I'm going to the gun shop tomorrow to put either a winchester model 70 extreme weather in 338 win mag or a kimber montana in 338 win mag on Layaway. The kimber is $250 more than the m70 but is also 1/2 pound lighter. Love my m70's and have 4 of them, just can't go wrong with one but really like the idea of the kimber montana. Any opinions? I'm going in around 1pm tomorrow so any quick help would be awesome!
need quick opinions on a 338 win mag
- Thread starter dubya450
- Start date
- Status
squarepants33889
Member
For some reason, the Kimber just seems to have the edge in "cool" factor. The Model 70 definitely takes the "old faithful" award. Personally I like the Winchester stock, and the Kimber action and barrel finish. Tough call.
ExAgoradzo
Member
Can't tell you from experience, so I should prob shut up.
I'm thinking about the same round but am considering the Win 70 and the BAR. I know the price point...but on the one hand, if I'm going to get a 338 win mag, it ought to be in a Win right? On the other hand the BAR 270 is the best manufactured, best looking gun I own.
I love my Kimber 1911...don't know a thing about their rifles...
Now I'll shut up.
I'm thinking about the same round but am considering the Win 70 and the BAR. I know the price point...but on the one hand, if I'm going to get a 338 win mag, it ought to be in a Win right? On the other hand the BAR 270 is the best manufactured, best looking gun I own.
I love my Kimber 1911...don't know a thing about their rifles...
Now I'll shut up.
Shoobee
member
Yeah.
DONT
DO
IT.
The 338 is way too much rifle, unless you are hunting brown bears in Canada or Alaska.
You are infinitely better off with a .300 RUM or a 7mm mag.
DONT
DO
IT.
The 338 is way too much rifle, unless you are hunting brown bears in Canada or Alaska.
You are infinitely better off with a .300 RUM or a 7mm mag.
captain awesome
Member
Too much rifle? That's a rather presumptuous and asinine statement. There are plenty of uses for the 338 win mag, and for me Brown bear would not be one of them, I would go bigger. But the 338 WM is a terrific elk rifle.
My choice would be the Winchester. But that's based on my lack of knowledge about Kimber rifles, and the price difference.
My choice would be the Winchester. But that's based on my lack of knowledge about Kimber rifles, and the price difference.
The BAR is a very nice rifle. I have a longtrac oil finish in 30-06 and its very accurate and beautiful but my real love for rifles is a bolt action. And i want a 338 in stainless and synthetic. I think ill end up going with the m70 because its cheaper, its in stock (kimber 6 months backorder), and the model 70's have proven to be excellent rifles to me. The Montana is just one of those rifles I've wanted since I first seen it..
+1 captain awesome
I wasn't asking for caliber opinions, just rifle opinions. I don't buy rifles to sit in the safe. I have a use for everything I buy. And as stated above, elk is the use. I realize there are many other calibers capable of taking elk but I'm a rifle junkie and getting a specialized elk rifle just gives me another reason to pick up a new firearm
I wasn't asking for caliber opinions, just rifle opinions. I don't buy rifles to sit in the safe. I have a use for everything I buy. And as stated above, elk is the use. I realize there are many other calibers capable of taking elk but I'm a rifle junkie and getting a specialized elk rifle just gives me another reason to pick up a new firearm
ExAgoradzo
Member
Just a question:
Why synthetic on such a hard hitting round? For something you have to have subMOA, I get that...moose and brownies, not so much. But I want to know your thoughts because there may simply be something I don't know.
Story:
I brought my 721 (30-06) to the range to let my 13 year old shoulder it for the first time and a guy I met there brought his 700 with the synth stock, his recoil was much bigger than mine: I didn't let my boy shoot it bc I didn't want him to get recoil shy...
Also
-1 on the harsh post above.
We're on the high road here. I heard Shoobee as offering an opinion (obviously not everyone agreed...) gave a reason for the opinion and even offered a suggestion. All perfectly reasonable and certainly not asinine: like I said, even if you don't agree with his suggestion.
Why synthetic on such a hard hitting round? For something you have to have subMOA, I get that...moose and brownies, not so much. But I want to know your thoughts because there may simply be something I don't know.
Story:
I brought my 721 (30-06) to the range to let my 13 year old shoulder it for the first time and a guy I met there brought his 700 with the synth stock, his recoil was much bigger than mine: I didn't let my boy shoot it bc I didn't want him to get recoil shy...
Also
-1 on the harsh post above.
We're on the high road here. I heard Shoobee as offering an opinion (obviously not everyone agreed...) gave a reason for the opinion and even offered a suggestion. All perfectly reasonable and certainly not asinine: like I said, even if you don't agree with his suggestion.
Shoobee
member
I have found from experience that there is a huge difference between the .300 RUM and the .338 win mag. A huge huge difference.
The .300 RUM and the .338 win mag both are capable of taking any brown bears from a long distance. These two calibres are high ballistic coefficient bullets which maintain their energy for a long time downrange. And brown bears take a long long time to die, so from a long distance is where you would only want to engage them.
But the difference between the .300 and the .338 is very painfully obvious every time you shoot it.
And there are smaller variations of cartridges than the .300 which work well on elk or moose or mule deer or caribou.
So unless you are hunting brown bears you really do not *need* a .338 whereas if you are hunting brown bears the .338 is probably the best of the *lite* calibres for this animal worth considering due to its flat trajectory and power retention downrange, compared with the bigger fatter bullets commonly used on brown bears.
Hopefully that clears up some confusion that some others might have had.
The .300 RUM and the .338 win mag both are capable of taking any brown bears from a long distance. These two calibres are high ballistic coefficient bullets which maintain their energy for a long time downrange. And brown bears take a long long time to die, so from a long distance is where you would only want to engage them.
But the difference between the .300 and the .338 is very painfully obvious every time you shoot it.
And there are smaller variations of cartridges than the .300 which work well on elk or moose or mule deer or caribou.
So unless you are hunting brown bears you really do not *need* a .338 whereas if you are hunting brown bears the .338 is probably the best of the *lite* calibres for this animal worth considering due to its flat trajectory and power retention downrange, compared with the bigger fatter bullets commonly used on brown bears.
Hopefully that clears up some confusion that some others might have had.
Are you referring to recoil? I realize that recoil is subjective, but the numbers would suggest that .300rum and .338wm have nearly identical recoil. Any difference you've felt is likely either subjective, the result of stock design, or you were shooting non-standard loads in one of the rifles.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm
I understand and appreciate you're caliber opinions but I already have one of the 300 mags (win mag) and have a 30-30, 308, 30-06 and I'm nit looking for yet another load that uses a .308 bullet. I want to use something different and bigger than what I have. Which also gives me an excuse to get a new rifle.I kind of feel like I want to order a red ford mustang GT with the 5.0 v8 and guys are saying I should get a black ford mustang with the v6 in it lol. I want the red GT.
TwoEyedJack
Member
I use the .338 win mag in a Ruger M77 Mark 2 for elk. The difference in recoil between a hot .30 and the .338 is negligible in the field. The 250 gr. Nosler loaded to about 4000 ft. lb. kills elk with incredible efficiency. I highly recommend this load.
My hunting generally involves horses, boats, snow, very rough country, etc. which is why I went stainless/synthetic. If I were to buy a "pretty" .338, I would get the Kimber. If you are going to spend that kind of coin, you should take a look at Cooper too.
My hunting generally involves horses, boats, snow, very rough country, etc. which is why I went stainless/synthetic. If I were to buy a "pretty" .338, I would get the Kimber. If you are going to spend that kind of coin, you should take a look at Cooper too.
Thats exactly why I want a stainless/synthetic. I want something I can use and won't cry if it gets dinged up a bit. If i wanted to use something pretty in rough country I'd use my m70 supergrade in 300 WM but that's more a stand gun where it won't get wrecked.
Last edited:
Shoobee
member
Well then, you still don't have the .338, the .375, or the .458 used primarily for brown bears, buffalo, and elephants. Good luck!
Stainless is very bright in the sunlight, and might scare away your quarry. I would go with a matte black or camo.
Last edited:
mdauben
Member
I would think its actually fairly self-evident that the .338WM is too much rifle for elk hunting, or at least more than is needed. Jack O'Connor promoted the much less powerful .270WIN as the perfect elk gun for years, and without a doubt countless elk have been harvested with the trusty .30-06. If you are just looking for a flatter shooting cartrigde, the 7mm Remington Magnum or .300 Winchester Magnum will provide that for less money and less recoil. The .338 is simple bigger and more powerful than is needed for game the size of elk.
Now, the OP seems to be more interested in an excuse to buy a new gun than in optimizing his elk gun, and that's fine. If you or he want to hunt elk with a .458 Winchester Magnum or a .577 Tyrannosaur that's cool. You are entitled to have your fun with whatever gun you like. Just don't be suprised most people think your choice is... excessive.
I own both Kimber and Winchester EW, but in smaller calibers. I like both, a lot. But overall the Winchester EW is the better rifle. But there isn't another option for a 5 lb. 308 unless you spend $3000. I'd want nothing to do with a 338 that light. If you are sold on 338, buy the Winchester.
That said a properly loaded 300 mag, or at closer ranges a 30-06 will kill anything that a 338 will kill, with a lot less recoil.
That said a properly loaded 300 mag, or at closer ranges a 30-06 will kill anything that a 338 will kill, with a lot less recoil.
CharlieDeltaJuliet
Member
My dad has a pre 64 model 70 .338 WM. it is the freaking cats meow. It is one that I have always loved. I have shot it a dozen or so times over the years, it has a round count of less than 300 through it. While I normally go nuttier than squirrel turds over Kimbers( just always loved them), the Model 70 is an awesome piece of work. Unless they are dramatically different now, they would be my choice of the two you mentioned. I great gunsmith can make either one sing a song that most rifles cant even hum. Seriously though, let me know what you choose... Good luck with the decision, and know the main thing is finding which one you like more.
Someone stated they'd go with a black or camo finish because the stainless is too shiny or reflective but I have to disagree. The finish on the stainless featherweight I already have and the extreme weather m70 i just put on layaway are both "matte" and i can say from personal experience that my featherweight with a matte stainless finish reflects much less than my hunting buddies regular polished blue barrel. When the light hits his rifle right I can see it flash from 50+ yards away and he has said mine is dull with no visible flash. I know this because I've had the same discussion multiple times before about stainless barrel flash. Matte finished stainless flashes no more than a blued barrel and many times less.
Old Shooter
Member
If you want a 338, get it!
I'd lean towards the Winchester but that's just because I have no experience with the Kimber.
I've bought a great many guns that I had little or no use for but I still enjoyed putting a few rounds thru them just to be able to say I did. If it will also fit into your elk hunt thats more reason than I had for a lot of my purchases.
I'd lean towards the Winchester but that's just because I have no experience with the Kimber.
I've bought a great many guns that I had little or no use for but I still enjoyed putting a few rounds thru them just to be able to say I did. If it will also fit into your elk hunt thats more reason than I had for a lot of my purchases.
CharlieDeltaJuliet
Member
Life, is too short to not ake the most of it. Weigh your options, when you decide which one you want, go for it. I wanted a 50 bmg for 10+years. A few months ago I bought one. It puts more smiles on my face than most of my other rifles. It's not pratical or cost efficient, but it has made me want to get back outside and shoot more. I had slacked off on shooting in the last 5 or so years. Its renewed my love for big bore rifles. So post lots of pics and give us all the details and range reports. The only thing I like better than shooting is talking and learning from others who love the sport too...
Last edited:
- Status