Two new introductions by Winchester.



� Satin Finish Monte Carlo Walnut Stock with cut checkering looks exquisite and aligns your eye perfectly with open sights or a scope � Folding Adjustable Rear Sight with Hooded Gold Bead Front for fast and sure target acquisition � Polished Metal Surfaces add style and elegance � Alloy One-Piece Bottom Metal adds solid rigidity for better accuracy � M.O.A. Trigger System for zero take-up, zero creep and zero overtravel � Open Sights are ideal for thick cover and quick shots � Integral Recoil Lug forged and machined as part of receiver for greater accuracy � Pre-�64 Style Controlled Round Feed with Claw Extractor fully controls the cartridge from magazine, to chamber, to ejection � Recessed Target Crown protects the rifling � Cold Hammer-Forged Free-Floating Barrel means pinpoint accuracy � Pachmayr� Decelerator� Recoil Pad for optimal protection against felt recoil.

NEW LA 535134128 30-06 Spfld. 25" 45 3/4" 13 3/4" 1/2" 1/2" 8 lbs. 8 oz. $1,269.99
NEW LA 535134133 300 Win. Mag. 25" 45 3/4" 13 3/4" 1/2" 1/2" 8 lbs. 8 oz. $1,269.99
NEW LA 535134136 338 Win. Mag. 25" 45 3/4" 13 3/4" 1/2" 1/2" 8 lbs. 8 oz. $1,269.99
NEW LA 535134138 375 H&H Mag. 25" 45 3/4" 13 3/4" 1/2" 1/2" 9 lbs. $1,269.9




RECEIVER � Stainless steel; Matte finish
BARREL � Stainless steel; Matte finish; Free floating
ACTION � M.O.A.� Trigger System; Pre-64 action; Three-Position Safety; Controlled Round Feed; Controlled ejection
STOCK � Satin finish Monte Carlo gray laminate; Cut checkering
FEATURES � Classic barrel boss with folding rear sight; Hooded front sight; Steel trigger guard; Pachmayr� Decelerator� recoil pad; Jeweled bolt body; Knurled bolt handle; Sling swivel studs.

SHOT SHOW SPECIAL 535142128 30-06 Spfld. 25" 45 3/4" 13 3/4" 1/2" 1/2" 9 lbs. $1,469.99
SHOT SHOW SPECIAL 535142133 300 Win. Mag. 25" 45 3/4" 13 3/4" 1/2" 1/2" 9 lbs. $1,469.99
SHOT SHOW SPECIAL 535142136 338 Win. Mag. 25" 45 3/4" 13 3/4" 1/2" 1/2" 9 lbs. $1,469.99
SHOT SHOW SPECIAL 535142138 375 H&H Mag. 25" 45 3/4" 13 3/4" 1/2" 1/2" 9 lbs. $1,469.99


http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/catalog/category.asp?family=001C

Nothing sings Alaska like dragging a 25" tube, 10 pound 30/06 around the tundra or up a goat mountain...

lol seriously? maybe they could bed the rifles with lead and maybe add a couple inches to the tube?

don't they have someone in R&D who has actually hunted and can say "that's a stupid idea"?

Stock design sux!

Cut the barrel down to 23", add a McMillan super grade stock and you're golden....

Don't count on them any time soon. Production schedule isn't till September. Bummer. I do like the 375. Feels good though heavy. It was at the SHOT show.

Im a big Win fan but what are they thinking? These cant be selling well. 8.8lbs.? 9 lbs? Lets trim some fat...

Saw a stack of factory 20" Classic "Alaskan Guide" models in GNG quite a few years ago. It looked like a special limited run. Those would have been good 375s; not too light, not too heavy, short enough to be handy.

Ruger made a pretty nice "M70 Alaskan" in the high polish blued versions of their later pre-Hawkeye M77s.

I resemble that remark!

WAFJ! If it ain't stainless, it doesn't deserve Alaska in the name.

While I surely appreciate stainless in certain months, most of Alaska ain't tropical -like right now at -20� something . Southeast is perhaps another story, and may deserve its own rendition...maybe Alaskan Tropical Rifle ?

Lighter than hauling out moose quarters

Boy did they miss the mark in that one! I'd buy the Ruger and throw it in a McMillan before I would buy the Winchester, cut the barrel, have the sights reworked, and throw it in a McMillan. Silly engineers, who ever designed this one needs to go soak there head.

Well I saw one of the stainless and laminated stocked 375HH's Alaskan's the other day, it is a big gun. It is extremely well balanced and swung like a fine shotgun.Just about like my 375 Whitworth. Seems to me the original Alaskan's had 25" barrels too. Magnum man

I wonder how much interest there will be if they are made ...in Portugal, since Winchester has decided to assemble offshore?

When I saw these on the Winchester website months ago, I thought they had missed the mark by a wide margin.

Uh, no they don't. AR and G&A will like it.

Yep, going the absolute wrong direction with the 06 for sure. I do, however, like the 375 and wouldn't mind taking a better look at one of the alaskan models. Even a lot of the die hard pre 64 guys eventually leave the heavy std's in the safe and take the fwt's to their hunting camp....I like my SC FN 30-06 EW but that was after I threw it into a Micky edge stock to lighten it up a bit. It's about 7 3/4 pounds with the VX3 3.5-10x40 which is a 1/4 pound lighter than my all original pre 64 model 70 308 fwt that was made 60 years ago. Winchester needs to get with the program but since they are moving their assembly plant to portugal, I think their heads are stuffed so far up their azzes they've reached the point of no return!!!!!! I won't buy another new SC made rifle.

That's the problem, they are soaking their head in the wrong thing....

Ask these winchester engineers:

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.

That makes sense. When I used to hunt the thick timber in the western part of MT 20 and 22" barrels were what I usually carried. Caliber wise I used the 30-06 and larger. I only have two rifle with a 22" barrel now. The 24" seem to balance better for me.

They don't weigh 9 lbs. The website is a typo. I handled one in 375 H&H today and another in 338 Win. Mag. Both stainless/laminate. Not bad rifles at all. Priced a bit high, imo. I think I would rather have a Ruger Alaskan 20" 375 Ruger.

Actually that is a pretty good point. Lots of rifle weights are just so called nominal weights, and they often are not all that close to the actual weight. Probably better to weight one before dismissing it due to its weight.

The same is true when shopping for a lightweight rifle. Many, if not most, of them seem to have gained some weight by the time I put them on the scales.

That Ruger Alaskan 20 inch .375 Ruger is pretty nice. Although not well advertised, Ruger offers a gray laminated stock to replace the rubbery Hogue factory stock. The laminated stock is much nicer in my opinion.

FWIW, here are the weights for the Ruger 20 inch Alaskan in .375 Ruger (naked rifle, no scope mounts):

Ruger with Hogue stock: 8 lbs 1 oz.
Ruger with laminated stock: 7 lbs 11.6 oz.

Weighed on my digital DYMO scale (only weighs plus or minus 0.2 oz).

This.

I weighed a .375 H&H stainless laminate, and it is 8.8 pounds with steel bases, Warne QD rings and a Leupold 4x33mm scope. 8.0 pounds without the scope and rings.

I suspect standard calibers are even lighter.

I like the Mod 70 action so that rifle appeals to me. I'd cut the bbl to 22 inches and maybe shorten the buttstock a bit for use with heavy clothes. Then I'd use light Weaver bases and rings and a light scope like the Leup 4X. Would be fine for most uses. Not for long range like sheep anyway.

No matter how much work you put into it, it will still be a Winchester when you are done.

Carry a rifle - in hand or slung across the back- all day, every day, when you probably won't shoot it at all, but will need it mightily if you need it at all, and you learn what rifle weight and balance is all about. I can't begin to count the number of days fishing, berry-picking, or just plain just-in-case-an-opportunity happens I've carried a weapon living out here. 9 pound rigs might have their place, but I can tell you that ain't it. Hunting with a heavy and/or imbalanced carry rig is kind of like choosing a 416 Rigby as an all-purpose hunting tool in Alaska.

No matter how much work you put into it, it will still be a Winchester when you are done. [/quote]

Yep. That's the best part of it.

Hater.

Exactly!

Klikitarik-

Just as a matter of curiosity, and not to start any big debates either, what weight rifle do you favor for those all day carry it in your hand adventures?

An 8.25 lb rifle fully rigged for action is about my upper limit, but I suffer from some elbow problems. And regardless of weight, the rifle must be reasonably well balanced, or else it really kills my elbow.

I find a big difference between 7.75 lbs and 8.25 lbs. Doesn't sound like a lot of difference, but my elbow says it is.

What do you like?

You know, I suspect you and I would probably be able to deal with much the same stuff. I don't weigh my rifles very often so don't know exact weights, but know what works and what doesn't. And balance is probably more important than weight even. But I like rifles like the Model Seven, and M-seven based stuff, M94s, Mountain, or standard caliber M700s, standard (non-magnum) Ruger 77s, but I find that I will walk away from, or leave sheathed, rifles like the M70 SS 375, magnum barreled Rugers, etc. I certainly enjoy my rifles, but a day in the field with them should not be about them. That's my opinion anyway.

Taper or replace that tube on the M70 SS 375 to about a number 4,or about .675-.700 at the muzzle, finish at 23".Put it in a Brown Precision, and it'll come in at about 8 pounds scoped and will seem like a different rifle.

Klik,

My first .338 Winchester, built in the 1980's, weighed over 9 pounds all up, because all the "experts" said .338's kicked too much if lighter. I found out the .338 didn't kick that much, even with 250's, so I modified everything about the rifle except the FN action, Including changing the barrel from a fairly heavy 24" to a medium-weight 22". Now it weighs right at 8 pounds with 4x Leupold in Talley rings, the magazine and chamber full, and sling.

Same deal with my 9.3 B-S, except it's 7-3/4 pounds with the same scope and mounts, 4 rounds of 250 AccuBonds, and sling--and it's got a 23" #4 Lilja. The stocks on both rifles are Bansner High-Techs.

To tell the truth, I hunt more with the 9.3 these days, as it gets the same muzzle velocity out of a 250 (around 2650), and it balances a little better. Which is why it went to Alaska on my last hunting trip up there and took black and grizzly bears.

One of my favorite "carry all day, and never shoot it" rifles, (a great little berry-picking or fishing weapon) is a little Model Seven which has 20 inches of Shilen #3 Stainless out in front. That rifle, especially in iron sight mode, is virtually like a bolt action M94 Winchester. The SS Classic M70 375, a rifle which feels pretty good (and manageable) when hefted and carried for a short while, becomes an object of one's disdain when slung and carried over the course of the day. Balance (imbalance) of that heavy tube overhead is the problem even more than the weight, and tube re-contour ideas, I am sure, would solve much.