Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors The One...

I'd say, please leave the old girl at home and take your montana. I know it seems stupid, to leave the Alaskan home when you are going to Alaska and take the Montana to Alaska. Does that make any sense??? ..... Beauuuuuuuuutiful rifle to, by the way. I really like it!!!! Mr. Beretzs will be along shortly and drool all over his computer... I'm hoping EricM's Alaskan looks like that when it's done!!!!!!!

These one's thrive on moose and bear blood.
Carry it and slay on!

BSA, I'm leaning that way.

Seems a shame to have that great,big rifle and not shoot a moose with it...

You did screw up my Winchester friend if it were the Varminter ,sporter stock Swift Winchester only made 904, mine will be the second to last to go at the end of my days! very best WinPoor

Hoogie that is a very nice rifle. I have been to Alaska twice, the first time I took a custom stocked Ruger in 280. The stock was finished except for the checkering. When I returned the stock was refinished and checkered. The second time I took a Ruger 338 synthetic. It rained for 12 of the 14 days. Alaska is a wonderful place but it's hard on guns. If you take the Montanna and it needs to be refinished so what If that M70 takes a lot of abuse well that's a different story.

Hoogie, you can take that Winchester on Alaskan hunt though that will take toll on value and desirability. Winchester fellas much like Parker Bros., Colt,.....like crisp, original little used or like new specimens. I don't collect guns as stamps and coins are more portable entities that can be sold world wide plus are also nice to stare at.

Yup,use it.

For myself, first pre 64 I had was a mid 50's 06 fwt, all original in pretty nice shape. Sold it to fund a 25-06 build, which turned out to be a bust!
I'd be quite happy to have it back, easily the nicest pre 64 I have had, out of 4.
If it had been a 270 and shot as well I wouldn't have done the build!

I have 2 rifles just like that and you'd have to break both my arms to get them away from me!!!!

Now Bob, you know those rifles where only made to look at and never where all that good for cutting tags. It's urban legend they were actually a great hunting rifle. Best leave it in the safe.

You take a 95% condition rifle out into the Alaska wilderness and come back with a 80% rifle, who's the dummy then?????? That's why I don't mind hunting mine because none of them are 95% condition or "all original"... . Try finding a nice Alaskan that's all original and get back to me. Let alone finding one at a decent price.

Price of a 95% Alaskan.....about $2000.00
Price of a photo with an Alaskan moose taken with a .338 Alaskan?
Priceless.
Granted I might not take a minty SG hunting polar bear but I sure wont hesitate to take a 1960ish standard Alaskan hunting.
Hell if we leave them in the safe's we might as well all collect English bone china.

If I can realistically afford an Alaskan Moose hunt, the price drop on that rifle ain't going to bother me for a second. What is that hunt going for these days? Pushing 15 K plus before all the extras? Might as well do it up right if pre64s are your thing. Double winks!!!!


You ever buy a new car?

Isn't it ironic, as some have already mentioned, that the rifle is named the Alaskan? In Terry Wieland's "Dangerous Game Rifles" (2nd ed.) he notes that Alaska can be much harder on rifles than Africa. He also mentions how popular the new at the time M70 was in Alaska because there was now an American made .375 (this was way before the M70 .338 Alaskan.) He then goes on to mention how the M70 .375 was to some degree replaced by the Ruger M77 in .338WM, mostly because some dealer imported truckloads of them and sold them at fairly low prices. Seems the people treated the Rugers to a large degree as "use and replace as necessary." Not too many years ago, Ruger brought out a rifle they named the Alaskan, and judging by the features, it was pretty clear they understood the hardships rifles faced in Alaska. But it is no longer in the catalog, so maybe they didn't have it completely figured out, as least as far as what people would buy. And, useful as it was or not, it certainly didn't have the class a M70 Alaskan has. Not even close.

But that looks thing can go the other way too. To get a little more back on topic of "The One", my first bolt rifle was a Ruger M77 .270 bought new in about 1975. I still have it, and it is a tack driver. But a Classic Stainless Fwt. .270, assuming it shoots, will replace the Ruger, mostly because I have so come to love the M70, and because Winchester had the good sense to make the Classics and Classic Stainless rifles. But at the time, I bought the Ruger because the offerings from Winchester and Remington were white-lined-pad, big-cheek-piece, skip-lined checked, etc. gaudy/ugly to me. And even today, there is nothing at all wrong with the looks of an early M77. I was in school at the time and didn't have a lot of dough, but THE ONE I should have bought would have been to scratch up the funds for a nice Pre '64 Fwt. .270. I don't know what it would have cost me, but I'm sure it would look like a hell of a deal today, and I know I would still have it!

You aren't kidding about that Bob. I cheated with mine and put a McMillan on it, but I can't think of a better over .270 caliber rifle out there for hunting elk/moose/bear.



If the wood would have been uncracked, it would probably still be in the wood stock, but I have been very pleased with the incredible consistency of the McMillan and 338.. Just shot it a few weekends ago with the 225 PT's and RL17.. It was zeroed in September for 250 yards and I put three of them into about 1.5" at 250 yards.. I smiled and stuck it back in the gunsock..

Hoogie, beautiful rifle buddy.. That is all class right there. I say to hunt it.. They seem like they thrive in the wild reaches of North America..

The 338 Is a wonderful cartridge and I have shot a lot of big critters with mine. Alaska is HARD on gunstocks no doubt about it. Things to consider IMHO A) If you take it and it need refinishing when you return will that bother you? B) will the hard use take away from the pristine condition and if so will that bother you? C) Have you considered using a synthetic stock for this hunt thus preserving the original?

And we will all be dead and $1000 will mean nothing. Amazing the number of people who are afraid to live while they have the chance.

There is validity to both sides of the argument. I'll be doing a self guided moose hunt so the price will be far less than the going rate for a guided hunt. I'm going to shoot them both and let them decide.