Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Winchester's New Alaskan Rifles.

I would like to see a .270wsm with a 22" stainless/syn. That weighs under 7 lbs. There is a caribou rifle.

I like this one but in satin stainless steel and a synthetic stock. A friend of mine has one (stainless steel), and it's quite a nice-looking rifle:
http://www.ruger.com/products/m77HawkeyeAfrican/specSheets/37152.html

I'd like a Mod. 70, .338 WM in laminated/stainless but...
A 25" barrel and being assembled in Portugal ain't gonna make it "Alaskan".
Prolly should save my sheckels for a pre-64, .338 instead.
Bear in Fairbanks

I don't think they design/market those rifles to people who actually live in Alaska. They are designed to attract a much more sophisticated hunter, who has the means to have his gear carried for him.

Very funny, and all too true.

My Winchester Model 70 is the classic stainless model. It started life as a .300 Win Mag before I knew it, but turned into a .338 Win Mag after much modification for my uses. With a Leupold Vari-X III 1.5-5x20mm scope, the rifle weighs 7 lbs 14.6 oz. With a very light sling and four rounds of ammunition, it comes in at 8 lbs 4 oz.

The first hunt for this rifle was in SE Alaska for Sitka blacktails, and involved considerable climbing of steep and heavily covered slopes. It felt about right for the conditions encountered, and was at least adequate for troublesome brown bears, none of which were encountered.

Possibly this rifle is a bit too light for the cartridge, but I have found it to be just about right for carrying. Actually I would not want it to be any heavier.

While hard to predict the whims of the American hunter, I tend to think that rifles more like this would meet with a much better reception by rough country hunters.

Heavy rifles are fine for beanfields and blinds, but leave me cold when thinking about tough mountains and dense thickets.

As long as I can still climb and hunt on foot, I want tough but not too heavy rifles. It would be nice to not have to keep building what I want.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Well when Winchester introduced the 338 they decided to call the rifle "The Alaskan" and it had a 25 inch barrel on it. I don't care about it, Winchester M-70's are anything but light and back in the day a 9 lb rifle was not considered heavy unless you took to the Mountains like JOC and wrote about some of the mods he did, like cutting a barrel down to 22 inches and having the barrel turned down some to get the weight down. Winchester did that at the factory and called it the Featherweight. Thou some consider those on the heavy side these days. In the end if they sell they will be listed if not dropped. And my Sako 75 in 338 runs just about 9 lbs loaded and I carried it all over Alaska for the first 12 years I owned the rifle.

My thought too. What is this, the millionth verse of the same old song? 9-10 lb rifles without glass yet and 25" tubes. Hard for me to understand that. What is it about lighter and handier that most American gun makers generally don't get?

Kimber Talkeetna

Note that I said, "generally,..generally don't get."

I could be wrong, but I believe that most people don't have any trouble with the standard barrel lengths and weights of rifles produced through the years, and that's why lightweight offerings are more of an option for those who climb or walk a lot with their rifles. Most of us, at least in Alaska, don't move around much once we have arrived to our hunting spots. Sheep hunters do, and so some caribou hunters. But for caribou hunting there are numerous rifles that while still are of standard weight and barrel length, aren't as heavy as larger-caliber rifles.

To me at least barrel length and rifle weight are not an issue, and feel fine with a rifle from 8 pounds to 10 (loaded), in calibers from .338WM to .375 H&H. Those weights seem to help my shoulder which recoil.

On the lighter side: maybe I could have a trailer-mounted .50-BMG rifle I can tow with my ATV during moose season?

Well, Ray, good for you. I think most of us who develop the yen for for rifles proportioned like a fair maidens's slender arm do so for a few simple reasons. One of which is day tripping out five to ten miles and / or on slopes where your uphill hand can touch terra firma while your other arm is seven feet above the same.

Young age and testosterone can go along ways with 9-10 lb rifles in those conditions. But in middle to early old age those two items are now lacking (along with some other things ). Pretty darn soon you go through your pack jettisoning stuff you would have declared essential thirty years earlier. And a heavy rifle swinging just a bit around your back side is as endearing as nagging wife--well, almost as bad. Not that I'd know .

LMAO!!!!!.............Hb

That would make for a decent 338 Win.

I'll keep my RUGER Alaskan.

Winchester should'a noticed how many of those stainless 20" rifles were sold.

BMT

To be honest I dont feel rifle weight is that critical. I never even thought about it before I started reading these forums. When I am hunting Im usually hauling a pack that weighs approx. 15 lbs. Is another pound or two that critical? Its the same as if you drank a water bottle before starting up a mountain- a pound... I like a heavier rifle less jump and recoil.

Also having opensights is a big plus for me. Far from home and your scope gets jacked up and your still in the game.

The location of that pound or two is what really matters. Added to your pack, you may not even notice it.

But when you carry a rifle all day, and most of that time it is in your hands, an extra pound or two starts to feel pretty heavy.

In my case, I have some persistent elbow problems (both elbows). Nonetheless, my rifle seldom rides on my shoulder when I am hunting the black timber or thick patches of whatever while in grizzly country. And I am almost always hunting among the big bears.

Because of the persistent elbow inflammation, I work hard at keeping the rifle weight down. There is a threshold limit for me somewhere close to 8 pounds. Much above that, and I'll be paying a price for weeks or months to come.

The heaviest rifle that I will carry weighs in at about 8.25 lbs field ready. My .270 comes in at 7.75 lbs (field ready, with sling and ammo) and feels much, much lighter.

The distribution of the weight also matters. The more weight in the barrel, the worse it is for me. Yet I do not like skinny barrels and I want a slightly weight forward balance on the rifle.

If you are younger and without injuries, you may not object to a stout 9 or 10 pound rifle. They shoot nice, and tend to be accurate. I carried one for years.

Also I wish I could still see the open sights!

If the rifle weight doesn't bother you, then don't worry about it and just pack what you like!

Sometimes we get carried away fretting about things that don't really matter that much anyway.

I don't disagree with you, George.

My point was that most hunters are not hiking long distances nor climbing. But those who do, rifle weight is a problem.

Is the rifle weight and barrel length bias' more regional in Alaska? I have a friend there who much prefers his 340 and 300 WBY's with 26" tubes. Not light rifles by todays standards. But he hunts mostly the open tundra for moose and caribou. I think he switched to a lightweight 20" barreled 270 when he went Mtn goat hunting, but I am not sure.

My only hunt up there was last year for moose and caribou. I carried a 26" bbl Win Classic, SS, Win. plastic stock in .338 Win Mag.. It weights 7.5 lbs by itself. Never had a problem on the open tundra. Then again most of my hunting down here is in the open. 24" and 26" bbl are what I prefer.

Here in SE, guys tend to like 'em short because it can really make a difference in how easy it is to move around in the thick stuff. My most commonly used rifles have 20-22 inch tubes but I also use a couple that come in at 16" or 18". I've got a 24" .270, but that's a beach rig so who cares.

With it's caliber and handling size, I got all excited about the .338 RCM when it came out, but I lost interest when I heard about feeding issues from a couple friends who tried them. That concept though, in my opinion is much more practical than Winchester's "Alaskan".

Their new fancypants trigger doesn't strike me as being very "Alaskan" either.