Home

cwh2....This sure got me grinning, not so much because of the twists and turns this thread has taken, but because it applies to so many other threads, and to a whole lot of situations off this board, out there in the real world, nicely written!

my 28" barrel on my HW does just fine

The OP has blood on his boots, that counts for some care, preparation and ability. Elmer said something like "It is 95% Indian and 5% arrow" Bear hunting is a disease or religion or something. You can plan all you want then Alaska happens and how you manage that is all that matters. I have been through four .416s looking for the best bear gun. I currently have a 26" Stainless bull gun with a 6X42 for beach hunting zeroed 2" high at 200 yards with 300X bullets at just a fuzz under 3000fps. (NOT ART APPROVED)(But I drive the boat!) also a KS 416 with two 2.5X Loopies and back up sights zeroed for 35 and 135 yards with 350 Swifts. As much as I admire a good Mauser the feeding problems with oddly configured cartridges have shelved a BRNO and an M-70. I am best on the range with a .340 MK 5 with a brake (Trap anyone?). I have taken bears with a 30'06 with 125X bullets just because the bears the gun and myself were all in the same place at the same time. Far from un-armed but I keep 220 Noslers in the gun now-a-days. Also on hand are Whelens and 9.3s. All fair bear guns, but really all are compromised. The push feeds get the shells in the chamber well, the claws get the shells out, A cool operator is still the key, I feel. Bi pods extend ability if you have the terrain and you have every terrain in Alaska.

Thanks, Art!

Never hunted the big bears but hope to some day, but I do know enough about rifles, calibers and big games to feel more than totally comfortable with a 340 Weatherby under ANY conditions against a bear and certainly a great choice for moose. I agree with some though the bipod needs to go and my idea of a well-balanced scope for that caliber/application would be a 1.75X6/2X10 range..
_________________________

Oh and Art, there's nothing wrong with 26" barrels when going after wounded bears in the alders...just as long as they are on a Double!

Thanks rufous. That Kramer Snipepod looks intriguing. I may get one and see how I like it for this trip or otherwise.

Thanks for the comments and info. Everyone is different, but I find the Wby Mk Vs to be the most foolproof for me. The 45 deg. bolt lift and shorter bolt throw per caliber make it almost impossible to screw up for me.

Thanks for the comments jorgeI. I am strongly leaning toward the .340, though the .375 is a great option. It is the last gun pictured near the top of the thread which does not have a bipod on it. I have, as I said above, pretty much not decided to use the bipod while spotting or chasing a bear on this trip. I will put it on some when I practice with the rifle over the coming months because it drops the recoil a considerable bit (makes the gun 10% heavier), which is nice for extended range sessions. And I might slap it on while I'm wolf hunting on the trip if that seems to makes sense at the time. The DH Beaver and the guide's raft both will handle the single extra pound I think. I'm probably going to keep the current scope on it (2.5-16x). It has pretty good field of view for very close up. I could put the 1.25-8x scope currently on the .375 on the .340 instead, but I sighted-in that 2.5-16 in scope back in 2009, and it has not ever changed a bit since then with those 225gr TTSX loadings despite being driven to Colorado, and being fired and hunted with in less-than gentle ways. So, as unappealing as my scope mounts are to some, they work pretty well for me. And I'm concerned that I might be breaking something that is fixed if I swapped out that scope.

Lots of time to make things right if something goes south. I live on the tundra and hunt in ways whereby knobs, turrets, and larger scopes would be a liability of sorts; certainly an inconvenience. Your best bet IMO, if you don't want to seriously alter things, is to put the smaller scope on the 340. It's plenty of scope and the .33 caliber is a fine Alaskan multi-duty rifle if it's shot well. I've had excellent results with my M70 340 even wearing only a Leu 4X. And unless you're sitting on a gravel or rocky hilltop, I can see no reason to use a bipod. Sticks, maybe, but so much of the sub-alpine tundra is so 'fluffy' (for lack of a better word) that I couldn't find a bipod useful except for missing anyway. If tundra is all you have for a rest, you're going to want the added weight and support of your arms to keep the rifle from bouncing erratically. (Sticks you can at least shove down to solid ice/ground for support.)

If you want to worry about switching stuff out this far out, keep any menstruating women away from you gear since that is really bad luck - at least in some circles. I can give you more similar helpful advice along these lines if you want it.




BTW, #1,2,5 are recovered 340 WTBY moose bullets... Grand Slam, XFB, NBT

Thanks Klikitarik. The second bullet is probably similar to what I am looking at using (225gr TTSX; have five box head start on that ammo). I don't want to distract too much with the bipod issue, as I have already adopted the advice here not to have it on while bear hunting. As I said, I just would have it in a bag at camp, so that I could use it if hunting a wolf after hopefully getting a bear if the conditions are right. Where we are hunting (like the last time; see photos below), there are some elevated places from which possibly a bipod would work in spotting for wolf over a gut pile. I appreciate your advice on the scope. Keep in mind though that both of those scopes have turrets. One just has smaller diameter lenses. Note that the blue rings were a mistake. When I ordered them over the phone, I thought they said "blued," rather than "blue," but never bothered to replace them. Hopefully, bears like, or at least don't hate, blue rings. If I were starting from scratch, and only hunting bear, I might well pick a short-barreled .458 with a tiny scope or something like that. But I have made the decision, right or wrong, to go with one of the two rifles I actually have that are in the right ballpark so to speak , and with which I am so familiar and shoot well after tons of practice with them, without purchasing anything new or changing up things too much. I've already adopted a lot of advice on here, and may further swap out the scopes, but (and I apologize for my ignorance/obstinance) I don't want to spend too much money buying and changing up rifles and scopes. Even Phil Shoemaker and co. seem to use relatively-long barrels, turrets, and relatively large front sights to some success. http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/8264187/458Win#Post8264187

Better illustrative picture perhaps:

I wouldn't sweat the rings. The only reason I mention the bipod is in relation to tundra use. You've been, so you know, but a lot of folks probably have the erroneous belief that it bears some resemblance to lawn. It don't for the most part - as you know. Using a bouncy cushion as a rest can easily lead to missing, hence one wouldn't want the legs of a bipod, or anything else without much mass, supporting a rifle from that vantage. The long barrel is....long. That's doable if less than as ideal as shorter barrels. Not sure why you want turrets on a heavy/dangerous game rifle. There is next to nothing upside and plenty of downside. They're stuff to snag and knock off unless you baby that rig and/or you do a lot of sit a spot. They'll do you no good and may be detrimental on more than the first shot if the animal beats cheeks. Time spent learning to judge and shoot/shoot on the wing could be useful instead. Obviously, some people make it work, but then, there are stories of others as well...

There isn't anything that can't work with what you have. You might discover that the "ideal" ideas offered by some might haunt you along the way; kind of a likely given if you spend enough time out here as you learn the whats and whys of what works best or better.

Thanks Klikitarik. I'm not altogether sure that the turrets are what you think they are. They just cover the windage and elevation settings. They screw on very tightly just to cover the screws that allow you to sight in the rifle like with at least 99% of scopes out there. They're the same things that are on these: http://www.chuckhawks.com/compared_dangerous_game_riflescopes.htm

Or these: http://www.leupold.com/hunting-shooting/scopes/

Or these: http://sportsoptics.zeiss.com/hunting/en_us/riflescopes.html

I can't find any scopes that don't have them, even tough I'm sure they exist somewhere.

The covers on mine take five full 360 deg. turns to screw off. You could not knock one off with a hammer.

Was wondering about that. They look big, but not huge. Didn't initially look like the kind that you crank - and see no reason to use those for your intent. I just like to slick things down as much as possible anymore. I had sights added to my 340 20 years ago when I had it put together; seemed like a good idea. Never have used or wanted to use them; can't use them anymore as my eyes are aging, nor is a 26" barreled rifle something I ever carry for DG purposes anyway. About the only thing I can say is that the front sight picks up gun case lint, and willow leaves which add interesting, if not useful, "color" to the scope sight picture sometimes. Your slick barrel = good.