Asinine? Did you click on the link that listed the EXACT same parts used in the build? My guess is the answer is no you didn't. Everything is the same components used on the rifle except the Pierce action which is also titanium and superior to the 700. It's a custom HUNTING rifle. I can buy a Vortex Razor Gen II for $2000 shipped and so can anyone else. Email Scott@libertyoptics.com. If Scott is out of stock I have another source for the SAME price. A friend recently picked up a S&B PMII from Opticsplanet for under $2,300 shipped. You can get a quality hunting scope for hundreds less. Last I checked those were in the top three for scopes used by the PRS top 100 with the Razor Gen II being the most used. Click the link and read the build components then tell me who's asinine.

exx1976, just be quiet. Not another word in this thread, since you're bound and determined to act like an ass.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

quote:

Originally posted by newmexican:
Fucking Kuiu.

I know they had a lot to say in the building of this gun. Think I would go a different route if I had 6k to spend on a gun but their gear is awesome.

Yeah, I guess like everything from KUIU its sort of targeted towards that elite mountaineering/sheep hunting crossover crowd. This rifle just seems extrememly overpriced though, I like sheep hunting and Im going again this year but I wont be parting with my Kimber.

The 6K is LIST, you know C*NN will be blowing these out at half that in a year right?

quote:

Originally posted by drabfour:
$6000 to kill sheep?

According to the site, the rifle weighs 5.6 pounds. Wow. Lightweight is expensive.

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:

quote:

Originally posted by drabfour:
$6000 to kill sheep?

According to the site, the rifle weighs 5.6 pounds. Wow. Lightweight is expensive.

Yep, the rifle is comprised of of high-quality light-weight components. But $6k is steep for the finished product. A good gunsmith could assemble the same components for less. I'll bet a similar rifle built by our own jelrod1 would end up costing noticeably less, once components and labor are totaled up.

I've seen and shot some rifles that jelrod has built. Rifles from other talented 'smiths, too. Such rifles shoot really, really well. I've seen and shot some rifles that Remington has built. If I were in the market for a similar light weight rifle, Remy wouldn't be receiving my hard-earned cash.

So a Kimber Mountain Ascent is 4 pounds 13 ounces and has a MSRP of $2,000 (much less street). What does the Remington have going for it?

The MSRP may well be $6,000 but I haven't the foggiest what the actual street price would be.

I know all about specing out and getting custom rifles assembled; my match rifle is such an animal and goes through barrels on a regular basis.

I am very much perplexed at the weights of the Kimber and the Remington. I can see how the Remington is so light because of the titanium action and the carbon-fiber wrapped barrel, but the Kimber is difficult to understand.

When I built my F-TR rifle, I had to get the weight for each of the components and make sure I had the heaviest, longest barrel possible and yet stay under 14 pounds. The difference between 14 pounds for the rifle and the limit of 18.18 for F-TR was made up by the riflescope, the rings, the mirage shield, the anticant device and the bipod.

The action I chose was the Kelbly Stolle Panda F-Class in aluminum. The action alone is 31 ounces, just a shade under two pounds, and the bolt is fluted in stainless steel. That is just about half the weight of the Kimber and that action is in stainless steel, as is the 22 inch barrel. I cannot fathom how they can have such a rifle at 4 pounds 13, without the use of exotic materials. The barrel must be fluted to the size of a toothpick and can't shoot more than 2 rounds per hour.

Amazing stuff. I can see why people would treasure very light weight, but that's for hunting is strange places. I would never go there to hunt. I don't hunt much anyway, there's just not enough shooting in hunting scenarios. And a rifle like those can't handle the round count. The recoil is probably more than I want to handle anyway. I'm a wuss when it comes to recoil.

The barrel might be the difference. I have no experience with carbon wrapped barrels, can you treat them like a steel barrel of the same diameter? If you really want to poke big green, the Kimber Hunter still weighs less and my local shop has one new for $800, and like the Mountain Ascent has a two inch longer barrel than The Ultimate Wallet Killer.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
The barrel might be the difference. I have no experience with carbon wrapped barrels, can you treat them like a steel barrel of the same diameter? If you really want to poke big green, the Kimber Hunter still weighs less and my local shop has one new for $800, and like the Mountain Ascent has a two inch longer barrel than The Ultimate Wallet Killer.

LOL. Love that moniker, The Ultimate Wallet Killer!

I have no experience with carbon wrapped barrels either, but something tells me they don't shed heat anywhere near as quickly as brushed or bead-blasted stainless steel barrels. It's all about weight and getting the rifle up to the place where you get the one shot of the hunt.

My Kimber is under 6lbs with the scope.

I suspect a good portion of the Remy's weight versus the Kimber Mountain Ascent is barrel and stock.

Although Proof's barrel is partly carbon fiber, the Light Sendero profile is listed to have .856" diameter at the muzzle. The Manners stock weighs 24 ounces, which is likely noticeably heavier than Kimber's stock.

*****
"I have no experience with carbon wrapped barrels either, but something tells me they don't shed heat anywhere near as quickly as brushed or bead-blasted stainless steel barrels."

The carbon-wrapped Proof I saw in competition was chambered in a 6mm Creedmoor. The owner was running stout loads. I felt the barrel a couple of times after he shot 5 and 10 round strings -- the barrel's exterior surface was cooler than my all-steel Bartlein. But that was the outside of the barrel, not the throat, where heat does the number on barrels.

My prior job experience includes work for a lead-acid battery manufacturer. Many of our processes involved high temperatures -- molten lead, water/acid mixing, battery charging, battery cell drying, and lots of machines which drew boat loads of electricity. Consider a 110,000 square foot building consuming $125,000 of electricity and $40,000 of natural gas each month. We regularly tested equipment and processes with thermal imaging sensors. We found carbon fiber materials (as in FRP) to be an insulator of heat, as compared to steel.

Which means steel heats and cools more quickly than FRP. Wrap a steel item in FRP and we found its temperature remained more constant over time -- slower for its exterior surface to heat up, but also slower for it surface to cool down. Our engineers stated the interior steel temperature also remained more constant over time. For our processes, the interior steel didn't cool down as much when we took a machine down for maintenance, product line changes, and various other down times. As a result, our machine and process tolerances remained tighter, due to interior steel that didn't cool down as much.

I know Proof says their carbon FRP wrap helps to cool the barrel. Call me stuck in my ways from a worlds-different situation, but that dog don't hunt with this ol' country boy.

I bet the carbon wrap helps prevent groups from opening up compared to the Kimber noodle profile. And if you have ever looked at a Kimber 84 short action receivers, it is tiny compared to other manufactures. The .30-06 is 5 pounds 5 ounces, .300winmag is 6 pounds 7 ounces. Rather than using an expensive custom action in an exotic metal, they designed their actions to be lean from the start.

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:
Gotta be politically correct and not hit the ISIS fighter standing behind them... See how sensitive I am? I said standing.

LOL.

I can assure you that if carbon fiber wrapped barrels cooled faster than brushed or bead-blasted stainless steel, the F-Class folks would be all over them. A Krieger barrel costs me about $400 in the profile and length that I want, add another $250 for chambering and fitting. Spending a couple hundred dollars more for a CF-wrapped barrel that cools faster would be nothing and I could spend the weight on something else like a 6 pound bipod that absolutely does not move. My barrel is a very heavy Palma contour 34 inch with .960 at the muzzle. It weights close to 7 pounds. I have a barrelcool device that goes in as soon as the last round goes downrange, even before I get up off the mat. As I said, heat is the number two problem in F-class and anything we could find to tame it would be used. Of course, that doesn't mean someone is not working on this to see if it does work. Then you'll see a major shift if it does happen.

I have no clue if the carbon wrap helps prevent the groups from opening up, I just don't consider these rifles as group-worthy because that is really not what they are designed for.

The thermal conductivity of carbon fiber is anisotropic. Meaning its thermal conductivity in-plane (along the axis of the fibers) is not the same as the thru plane value (or through the cross sectional axis of the fiber layup). This makes it hard to measure or model, and is of course highly dependent on the materials and matrix used.

For pre-preg carbon fibers that are typically used in aerospace applications the thru-plane coefficient of thermal conductivity is around 2.5 W/m-K (Watts per meter-Kelvin). Let’s assume that a carbon wrapped barrel has been produced using aerospace pre-preg, with similar vacuum bagging and autoclave processes.

416 stainless steel is around 25 W/m-K, a factor of 10 greater thermal conductivity than carbon fiber.

Therefore the carbon wrapped barrel will take longer for the external surface to heat up, but will also take longer for the internal bore to cool down, when compared with a solid stainless steel barrel of the same dimensions. It is more slowly transferring heat away from the thermal source (the chamber/bore) due to the CF insulating properties. Now does the CF wrapped barrel maintain a more uniform rigidity/resonance across that temperature cycle? Possibly, it would take some serious FEA modeling to predict that. It’s likely that for the same total barrel weight the CF wrapped barrel is in fact more rigid than a pencil SS barrel.

Brett B, thanks for that information. I love this place for learning stuff.

I can surely see why someone would want a CF wrapped barrel for weight savings and perhaps even for possible added stiffness over same weight steel barrel. And yes, after a few rounds, you would certainly not be getting your hand burned if you touched the CF wrapped barrel unlike a steel one. But then again, you're cooking the bore in your CF-wrapped barrel, with a lot fewer rounds and for a longer period of time.

One of the added benefits of fat barrels is that they heat up more slowly and cool faster compared to skinny barrels. With the CF-wrapped barrels, you're going in the opposite direction, but then again, the application is totally different.

I would probably go for a Christensen Arms over that based on personal experience with the company, but they ain't cheap either.

quote:

Originally posted by exx1976:

quote:

Originally posted by JG:
That's crazy. I paid a couple grand less than that for my Remington 2020 with TrackingPoint optic.

Tracking point? Isn't that that gimmick optic system bullshit that's tied into the trigger and the shot doesn't go off until you're properly on target? Someone actually bought one of those? Lmao!!

quote:

Originally posted by JG:
I haven't missed with it yet. So laugh all you want.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
What targets and distances do you shoot at?

Fellas, could you break that off into another thread?

As far as $6000 for a "back country" rifle, it does have some nice components, but I don't see $6000. The Ruger American in 30.06 that I cut to 16" is just as handy and likely to be shot at the distances of any "back country" rifle, and it was $400. Or, you could buy a Steyr Scout and have and excellent rifle that also is lightweight and accurate, for still a fraction of that $6k. $6k would also make one hell of an AR or M14, and actually, even if I were still just building a custom 700, I bet I could get more for less, or more for the same price.

But, see, it's branded. Everyone will want kuikkoo or whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

quote:

Originally posted by exx1976:

quote:

Originally posted by JG:
That's crazy. I paid a couple grand less than that for my Remington 2020 with TrackingPoint optic.

Tracking point? Isn't that that gimmick optic system bullshit that's tied into the trigger and the shot doesn't go off until you're properly on target? Someone actually bought one of those? Lmao!!

quote:

Originally posted by JG:
I haven't missed with it yet. So laugh all you want.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
What targets and distances do you shoot at?

Fellas, could you break that off into another thread?

As far as $6000 for a "back country" rifle, it does have some nice components, but I don't see $6000. The Ruger American in 30.06 that I cut to 16" is just as handy and likely to be shot at the distances of any "back country" rifle, and it was $400. Or, you could buy a Steyr Scout and have and excellent rifle that also is lightweight and accurate, for still a fraction of that $6k. $6k would also make one hell of an AR or M14, and actually, even if I were still just building a custom 700, I bet I could get more for less, or more for the same price.

But, see, it's branded. Everyone will want kuikkoo or whatever.

Yup, Fanboy stuff.
Ranks right up there with folks paying $2k for a fancy Glock.
To each their own.