If if you had a choice between a older fibermark or a brewer wearhermark which one would you choose looking at either 257 or 340 Or would you just hold off till you found a accumark?

If the price is right and you have the money you could get both and you're set up for anything in North America.

I have a couple weathermarks and both are 1/2” guns with factory ammo (300&340). My one accumark met the guarantee....but did not shoot as well (30-378). It was also heavier.... There’s a bit of luck of the draw I believe.

Yes sir. That's on the table lol 340 is biggest issue Accumark vs fibermark or weathermark

Do yourself a favor, get a .300 Weatherby Fibermark or whatever model that pleases you. The xtra recoil of a 340 is of marginal utility when compared to the killing power of the .300 Wby. Trust me on that one. Happy Trails

We have the 300 Win mag and the 340 Weatherby. No idea what we'll ever need the 340 for but it's a nice rifle and a rare one so it will stick around. It's the Mark V DGR synthetic with the iron sights. I'm told it's a rare piece being in 340 Bee.

I've got a couple of model 70 classic stainless 375h&h mags and 300 rum senderos so recoil isn't an issue. There is just something about a 340 that intrigues me..... Just was wanting opinions from 340 owners or people that have had experience with a 340. But I do agree a 340 may not kill anything any deader than a 300 will

Regarding recoil, in identically stocked rifles, I prefer shooting the 340. Recoil is more of push....not as sharp when comparing 210s vs 180/165s in the 300. It clearly didn’t kill elk any deader....but after shooting dozens of elk, it clearly seems to rock them harder. I’ve never shot an elk with the 340 that wasn’t visibly rocked. I can’t say that about the various 300s. For what it’s worth, nearly all of my elk were shot at >300yds.

I imagine it would be a more effective killer than the 300 on Brown Bears and Cape Buffaloes. I just don't shoot those things