Was all set to buy a Dakota Model 97 Alaskan Guide (Cabelas distinction without a difference to the regular Dakota Model 97) with fiberglass stock in a 338 win mag when the manager of the Cabelas started talking up the Christensen Classic Carbon instead, same caliber. Price difference was negligible at this price point.

Realistically, I want a high end 338 that will put the bullet where I want it to go, when I pull the trigger and that I can pass down to my kids.

Which is the better rifle?

You likely won't find a more accurate rifle than what you would get from Christensen.

I don't own any of their rifles but I do own one of their 1911's & it's a work of functional art & I've shot a couple of their AR's too which are great..........just can't justify the price.

They really know & understand how to use composites.

I don't like the magazine hanging out on their bolt guns & I'd double check that their rifle is really a 338 Win & not really a 338 Lapua.

For sure the Dakota will be a good rifle & it will surely be easier to sell if that means anything to you; getting rid of the Christensen will be difficult simply because of its relative obscurity & low demand level.

I seriously doubt that the Dakota would ever be fully the equal of the Christensen in the absolute accuracy department though, but still, likely good enough.

I did own a Dakota 76 & it was a great gun in all respects.

Prolly not too much help, but it's all I've got.

MM

Christensen arms rifles have always seemed like more of a gimmick to me. And as i recall,the proprietor of chistensen got in trouble for poaching a deer in Utah a few years back. Dakota on the other hand, I've found to be excellent. YMMV

shaking my head..wow

X2.....WTF A conversation with those two makers in the same sentence..........

Two different platforms.The Dakota will out shoot your capabilities and not fall apart.An ideal DG Rifle.I do not know anything about the Christensen Arms excepting what I have read,but life is too short to hunt with a butt ugly rifle.

Easy decision for me. Dakota!

This has not been my experience at all. Not knocking Montanaman, he has just had a way different experience than several of my buddies and I. Christensen seems pretty popular at all the gun stores around here, but never see anyone actually using one. I will admit I have never owned one, but that's because I had about 5-6 associates buy them and let me shoot them. Let's just say I have never had any desire to own any of those I have shot or seen shot.

As far as Dakota goes I haven't used any that were made since Remington bought them, so wont comment, other than to say I remember hearing that the difference in the Cabela's model was it had a floorplate while the normal model 97 was an ADL style.

Yup,my choice also.

Dakota, for certain.

In fifty years that carbon thing will look like any other hunk of obsolete tech. The Dakota will remain a work of art that your family will treasure.

I tried to watch the Christensen tv show a time or two without success.

You could answer your request by buying a NULA from Melvin Forbes...

jim

As some of the comments imply, comparing the Christensen and Dakota rifles is like comparing apples and tomatoes. Each seems to be well suited for their owners' intent, but they are usually acquired by very different shooters.

Simply as an example based on my own experience, I picked up a plain Christensen Carbon Extreme in 300 WSM about 10 years ago. The light weight of the rifle fit the cartridge well and gives me a very handy rifle that is easy to carry and whose stock design fits my shooting style.

Of the several 300 WSMs I've shot, this one is by far the most accurate and consistent. I'm not a long range shooter, but out to 300 yds. this rifle keeps 3 of my hand loaded Nosler 180 gn PPTs well inside 1 MOA consistently year after year.

My Christensen has turned out to be what I wanted - a hunting rifle that's delivered on every trip I've taken it on. It's taken game from 40 to 1500+ lbs. with those loads. It's my go to 30 caliber rifle when heavier soft skinned game is the intended target.

I've only had one Dakota, a 330, but wound up trading it. Unquestionably it was a magnificently finished, wood stocked rifle but I never seemed to pull it out of the safe and I finally realized I wouldn't hunt with it.

I'm not a big 338 Win Mag fan because when I decide I need a medium-class cartridge I tend to pick a larger caliber. Because I think of mediums as working rifles, the few times I decide to use one I choose an old 338 RUM SS, fiberglass stocked rifle that's had a bit of work done and works well enough for my uses.

Just my 2 cents, hope this helps.

As was the exactly case with the one 76 that I had............

But the 97 is a different (round bottom) receiver & is a synthetic stocked rifle.

MM

Hunt with my Dakota 76. That's what they are made for. It even got a little rain on it.

I too have some gun safe princess rifles.. This is not intended for that fate. This will be a hunting rifle which is why I am going with the synthetic stock.

i too wondered whether the carbon fiber was a just gimmick or worse a insulator thst would do more harm than good. Seems it would hold the heat in and keep the barrel hot longer. I could better understand it if it was entirely carbon fiber instead of a metal barrel wrapped in carbon. Now I have no engineering background but it almost seems like wrapping a blanket around something you want to cool off.

You are correct on this.

A few years ago a friend of mine did extensive research on this with some HI DOLLAR thermal imaging equipment that he uses at work. He found that the Christensen carbon wrapped barrels do indeed hold in the heat. On the other hand he found out that Proof Research barrels actually shed the heat faster than a normal non wrapped barrel.

@boatanchor what was the reason for the result your friend got? Or did he not have an explanation?

Although I'm not an engineer either, it's my understanding that the increased surface area and the type of material used to wrap the thin steel barrel actually promotes cooling as opposed to heat retention.

I have not had any problems with shifting POI with my rifle, although I shoot short strings of 3-5 shots. It's a hunting rifle.

@Wildcatter264
By your reply I take it that you have a Christensen fire Arm? How long have you had it? Would you recommend it for a hunting rifle? What is you experience with it verses a Dakota? If you haven't used both (or either) I still would be interested in hearing your thoughts on what you do have experience with.

Thanks in advance,
Tucker

Well, I stuck to the tried and true and went with the Dakota. Thrilled with the deal, think I got good deal on an NIB Dakota for less than what Cabela's paid Dakota for it.

Now the work starts on breaking in the barrel. Oh well, a man's go to do what a man's got to do.

No reason to break-in any barrel, unless you're somehow convinced it's necessary and have time time and components to waste.

Well I have heard it both ways. But the manufactures say you do.

I typically use it as practice with a new gun and a way to find out what my new gun likes to spit out in terms of bullet grain, manufacturer and such. Yeah it cost some ca'ching but in terms of the total cost of the rifle and the elk hunts it is an investment that is worth the time, expense and effort.

And I agree with Mule Deer,there's no reason for barrel "break-in."

Another +1 on the barrel break in.....

Biggest myth perpetrated on American shooters.

Tucker1965,

No, "the manufacturers" do not universally recommend break-in, and I know several manufacturers who suggest a break-in procedure only because so many of their customers demand one. These include both barrelmakers and custom riflemakers. And at least one barrel maker is happy when his customers do the one-shot-clean routine for dozens of rounds,, because it shortens barrel life by that many rounds, and they'll have to buy a new barrel sooner.

But here's why it doesn't really matter anyway, especially for hunting rifles:

1) The typical break-in method was developed by benchrest shooters who wanted their new barrels shooting as well as possible before the first match. But most hunters aren't getting their rifles ready for a match next weekend, and it won't make any significant difference in accuracy anyway.

2) Break-in supposedly works by smoothing the barrel, especially the reamer marks left in the throat. This is accomplished by shooting bullets through a super-clean bore, but the same thing happens if you just clean the bore down to bare steel between range sessions. Cleaning between every shot doesn't make break-in work any better, just faster--which is why benchrest shooters started doing it.

3) The bores of lapped barrels don't require break-in, just the throat.

4) If you really feel compelled to break-in a chamber throat quickly, it can accomplished more effectively and far quicker by firing 3 abrasive bullets, like those used in fire-lapping. Or you can wrap some fine steel wool around a bore-brush, then use a drill motor to spin the bore-brush in the chamber throat. More than one benchrest gunsmith does this.

5) If a factory barrel is very smooth (and many are these days) then the techniques outlined in #4 will break the throat in. If the bore isn't smooth, then you can do the one-shot-clean procedure for hundreds of rounds without making any significant difference--except perhaps burning out the throat. With rougher factory bores, it's far more effective to fire-lap or install Dyna-Tek Bore Coat--or both.

6) At least 90% of the guys I see "breaking in" their barrel at local ranges do it wrong. They fire a shot, then scrub the barrel with a bore-brush and a little liquid solvent, then push a patch or two through before firing another shot. This only gets some of the fouling out, but not all, and for break-in to really work, the throat area needs to be absolutely free of any fouling. Otherwise the bullets are just riding over the fouling, not bare steel.

But whatever makes you happy.

MD, I've read what you've written and this makes the most sense to me. Load up the bullet you want to shoot with a few different powders, and see what shoots best. Because you have to do that anyway with a new rifle. It's hard too see what shoots best if you have to stop between each shot to clean; if you clean to bare steel you'd spend all day to get any results. Plus, every shot would be out of a clean bore and those don't always give an accurate picture of the accuracy of a load.

I like to use a good foaming cleaner like Wipeout between sessions to make sure I get all the copper out. Best thing is, it works overnight with no bore scrubbing.

Yeah, I much prefer cleaning a rifle at home with some sort of solvent that does the work for me, especially while I'm sleeping!

Both Wipe-Out and Montana X-Treme work very well overnight, but if I'm in a little bit of a hurry the Montana X-Treme Copper Killer will normally do the job in less than an hour--but like Wipe-Out and the regular X-Treme you can leave it in the bore forever and it won't do any harm.

John,

How come in reviews I see see complaints about bore damage from these products? Do you think it's possible that these "damaged" bores had pits that were coppered over and when the cleaner did its work the pits were exposed?

I haven't tried the Montana products yet, but will soon as Wipe-Out hasn't worked all that well for me, sending me back for the J-B, which works, but is a lot of work. My brother used an electronic cleaner, but those are fraught with peril for a scatter-brained old timer (Happy Birthday, by the way).

Interesting. I will have to give some thought/research to the no brake-in. I have always done so with new guns but it seems here at least so far everyone says its a myth and may do more harm than good.

Mule Deer do you have any research/studies that goes along with what you are saying?

Tucker, let me save you some humiliation. Google John Barsness and read a little bit. You will have your answer.

Getting any research on whether it works or not would be problematic. You'd have to obtain a run of "identical" barrels, and enough of them to be statistically significant. And then test barrels that were "broken in" vs those that weren't.

I don't think anybody's done that, and it's unlikely anyone will.

So what you're left with is anecdotes.

JG, no need to be a prick.

He really wasn't. Your post was on the verge of calling out one of the most extensively published gunwriters of our generation--a guy who does a lot of research before forming opinions.

JG was just trying to make sure that you--someone with a relatively low post count--knew who you were asking for the factual basis behind his view.

Pappy,

I don't know where you heard that Wipe-Out or Montana X-Treme damaged bores, but if you can put your hands on the reports I'd like to hear from you.

Many kinds of ammonia-based cleaners can damage bores, because they're water-based. This is why the instructions suggest running another patch through the bore every 15-20 minutes: The water has evaporated, and the solvent will pit the bore.

Both Wipe-Out and Montana X-Treme are oil-based, and the oil doesn't evaporate. Consequently you can leave them in the bore safely for as long as you want, and the bore won't pit. I have been using both for a long time, and my bore-scope shows no change in the bores of my barrels. They also don't foul any more (and usually less), and more fouling is a sign of very light pitting. (One exception may be the "accelerator" for Wipe-Out, which makes it work quicker. One independant test indicated it might pit bores.)

I had an electronic cleaner for a few years, and it was a PITA to use compared to Wipe-Out or Montana X-Treme.

Tucker1965,

No, I have never found any scientific studies that compare the results from a bunch of barrels that have been broken-in by the "accelerated" method or just shot. Apparently they don't exist, for the very reason smokepole stated: You'd have to compare a BUNCH of supposedly identical barrels before coming to any firm comclusions.

What I have done, however, is compare both the accelerated break-in method and various other methods over many years, including cleaning down to bare steel between range sessions, using fire-lapping bullets, and various other methods. I started this experimentation in the 1990's, when suddenly many shooters decided it had became necessary to "properly" break-in any new barrel immediately. (Somehow the word "properly" is often used, even though the methods vary considerably--including the furious scrubbing I've seen so often at ranges.)

My research was helped immensely by the use of a Hawkleye borescope to analyze the effectiveness of various techniques, but I also did some research into the origins of the method. Both led to the conclusions stated in my above post, but I've also published more than one full-length article on the subject containing more details.

Have also had conversations with several barrelmakers and custom riflesmiths who told me what I stated above: They only started suggesting a break-in procedure because so many of their customers were some convinced by all the break-in blather that it was absolutely necessary. So to prevent wasting time having to explain why break-in was also a waste of time, they just made up something and put it on their website and in their brochures.

Yes, there are some companies that earnestly suggest break-in procedures. If you feel like following them, go ahead. But like many other procedures in rifle shooting that supposedly are absolutely necessary, my testing convinced me it was a waste of time. And I'm too busy to waste time on useless stuff, like uniforming primer pockets in brass shot in factory hunting rifles, or breaking-in barrels by cleaning them after every shot, when neither makes any difference.

I taught Barsness everything he knows about rifles and barrel "break-in" so now you can sleep easy knowing his info came right from the source.

What Hart Barrels says on barrel break-in...


[u][color:#000099][size:17pt]Hart Barrel Break-in[/size][/color][/u]

Sorry John, I should have specified that these were customer reviews, not professional writers. There are two on the Midway site that claim damage as this is written. I didn't buy the claims, I was only looking for a possible explanation for what these guys reported. I may have seen other user comments someplace, but who can remember the details of everything they see on the www?

Other than some damage to stock finish (my fault), I've got no complaints about Wipe-Out. I am a little puzzled about the very ammonia-like smell from an ammonia-free product.

As best as I can recall, complaints about the e-cleaners were from folks that didn't follow the directions. I can easily see myself forgetting about one of those contraptions and having a whoopsie as a result. Man's got to know his limitations!

EDIT: went back and the only complaints were about Wipe-Out, not Montana Xtreme. A number of similar products get high marks for getting the copper out. Looks like I need to upgrade.

Pappy,

I was also curious about the ammonia smell so I contacted the company. They told me the smell comes from urea in the product, not ammonia.

A quick wiki check says (I think, like I said, it was quick) says urea is created by the body from ammonia, or synthetically using an ammonia compound, so the old schnoz wasn't totally wrong.

this explains it better than I can, huge difference between Christensen and Proof Research Proof Research

John,

When I received my NULA M24 .30-'06 from Melvin I decided to follow the Mule Deer Break-In Procedure (i.e. none) since I copied your specifications for the rifle. I am a little over 50 rounds down the bore since I mostly only hunt with that rifle. Also since I have been doing more ML seasons for elk meat the last few years I have been hunting with my old M90 ULA .50 instead of shooting more '06 cartridges.

The ULA M90 is definitely a PITA to clean by the way, but it is a legal ML rifle in Orygun where I have been hunting. It was the first gun I bought from Melvin.

I went to Kenny Jarrett's talk at the SCI Show a few years ago and found his explanation of his recommended method consistent with what he presented. His talk was definitely worth the time to listen and watch his photos if you haven't seen it I recommend it...

jim

Mule Deer, Thank you for your information. Wasn't intending to call anyone out, just honestly seeking advice and basis of opinions.

People come to me everyday seeking advice (its my job to give advice) and often ask the basis of my opinion. Never feel like I am being called out or that they are disrespecting me at all. People (me included) just want to make informed decisions. I will answer them and provide the basis of my opinion in a respectful and honest way, just as Mule Deer has done. That is all that was being requested.

Same thing goes for washing cars and making up the bed in the morning.

I'm in total agreement. Different subject but I've had a few barrels that didn't shoot well until they had a fair number of bullets down the tube so I guess I do believe in barrel break in, just not with a cleaning rod.

Precisely what I was doing Utah. Thank you sir!

I didn't know that, but it is exactly how I've treated my new Hart barrel on my McWhorter rifle. I think I've cleaned it twice in 120 rounds.

The Majority on this web site cling to JB's coat tails because they have no opinion of their own thinking she is a goddess of some sort, BARREL BREAK-IN does help in some cases, some claim there can be barrel damage done with break-in are idiots that dont use a rod guide.

Use a rod guide, bore tech eliminator and you will notice a positive difference doing a barrel break-in

I don't recall anyone mentioning barrel damage, only that the practice was generally a waste of time, and that the ordinary process of shooting and cleaning would eventually have the same result. Break-in just makes it happen faster.

We rely on John's expertise because he does this stuff full-time, for a living, so what he says is based on experience, not mouse clicking. He's generous with his time and advice and puts up with a lot of crap from snarky wannabes with (mostly) patience and good humor.

I had my model 70 rebarreled in 264 by Pac-Nor. It came back with a pamphlet detailing a specific break-in procedure, and included a bottle of "Witch's Brew" solvent/cleaner for the job.

This is not to say that any components or battel life was wasted in the break in procedure. A certain amount of bullets and powder were consumed in load development. Shooting was interupted as recomended by the manufacturer and the barrel scrubbed.

This barrel is as accurate as any I have ever shot.

Would it have been as accurate without the extensive cleaning procedure?

We will never know.

And you notice this difference with the same rifle?

BTW, what you said above about JB is Horseschitt with a capital H. People respect his opinions because he puts in the work to really understand the science behind things like "barrel break-in" and he knows what he's talking about.

Have had severa people woith reading comprehension problems say that I claim barrel break-in "doesn't work." I've never said or written that it doesn't work--except perhaps with very rough factory barrels, where 1000 rounds of shoot-and-clean won't help nearly as much as a few rounds of fire-lapping, or instead simply installing Dyna-Tek Bore Coat.

Instead my point is that if you clean any good barrel down to bare steel between range sessions the same thing eventually happens as with the one-shot-clean method.

Have also never written that break-in harms bores. However, there was a nitwit gunsmith in Idaho a few years ago who claimed that if you didn't turn over your rifle to him, allowing him to break-in a barrel properly (that word again) with his super-secret technique, then the barrel would ruined forever. Dunno how his "marketing campaign" worked out!