Yesterday I was in Reynolds Outdoors and held a Kimber 8400 in 6.5 Creedmoor.
It had a really nice balance to it and felt like a quality rifle.

How are they?

Think it would be a great combo. Which stock? 8400 is the action, but it comes in several different grades of wood and different synthetic configurations. I am a big fan of the model 70 action/safety.

If you are looking at the Hunter in the 2nd post, I would consider the Montana- much better stock.

https://shop.whittakerguns.com/product/4319204

Like this rifle. Tan synthetic stock, stainless metal and I would get it in 6.5Creed, 7MM08 or 280ACK IMP.

The Hunter is a newer model, I don't know too much about. The metal parts should be great, I just like the Montana model stock a lot better. Either should be a great combo in 6.5

The Hunter is significantly cheaper than the Montana and the only differences I've found so far is the stock difference and threaded barrel.
$820 VS $1250

Personally,I would give the difference for the Montana stock. It's every bit as good as a McMillan.

An 8400 in 6.5 Creedmoor? Had it been rebarreled? I thought the 8400 was Kimber's old magnum action. I didn't even know that the 6.5 Creedmoor was being made back then.

In general the 8400 was a solid design just a lot bulkier and heavier than the current 84-M or 84-L. I think there are a few 6.5 Creedmoor's just as light as an 8400 Montana,even with the Kevlar stock,if weight is a top concern.

I made a mistake. It is the 84 I am interested.

If I was buying a Kimber today,I would get the Montana 84-M in 6.5 Creedmoor. The Creedmoor is the perfect match for the shorter action and mag box.

For even more money Barrett is now shipping their 5 lb Fieldcraft in 6.5 Creedmoor. I saw a review lately where the owner shot a 2" group with one at 500 yards.

You can buy a slightly used Montana for just a little more than a new Hunter and have a whole lot better rifle.

The main difference being the stock correct.

I believe everything else is the same more or less?
Obviously detachable mag(Hunter) vs floor plate(Montana) and the Montana having a threaded barrel.

Yes,but I'm very wary of that hunter model.For years Kimber claimed they couldn't even use a detachable mag in the model 84 because the gun needed the stiffness of the internal mag to shoot well. Then they come out with the Hunter model which has a much flimsier stock and a detachable magazine.

The whole beauty of the Kimber is the great Carbon and Kevlar stock to make a very nice light weight rifle with a very stiff stock to help accuracy. I would much rather buy a Tikka than the Kimber Hunter. I would even buy that Savage light weight hunter before I would buy a Kimber Hunter model. The Howa Backcountry would be another option. At least it has a good stock.

In my opinion, the Montana is a good deal for the quality of action, trigger and especially stock. I've seen some custom lightweight rifles that cost much more, that did not shoot or handle any better. I think it is largely due to the stock.

I've got a 270wsm with the select wood (lighter color w/ ebony cap) that touches it grouping at 100 yards, and has great balance. You may want to look at the wood options before the Hunter.

I really appreciate that insight from you two.

I really like wood stocks but just feel like I am going to hurt them and I think carbon fiber is an awesome material.

I think 6.5 Creedmoor would be a great caliber.

I bought my Montana because the action and carbon stock is worth the asking price. I figured even if I replaced the barrel I would still be cheaper than I could get a custom even close in quality and weight. Honestly,if you were building with a model 700,a trued stainless action and McMillan Edge carbon stock will cost more than a new Montana.

I would imagine a Montana with a carbon fiber barrel would be extremely light.

I'm actually not after a super light weight rifle but I appreciate the tech.

I understand not wanting one too light.I find my 6 lb Forbes is easier to shoot well than my 5 lb Montana.Both are equally accurate but you have to really concentrate on perfect form to shoot the Montana as well.

Those weights are without scope. Both are nearly a pound heavier with scope and I think 7 lbs scoped for the Forbes is about the sweet spot.

Any input on a rifle in terms of quality and price level of a Montana that is ever so slightly heavier?

How about a Tikka Superlight. It's the ones sold by Cabelas and Sportsman's Warehouse.Just like a T3 but with a fluted barrel.

You could try to find an early Forbes but even then it would be a crap shoot with no factory support. I only bought mine because with inside info I was 90% sure Melvin had built it himself.

I have a T3 in 7MM08 which was my first hunting rifle and it isn't going anywhere as I love it.
Don't really want another Tikka.