I currently own a Win. Model 70 Extreme Weather Edition chambered in 30-06. I carry and fire this gun well and I'm extremely happy with it's performance. I'm currently in the market for two more rifles, one larger and one smaller. The larger would be for moose and brown bear, the smaller for deer, pigs and black bear. I was originally checking out the Kimber Montana and recently discovered the Talkeetna model chambered in .375 H&H, I've always wanted a .375. This would obviously be an option for the larger gun. For the deer gun I'm thinking something along the lines of the Tikka T3 or the Ruger All American. Caliber considerations include .243, .308 and 7mm-08. I would like to hear your opinions and about your personal experiences.

There is a strong tendency to go as light as possible when back pack hunting. That's OK, as long as you understand any tradeoffs in performance.
Typically, most can't shoot really light rifles as well as they can heavier ones when the range opens up. So, I'd suggest trying out such rifles before you buy one if possible. E

I don't backpack hunt per-say. BUT you asked for opinions and didn't say they had to be good (grin) and thinking about it to me BP hunting means a rifle that will be carried a lot with other gear which means weight is something I'd worry about.

Montana or other light rifles is where I'd start and end. My current rifle is a Montucky 7-08 topped with a 6x Superchicken. This replaced the Rem DBM 30-06 I used to hunt with.

It's a shooter's fly rod really. Love it betwix the mits so far.

Can't imagine my next rifle would be anything other than this again but in different cartridge/caliber.

in a light rifle the 375 will be brutal. A 9.3 X 62 would be friendlier in the situation you describe

The 243 is light for pigs but works well with lighter animals

308 would seem to duplicate the 30-06

I have a Tikka T3 in 7mm-08. It is lightweight and a nice accurate shooting rifle. I shoot a 150 grain Nosler Partition over 44.5 grains of IMR4350. It CAN put three in the same hole and is consistently sub MOA on the bench. (The nut behind the trigger isn't much of a shooter some days though.)
With a 3-9 Leopold on top it's lightweight and easy on the shoulder toting around in the mountains all day. Recoil isn't bad on the shoulder either.

Anyway, after the first season I decided I've found my rifle. The others seem to stay in the gunrack at home.


Lightweight, accurate and bad medicine on whitetails and at least one mulie (so far)

Take a look at the new Forbes as well as the Kimber Montana's. My Kimber Montana in 7-08 felt really good in the hands but was a bit more difficult to handle than your normal Remchester sporter ... nothing that a bit of practice would not cure though. I find the supposed difficulty of handling a lightweight a bit overblown. A Forbes .270 I picked up last year weighs the same as the Kimber but feels more like a standard weight rifle, probably because the barrel is a bit heavier than the Kimbers and the stock a bit fuller (but lighter). The Forbes is spooky accurate and I find it easier to shoot well from field positions. Both function flawlessly although I find the Montana a bit smoother and I am far more fond of the Winchester style safety than the Remington style found on the Forbes. Triggers an both are just superb. Both ride happily in the Kifaru gunbearers on my packs with 2.5 - 8 Leupolds aboard.

Although the Forbes lives in my house and the Kimber went down the road, I could easily spend my hunting years with either and be completely happy. Both fine rifles.

Savage Ultralight Hunter in 7mm-08. Five and a half pounds. Six pounds with a lightweight Leupold scope.

Comes in other calibers too.

Has been my backpacking rifle for four years. Durable, easy to carry and easy to shoot.

Everyone seems to want sub-MOA accuracy and the talk is always about the rifle. I've found that often the problem that keeps a rifle from being very accurate is the x-hairs in the scope. A lot of very good hunting scopes simply don't have the proper x-hairs for pin point accuracy from the bench. They're too thick and cover the center of the bull, making it impossible to consistently repeat the shot.
In the field, however, the scope is 100% adequate, able to kill a deer at long range every time.

If you want to mind-hump this question into the next year or two, convincing yourself of the need for some big chambering in one rifle and some super pricy lightweight rifle in another, by all means do so.

If you want to solve your dilemma quick, 1.) buy a montana in 308 or 7-08 and use it for everything but brown bears (but go ahead and shoot grizzlies of opportunities when out on sheep and caribou hunts), and 2.)put your 30-06 in a mcmillan swirly, load it with heavy partitions or lightweight TTSX and use it for brownies.

Scopes: fixed 4x leupold in leupold DD mounts on the 30-06, fixed 6x leupold in talleys on the kimber.

Then, move away from this question and put all of your focus on figuring out where to live and hunt.

My first backpack hunt was in 1964 and I have packed a LOT of rifles since then.

I bought a full custom Rem.Seven STS, Micky Edge, bunch of other goodies, 6.25 with a Swaro Z3 3x9, very sccurate, 7-08 and built by two of BCs top smiths.

I thot I had found "the promised land" and paid a lot of $$$$ for this. I felt a bit "light" in Grizzly country with the little Seven, tho.

Then, a buddy offered me a Dakota 76, factory MPI, Magnaported and not much over 8 lbs, with Talleys and a Leupy 1.75x6 aboard. VERY accurate and nice to shoot and pack.

Last summer, I talked myself into a Kimber MA-.280AI,Talleys, Leupy 3.5x10, 6.5 lbs. This is now my main packing piece and several other custom "mountain rifles"will be going when I get around to selling.

These three are what I expect to use from now, age 69, to past 90 and each of them works the way I want them to.

You asked for opinions.............

I really like the M70 EW - have one in 300 WSM that is my dedicated elk rifle.

Your 30-06 EW came with a 22" barrel. I'd keep it as is for anything on the lighter side of the spectrum you mentioned. It is close to perfect for your intended uses. Might consider a McM Edge to subtract a few ounces but that is purely subjective. I sold my McM Edge and put my M70 FW in one of the EW B&C stocks. They fit me well.

If you want a bigger rifle, I'd not go a lightweight 375 anything. I'd decide a simple question - what level of power do I need for my intended target? Contrary to popular internet lore, a 375 does recoil significantly. It may be a little less sharp than a faster manglem but it does recoil. If you need/want a 375, I'd suggest finding one of the M70 Classic in H+H flavor or finding a Ruger Hawkeye in 375R in a stainless gun.

On the other hand, a properly built and fed 35 Wh/9.3x62 hurling a 250-286 grain bewlit isn't too far behind the 375 in raw power but is much more friendly on the shoulder. I have both Hawkeyes - 35 Wh and 375 R - and have shot them side-side. 35 wh wins by alot. In fact my whelen has a 22" barrel vs the 24" on my 375. The 35 weighs 1 lb less than the 375 as well.

I really like my whelen. It will be going to PA with me this year for PA black bears. We are seeing a few on the trail cams. I suspect the 250 Partition will make an lasting impression <G>

I've been carrying a Ruger American Predator 243 as of late. Even with the mid weight barrel profile it is still lighter than my other wood stocked rifles. Extremely accurate. Ive been shooting Nosler solid base 100gr over Varget or 4064 and everything shot has died rather quickly.

+1, save your money and apply it to hunting trips.

Good advice.

+1

Best advice given so far in my opinion......

I don't have a ton of rifles at my disposal however I do have a Kimber Montana .308 and a Tikka 30-06. The Tikka, I have had for years and have it dialed. I'm still getting comfortable with the Kimber, but I like it and it's 25 ounces lighter scoped and more fun to shoot at the range. For me, they will do anything I need in North America at ranges that are reasonable. Get a good one for backpacking and spend your time hunting as much as you can.

The reality is you have the cartridge that can fill all your hunting needs, even for brown bear. If you want smaller, consider .308 or 7-08 just "because". The Talkeetna is a great rifle, well setup for it duties. At 7# 12oz is handles recoil very well. However I'd seriously consider the Montana .338WM instead as it has more versatility with its bullet weight choices.
Also I agree with those who already said to evaluate your other equipment and save your money for tags, guides and airline tickets.
Good luck with your decisions.

My advice as well. As much as I LOVE my EW in 300WSM, my Kimber Montana in .308 is just a joy to carry! It shoots plenty accurate if I do my part. My 06 Ti sits idol these days.

I a gun slut. I have several safes full of different rifles and I never sell anything. A lot of folks on here will buy one good rifle and then go fill the ark. That is fine if you live in an environment where you can go down to the local cabelas, scheels or Whitakers and pick up a very good backpacking rifle off of the rack, find a great scope with good bases and rings and then go hunt. You can borrow the guide's rifle if it breaks.

However, if you are really moving to Alaska for good. Or you really want to be set up for Alaska then you need to have a redundant option. This is a close to exact copy of your preferred weapon. It sounds like you like your EW 06. Then get one exactly like it. Have it set up exactly like it. Have two handloads and two factory options that you like exactly.

In Alaska, sometimes there will be powder shortages, ammo shortages, and other things that force you to get really knowledgable about your particular outfit. You will never tell when one scope or gun goes tits up. Thats when you need to be completely at home with your rifle and have a back up.

Presently, I live in the great city of Fairbanks. I could get by with one rifle and one scope and hunt the state with great effect. IF it broke down I could get another one quickly. However, most of my life I have lived in rural Alaska. In that situation, you need two rifles that are close to the same boiler plate . One that is ready for action and one that is also ready for action but ready to go.

Sincerely,
Thomas

If you want lightweight and quality the Kimber Montana is the absolute, hands down, best bang for the buck.

They're not unlike other rifles though. They need bedding and float, etc. Mine is a .308. That will change next year because I like to shoot a lot and the .308 in that weight rifle wears you down pretty quick at the range.

My opinion on backpacking rifles, is that it needs to shoot exactly as it did at the range, after days of all sorts of abuse.

Agree with deflave.....Kimber Montana's are dang hard to beat. Sub 6 pounds scoped, stainless, and lightweight. Either the 84m in 308 or 84l in 30-06 would be choice. The 8400s are clunky on their magnum actions IMO.

I've had a RAR in 6.5, three Montanas, a T3 lite ss, and I just bought the T3 SL ss this summer. (In 7-08.)

For a dedicated backpacking rifle I really liked carrying the Kimbers. Since I don't do long backpack trips anymore, I'm down to the two Tikkas. I opened the barrel channels a little and replaced the factory rings and added Limsaver pads. I really like them. They are really accurate and just seem easier to shoot to me.

I know it sounds dumb and scratches on stocks tell stories, etc., but I beat the snot out of my second to last Montana. I fell on it several times, plus the normal wear from a rifle getting a lot of use. It looked pretty rough. So I paid to have it filled in and painted professionally. I planned on being more careful, and the very first trip out slipped on a very steep frosty hill. The Montana was in a Kifaru GB on my external frame pack. My body and pack weight came down on the stock, pinching it between the frame and rocks as I slid. I should have Kryloned it instead of paying the big bucks for as long as the paint lasted me!

I'm bringing this up not to publicly tell everyone how clumsy I am, but because the T3 stock, after worse treatment, still looks fine.

My 7-08 Montana with Talleys and a 3-9 Luepold weighed 6 pounds even. My T3 SL 7-08 weighs 6 pounds 14 ounces. I like the higher comb on the Montana. I like the Montana safety better.

I read here that the Montana does not handle a case rupture well, but I haven't done that with mine so don't have first hand knowledge of that. Speaking of hearsay, I have an email from a guy who put a 308 in a 270 Tikka and it handled the gas safely.

I don't plan on having a case rupture, but I feel a little better with the Tikka. SW has the T3 SL for $700, plus $40 for the Limbsaver. Cabelas has the Montana on sale right now for $100 of, so $1100 IIRC.

Are you using a slip-on limbsaver pad, or replacing the pad all together?

Calvin, I'm using the Limbsaver replacements. My first one is going on six or seven years with no problems. They help a lot.

mr. stick1330: Just my 2 cents worth. For many years now, I've used several different calibers of rifles, but all have had the same action with of course same safety, bolt style, etc. So whether I'm calling coyotes here in michigan or on a mountain hunt, I'm never going to goof up in quickly setting up for the shot: it has just become natural. My other point is that I agree with the first responder that the heavier rifle definitely holds steadier in the excitement of the moment. I am soon to be 68 and just returned from elk hunting in Idaho's back country with my almost 9 lb. rifle. The same rifle accompanied me last year for mountain goats on Kodiak Island. My opinion is that there is a shortage of hunters in top physical condition and many who believe a lightweight rifle is a must. While many of the posters here are probably more capable riflemen than I and can thus do well with the featherweight rifles, my choices have worked well for me.

Yes, 9lb rifles are the way to go on a backpack hunt. I also like 10lb tents, 7lb sleeping bags, 4lb blow up air mattresses, 4lbs of food a day. Who wouldn't want to hike up steep mountains with 70lbs of gear on their backs, and then toss another 70lbs of meat into the pack and hike home?

Thanks Calvin

Keeping it real.

The older I get, the more I appreciate lightweight gear. In this day and age, there's no need to tote heavy stuff. It's like drinking crappy beer.

Lite ain't worth a piss if you don't shoot it well offhand.

Looks good on paper paper, pound/oz wise. The shot is what matters most. A boned out buck and a 47 pound pack or a boned out buck and verse a 45 pound pack and no meat? Really? Buy them. Shoot them. Alot.


A 6# rifle verses a 7.5# to pound all up. Hell I'd go 8# and make the shot. Or I could go #6 and hope I make the shot? I'll make up less weight elsewhere.

Find the lightest weight you shoot best.

Several good points here guys, thanks.

I understand and agree that a gun that I shoot well means more than the weight, or caliber to a certain degree.

I also understand that my back, hips and knees will notice every extra pound of weight in my pack.

Smokepole: Life's too short to drink cheap beer.

So learn to shoot it. Heavy ain't worth a piss either if you can't shoot it. Plus, it's heavy.

6# all up is pretty light. Most of mine are between 6.5 and 7.2lbs. My Model 7, 7 Saum in a McM Edge Classic stock is a monster in the hills, and comes in at 7lbs, 2oz. It shoots soooo well off a pack.

With the exception of a couple of moose trips and one sheep trip, I carried a faux ti (mountain rifle in ti stock) 30-06 with a leupy 2.5x8, 1.5x5, 4x or 6x the whole time I lived up there (6 yrs). It weighs 6lb-9oz with the 6x and a flip flop recoil pad. The moose I shot with it died more quickly than the two by 350 rem mag. I have since sold all of my variable scopes (and the 350 rem).

I think we need to start with an "all up" weight first and then discuss cartridges and other options. To me a backpack hunt is when your pack contains all the essentials for the entire trip.
For me, I use 7# 8oz. as my personal benchmark - "all up". That is pretty generous.
For a sheep/goat hunt, I'd go 7# even.
From there you can consider cartridges, scopes and bases/rings.

So what is your personal weight limit?

Funny stuff!

Being an idiot, I've done the 70lb pack on the way in, the 10lb tent, and way over 4lbs for food per day. And the 9lb rifle. I'll probably stick with my Montanas.

I've got lots of rifles that I can't shoot as well offhand as I can the Montana, and they are all heavier...

I don't have the years, miles logged, hours/days invested in backpack hunting that most of you do. However, based on the experience I DO have, I have learned a few things concerning backpacking in general and backpacking hunting.

** 99% of the time, lighter is better. And...

I carried a Weatherby Vanguard that weighs 9.70 lbs. with three cartridges and sling on a backpack hunt in the Idaho backcountry.

Since then I've carried a Tikka T3, in 7mm-08 which weighs 7.52 lbs. with 3 cartridges and the same sling.

What I found out:

Can I carry a 9 1/2 pound rifle all day in the mountains? Sure.
But based on my somewhat limited experience, I'll carry the 7 1/2 pound rifle EVERY time. Just makes no sense to carry those extra two pounds and yes, at least for me, at the end of the day those two pounds DO get heavy.
So put me in the "lighter is better" camp.

As far as shooting offhand, don't know why heavier would be better... not sure I agree with that. If you can't shoot offhand you can't shoot offhand regardless the weight of the rifle.

And frankly, unless I step around a rock and see "Mr. Big" standing broadside at 30 yards, I cannot envision many scenarios when it would be necessary or prudent to shoot offhand in the first place. Most of us shouldn't. Everyone can agree that is the LEAST stable and thus LEAST likely position to use for accuracy.

** I cannot think of what would make up the other 1% when it, whatever it may be, would be better if heavier. But I'm sure SOMETHING is better heavier, just don't know what it is.

Another vote for a Tikka T3 stainless in 7-08 with
a Leupold VX-1 2x7. Very accurate, great out of the
box trigger, and very low recoil.

Excellent for long walks.

Damn, why didn't I think of that?

KUTE, what made you change your mind on the Kimbers? I'm pretty sure I can remember older posts of yours under your previous moniker saying that you didn't like Kimbers at the time. Just curious why you changed your mind on them.