Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska rifle for Dall Sheep

Go with the single shot. It aint a 280 but it's close enough.

BBerg, first of all I envy you! I wish I could go on such a hunt but I am not subject to thin air anymore.

Ok, getting back to your big hunt. I would opt for the 300-Wby if you can shoot it more accurately than the .264mag OK out to 350 yds. I would use the 180 grn. bullets in the Wby. Now both rifles will shoot close to a velocity of 3200fps but the 300Wby will handle that wind better. It also will hit a lot harder too and NO worry about angle shots of any kind, that bullet will go from one end of that ram to the other savvy.

If you should choose the .300Wby, then as suggested, get another scope on that rifle. You will not need anymore than a 3 X 9 power. You are not shooting P-dogs at 400 yards, goats are much much larger. Good luck on your hunt! If you should run into a bear or even see one, the fact of having that 300Wby in your hands will take away any thoughts of NOT having enough gun.

+1

I'd take the lightest gun you got that you shoot well. Sheep are easy to kill, they are thin skinned and not tough by any stretch. Guessing off your list the Kimber is the lightest, hence the one I'd take.

BBerg, I'm glad we could clear this up quickly for you ; finding a consensus on this type of question on the 'fire is like finding a place to surf in Iowa.

Gentleman, all I can say is that I never worried about the weight in a rifle to hunt big game in the mountains until after I turned 55 years of age savvy.

However, being in Alaska once in a blue moon you are subject to run across a bear and I sure don't want anything in my hands for grizzly bears that has a parent case of a .308 behind that cartridge. Now when I was in Alaska, most of the locals carried .338 mags and those guides (if worth their salt) carried a .375H&H caliber.

I carried an FN Browning made in Belgium and it was heavy but very very accurate and hit animals like the hammer of Thor!

The straw poll is nice, but remember BBerg, there's only ONE vote that really matters.

I took a mountain goat with my .30-06 single shot. No big deal. Just have a cartridge slide on the buttstock or carry insurance in your pocket(s.) I lusted for a Dakota #10 for a while, but got over it.

But since you're going with the 7mm, now the decision is what boolit?

The animals won't be impressed with what you bring, only where and what you hit 'em with!

Number one.

I killed my first 3 sheep over 30 years ago wth a standard Rem. 700 .243, 100 gr bullets, none over 70 yards. The only one over 100 yards of 6 personally killed or family guided rams over the years died at @330 yards with an '06, 17 inch barrel, 165 gr. factory load. (1.5 MOA)

And now I have a range finder....

For this fall's sheep hunt (assuming it comes off), the wife ( designated shooter) will be carrying a .260, and I'll carry the "Stub" '06- mostly in case we meet and have to calibrate Mr Griz. - otherwise I'd be carrying the .243 again. I trust the Stub at range and short "chit-fire" situations more than I do the .280 Mauser 98.... which I built as my "mountain rifle". The Stub will be chewing 180 gr somethings- probably Remington Coreloct, which it is sighted in with. Maybe Hornady Interlocts... But I still have those 5 NP....... they all print the same at 100..

In 40 years of banging around the sheep/goat haunts, I've never seen but tracks of the Griz, or at long range- and those rarely. Moose hunting is another story... I carry either the .260 or the .338 for that....

Griz "problem" is way over hyped.... Not to entirely discounted- just only about 80%.....

The rifle I feel more confident with is the single shot, because it is the one I have hunted with the most. They are all accurate rifles, and out of a bench I would say I shoot them equally well, though.

The reason why the Rifles Inc wears that big scope is because I wanted to add some weight. I have shot a fair amount of game with it, but out of the bench I could not sqeeze its accuracy potential. I made a mistake with that rifle, it is too light for my taste and did not have the stability of a heavier gun. I added a steel floorplate and swapped the light Talleys for their steel rings and the 3.5-10x Leupold for the big Swarovski and it now feels much better.
The trend seems to be against big scopes... Is it just because uou don't like them, or because you feel there is something really wrong with them or don't find them to be functional...?

Cartridge-wise, I though the most sound choice would be the 264 but I am a bit surprised of its lack of following.

Gun-wise, the handiest guns are the Kimber and the Rifles Inc. At least there seems to be soem consensus here.

BBerg

No, since you asked, I'm not against big scopes per se but it's a matter of proportion. Match the scope in size and weight to the rifle and the game you'd usually use that chambering for. You waste the utility of a light rifle by hanging big glass (which most folks don't need most of the time for big game) on it at the same time destroying the sense of proportion between the scope and the rifle.

Even at 14 oz with the Swarov, you could shave 3 oz off which I would do with another scope and even that is important on a sheep hunt, for me anyway. I'm not saying your set-up is wrong at all if it's what you like; it's a matter of taste and what I'd do that's all.

thanks, goodnews, I think you are right.

I have not decided yet on the rifle... but it looks it would be either the 7-08 Kimber or the 300WBY Rifles Inc, with the 3,5-10x40 Leupold I have unused.

BBerg

never been....probably will never get to go...but if I did, I think I would have to carry a .270 win with 130gr bullets, just cause of, well, you know. (I know, I know, he also carried an '06).

when i lived in ak and killed my dall sheep i used the only rifle i had, a ruger tang model 77, wood/blue, 270 win with 130gr corelokts. worked to perfection. for your rifle selection, use the one you shoot the best. if you shoot them all well, take the one which is the lightest. for me, the biggest challenge was getting to the sheep and back to camp every day (and i was young and in great shape). the gun issue is almost a no-brainer. have a great hunt.

I've never been,but the classic sheep rifle "was"an 8 lb 270;but I've hunted mule deer and elk up to 10,000 ft.Read O'Connor; he shot a few sheep here and there. Today you can shave that by a pound or two,leaving nothing on the table.I'd grab my 270FW in Brown Kevlar stock at under 7 lbs.

Of your choices I'd take the Kimber 7/08.I would not worry about wind,or grizzlies, or such other minor distractions. I'd worry about carry weight and the rifle holding zero through tough weather and conditions.Toward that end I'd also ditch the 50mm scope,and replace it with a good 6X,shoot the rifle to 400-500 yards and know it. A 140 gr 7mm bullet at 2850 is more than capable.I'd prefer a 130 at 3100,but doubt I'd worry much about it if the Kimber shoots well.

The 264 Winchester Magnum, of course - possibly as a good a sheep cartridge as was ever conceived. My word is final on this - no other opinions need be posted --

Here's my take.....

I've been on two sheep hunts. The first time I took a 700 ADL synthetic in 30-06 that I found for $250 on the used rack at Gander. I found a used 3x9 Compact on the cheap, and picked up a used KS stock that I bedded the barreled action to. Again, don't shoot the donor. That thing would consistently do 1/2 MOA or under with 150 BT's or TSX's. When I found out Griz could be on the menu(if I filled the sheep tag first) I stepped up to the 180 TSX. Don't remember what the gun weighed, it's been torn apart for other projects that are gone as well. Bottom line, one shot at 275 and the sheep folded up like an accordion. Confidence plays a huge role in what ever gun you take.

For the second hunt I took, I had replaced the ADL with a Remington 700 Titanium Mtn. rifle, also in 30-06, but this time with 180 Accubonds running 2800, topped with a 3x9 Ulralight.(later replaced with a 2.5-8) That gun had more accuracy than a lightweight should have. One shot at 360 proved it. Broke both shoulders. Hunt over. Confidence again.

Since then, because we're never satisfied, I've peddled the Ti and have built a lightweight in 7-08 to replace it. So.....

On your rifles, too bad #4 wasn't chambered in #1's. That 300 makes me flinch just sitting here thinking about pulling the trigger from some God-awfull position and getting a nose full of Swaro. On that note, I take #1, because as you say, it's light, short and accurate. Sounds to me like the perfect sheep rifle right there. Personally, I'd put a 2.5-8 Leuy on it and go get in shape.

Good luck, Al

BBerg,
Here's another opinion. Just so you know, I killed my Dall sheep with a factory stock Win. M70 in 270 Win using 140gr. Nosler Accubonds. The rifle weighed about 9 lbs with a Leupold 2-7X compact scope. One shot was all it took. As others have said, sheep aren't hard to kill if you hit them right.

Now, as you no doubt know, all of the rifles and all of the cartridges you've mentioned will work just fine for sheep. So, that being understood, I think for most people it comes down to how much does the rifle weigh. That's because you're going to be toting that rifle up some incredibly steep mountains and carrying it a whole lot more than you'll be shooting it. That is probably why your voting tally reflects a preference for rifles #1 and #4.

Then again, some people would rather hunt with a pretty single shot no matter what it weighs and that is their perrogative, but for most it will come down to weight first and then their ability to accurately shoot the rifle, followed by other secondary considerations such as trajectory, wind drift, etc. For scopes, I think we all understand why you currently have large, high magnification scopes on your rifles; they suit your needs and preferences for where you do most of your hunting. However, for Dall sheep it is unlikely that you'll need so much light gathering ability since 99% of the shooting on any sheep will be during daylight hours with very little opportunity happening at dawn or dusk. Therefore, larger scopes just usually add unnecessary weight to what you have to carry around. However, if you're happy with the scopes you have on your rifles and are willing to carry them around, there is certainly nothing wrong with any of them.

Bottom line, what rifle you use should come down to which one you like the best and want to hunt with. Maybe that is the .264 for whatever reason, maybe the Blaser. Either would be a fine choice as long as you're content with it.

From my vantage point, rifle #1 or #4 are the obvious choices since they are both lightweight rifles and are both plenty of gun. Personally, if I had gone to the expense of having Lex of Rifles, Inc. build me a lightweight rig, that's the one I'd be taking. You can't go wrong with the .300 Weatherby cartridge either. However, taking the .300 Wby would be on the condition that I could shoot it well, meaning accurately and also handle the recoil in field positions. If you're scared of it or what it might do to you in the field, or have any doubts about it whatsoever, then I would take the Kimber and not look back.

Test

If you are thinking #4, try shooting prone, uphill first. Have a band-aid handy. If you don't need the band-aid after a couple of shots, you may continue to consider it.

I appreciate everyone's comments but yours, Test, I do specially. Thank you very much.

I know I will miss my Blaser K95, but my 300WBY Rifles Inc. will be the lightest gun of all when I put it's Vari X III 3,5-10x40 back on, and it is the gun I will be taking.

It wears an extremely efficient muzzle break which all guides love and I am not a recoil shy guy and I shoot it just fine.

So far I have shot it a bit, and I will shoot it much more frome here till the hunt takes place. I am confident it will put a bullet where I want if conditions are not too bad.

This is a great site, and I thank everybody!

Now we have to talk about the load, the rst of the equipment and, most important, physical training.

BBerg

Forgot to mention, I hate muzzle brakes.