although you have to take the action out of the stock.
Both of our Savages are low cost models both under $ 700 and one came with a 3-9x40mm scope included.
I too have heard lots of positive feed back from members at our range on their Savages, one who recently bought his in .308 loves his too, but I don't think he is as religious as the two of us in measuring everything we shoot at the range.
The accuracy with both of the guns I am familiar with is great.
I have a CZ 527 in .223, a Remington 700 in 22-250 and a Winchester M70 in .270. The CZ and the 700 shoot as good as the Savage, but not with the variety of ammos that the Savage does and the Winchester is a 1 MOA hunting rifle that does just what it is supposed to do. I like to shoot the Savage more than all the others because it just performs great all the time, has a phenomenal butt pad that lets you shoot it all day, and a trigger that is the best of any that I have used.
For me the Savage reputation is well earned, but I'm sure that there are lots who haven't had the positive experience that the Savage owners that I know have had. All I can say is that finding out how good a rifle can shoot reinvigorated my interest in centerfires and in reloading.
I'm looking for another Savage in .30-06.
My buddy is looking at a Savage in .223.
That just about says it all.
I can't vouch for any but the two .308 model 10 FCs (one is a law enforcement model with an internal magazine and the other is similar model with a detachable magazine) that I have actually shot, measured groups for and tabulated the results for. So far our total measured group count is 357 with my rifle and 131 with my buddy's rifle. I initially shot 40 groups of factory ammo and then started hand loading. My buddy has shot mostly factory but also shot 9 groups with my hand loads to see what his rifle liked in terms of seating depth.
We both measure everything and I keep a tally of our results so I guess that I can attest that they both shoot great right out of the box.
They shot so great that several others at our range have bought Savage .308s of the same type after they shot one of ours.
I have gotten so that I put out 1 inch stick on circles on an 8 1/2 x 11 inch sheet of paper at 100 yards and can put all the rounds in a group in the circle on all 12 circles. Not every group will have all rounds completely within the circle but all will have all rounds touch inside the circle. The two rifles have shot single best groups of 0.107 and 0.140 at 100 yards with their favorite ammos.
I even started reloading seriously to see just what I could get out of my rifle and my buddy got to sample my best results. His rifle and mine both improved the average accuracy by 0.2 inches over factory ammo when we understood their preferences. With the favorites, my rifle improved 0.35 inches in average over the factory averages.
The accu-triggers on both were under 3 lbs from the factory and break clean as a pane of glass.
Trigger adjustments are easy, although you have to take the action out of the stock.
Both of our Savages are low cost models both under $ 700 and one came with a 3-9x40mm scope included.
I too have heard lots of positive feed back from members at our range on their Savages, one who recently bought his in .308 loves his too, but I don't think he is as religious as the two of us in measuring everything we shoot at the range.
The accuracy with both of the guns I am familiar with is great.
I have a CZ 527 in .223, a Remington 700 in 22-250 and a Winchester M70 in .270. The CZ and the 700 shoot as good as the Savage, but not with the variety of ammos that the Savage does and the Winchester is a 1 MOA hunting rifle that does just what it is supposed to do. I like to shoot the Savage more than all the others because it just performs great all the time, has a phenomenal butt pad that lets you shoot it all day, and a trigger that is the best of any that I have used.
For me the Savage reputation is well earned, but I'm sure that there are lots who haven't had the positive experience that the Savage owners that I know have had. All I can say is that finding out how good a rifle can shoot reinvigorated my interest in centerfires and in reloading.
I'm looking for another Savage in .30-06.
My buddy is looking at a Savage in .223.
That just about says it all.
Last edited:
Kimber vs Remington
IMO, you're comparing apples to oranges. For the price Kimber should outdo Remington all day long. I don't have a Kimber rifle but I have a Kimber Compact II pistol and I love it. The only thing wrong with it was the price but my wife decided I deserved a great anniversary present and the rest is history.
That being said if I was considering a Remington I would compare it to the new T/C Venture and/or the Weatherby Vanguard. All in pretty much the same price range. I have a Venture in .30-06 spfld and absolutely love it. The first 3 shots down the barrel (Winchester ammo) went in virtually the same hole. I haven't started reloading for it yet but I'm not sure I can improve on the original 3. I also have a Weatherby Vanguard in .270 win and it is equally deadly. Both rifles have 24" barrels which my gunsmith guru swears is a necessity especially in .270 win.
IMO, you're comparing apples to oranges. For the price Kimber should outdo Remington all day long. I don't have a Kimber rifle but I have a Kimber Compact II pistol and I love it. The only thing wrong with it was the price but my wife decided I deserved a great anniversary present and the rest is history.
That being said if I was considering a Remington I would compare it to the new T/C Venture and/or the Weatherby Vanguard. All in pretty much the same price range. I have a Venture in .30-06 spfld and absolutely love it. The first 3 shots down the barrel (Winchester ammo) went in virtually the same hole. I haven't started reloading for it yet but I'm not sure I can improve on the original 3. I also have a Weatherby Vanguard in .270 win and it is equally deadly. Both rifles have 24" barrels which my gunsmith guru swears is a necessity especially in .270 win.