Here is the well used 1960 M70 Alaskan 338 Win Mag. A horse rolled on it in Northern Alberta that broke it completely in two at the grip and split it vertically through the trigger guard, magazine well, recoil lug and up into the fore end. Repair was epoxy as showing in the grip and to fill the crack, then placed two bolts as show to tighten the epoxy and hold it together. I didn't intend on using the stock since I had a replacement made for it, but after I tried the old stock, the rifle shot so well I kept the old one on it and wished I had done a nicer job on the repair. It is presently my go-to rifle if I draw a branch antler elk permit.

Now there's a rifle with character!

If it shoots, id go for it. I don't mind hunting with beat up rifles..I dislike stainless steel but a friend jumped on me about that hollering so you do hunt with stainless steel, ha ha!!!

I looked at him and said take a closer look, it just needs to be reblued, but I won't do that it earned its working clothes, its not a closet queen..no blue and a stock that looks like drift wood and still shoots an inch with any load to the same POI...that's all that counts.

Ray B,

Now that was a round-about way to epoxy bed the action into the stock!

Glad to hear you were able to save that old dog.

But you could probably trade it in on a new, synthetic-stocked Weatherby.

I love looking at and handling rifles with beautiful wood stocks. But I don't want one. Just as I don't want a Ferrari. I'd worry too much about it. (I know that some of us view dings in nice wood as adding character to the rifle and that such mars memorialize good times, but that isn't me.)

I'm a utilitarian, and beauty to me is how a rifle shoots and, since my post-64 Mod. 70 .225 Win shoots wonderfully well, I don't care about its looks: its marred barrel surface, pressed checkering that someone covered with some kind of glossy coating, a recoil pad that doesn't fit, the fact that it's epoxied into the stock etc. are, to me, just not important.

I got it with an old Tasco 6-24 scope on it, dies and a couple of hundred pieces of brass for $400. After I found out how it shot, I swapped the Tasco for a Nightforce NXS and have never been happier.

Like Red Green always says, "If the women don't find you handsome they should at least find you handy."

Just carve your initials into the stock and awwway you go. A true utilitarian!!
roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
Just carve your initials into the stock and awwway you go. A true utilitarian!!
roger

Heh. Confession time! In my misbegotton youth, I actually did carve my initials in a gunstock! It made the stock an eyesore. That was an . . . er . . . unsatisfying exercise.

I realized at that moment that my goal wasn’t to have the ugliest rifle I could find. My goal was to base my allegiance on how well the rifle shot, not what it looked like! And, because I love lovely things, I didn't want to be the agent of marring a unique piece of wood!

And now, I'd like to drink to your health and happiness, and, because the "drink" emoji is what it is, to pervert Ben Franklins observation that: "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us happy"! Back at you, dude!

quote:

Originally posted by A.J. Hydell:
Glad to hear you were able to save that old dog.

But you could probably trade it in on a new, synthetic-stocked Weatherby.

What for? I just don't understand how a .340 Weatherby is any better than a .338WM. Each has its uses as follows: if you want to stretch the the ballistics of the .338 bullet, then a .340 or .338RUM are fine. But at the average hunting distances, it makes no difference.

If anything, I would just replace the stock with a full aluminum-bedded Hogue, and continue using it until the end of my time

quote:

Originally posted by Ray Alaska:

quote:

Originally posted by A.J. Hydell:
Glad to hear you were able to save that old dog.

But you could probably trade it in on a new, synthetic-stocked Weatherby.

What for? I just don't understand how a .340 Weatherby is any better than a .338WM. Each has its uses as follows: if you want to stretch the the ballistics of the .338 bullet, then a .340 or .338RUM are fine. But at the average hunting distances, it makes no difference.

Focus dude, ... you're just assuming I meant the 340WB. Actually I had the 300WB in mind.

Ray B. should just retire that 338WM to 'wall-hanger' status over the fireplace, where it can be admired and gawked at, and then get a 300WB in a synthetic stock. He'll enjoy a wider selection of .30-cal bullets to reload with, along with better sectional density for penetration on the big critters (bears), and it's laser-accurate.

The .300WB is the one do-it-all rifle for the AK bush - or anywhere else, frankly.

My THANKS TO ALL THOSE THAT ARE MISSING TODAY IN DEFENSE OF OUR WAY OF LIFE.


It never ceased to amaze me how well some ugly rifles shot, the comments I got when I was carting around one of my "unfinished fuglies" or the satisfaction I got when my "junk yard dog" shot circles around their "pretty, fancy" ones.

That was in the "old days" because now you can buy some fairly ugly rifles in any sporting good shop that shoot circles around some of my REAL dogs.

I would like to have one of those finely stocked fancy's, maybe someday, but I would put the stock on the wall to look at, swap it out when I wanted to wave it around and get patted on the back and put the receiver/barrel back in the ugly stock so I wouldn't be so touchy about hunting with it.

I have one of those laminated "fancy stocks" on a 375 H&H that split down the middle of the blind mag...epoxy and shim stock fixed it real good with brown colored epoxy to match the brown laminates but I just never liked the "looks" after that until I decided to paint it...it now resides on my 28 Nosler and yes some can call it "buttugly" but it sure shoots well so far and will get better as I tune the load. It just felt right on my shoulder from the git go.

Maybe I should post a pic of all my "fuglies" so we all could have a good laugh and appreciate those of a finer variety better.

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder so UGLY to one is a dream beauty to an other. Hahahahahaha ...and WHO says epoxy can't be made unobtrusive with all the colorants available today.

Good Hunting

quote:

The .300WB is the one do-it-all rifle for the AK bush - or anywhere else, frankly.

And who would know better about the Alaskan bush than an expert from Texas!

That rifle looks similar to my Mark V, .300 Weatherby.

I bought it used and the stock was splitting in front of the magazine mortise and behind the top tang and the trigger guard.

I pulled the barrel and action, took to a drill press and drilled thru the stock just ahead of the split in the forearm, then again between the trigger group and then thru the grip behind the split that went from the top tang to behind the trigger guard.

Then I put a brass screw with a brass nut thru each hole. It has been holding for 20 years+ with no further splitting.

quote:

Originally posted by A.J. Hydell:
Ray B. should just retire that 338WM to 'wall-hanger' status over the fireplace, where it can be admired and gawked at, and then get a 300WB in a synthetic stock. He'll enjoy a wider selection of .30-cal bullets to reload with, along with better sectional density for penetration on the big critters (bears), and it's laser-accurate.

The .300WB is the one do-it-all rifle for the AK bush - or anywhere else, frankly.

I'm certainly glad that I spent three years of my life defending this Bozos right to print his opinion. But it reminds me of a supervisor once said to an equally Bozo employee "Just because you have a thought, doesn't mean that you have to blurt it out"

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
And who would know better about the Alaskan bush than an expert from Texas!

You have to watch out for those Texan Ex-spurts

quote:

Originally posted by A.J. Hydell:

quote:

Originally posted by Ray Alaska:

quote:

Originally posted by A.J. Hydell:
Glad to hear you were able to save that old dog.

But you could probably trade it in on a new, synthetic-stocked Weatherby.

What for? I just don't understand how a .340 Weatherby is any better than a .338WM. Each has its uses as follows: if you want to stretch the the ballistics of the .338 bullet, then a .340 or .338RUM are fine. But at the average hunting distances, it makes no difference.

Focus dude, ... you're just assuming I meant the 340WB. Actually I had the 300WB in mind.

Ray B. should just retire that 338WM to 'wall-hanger' status over the fireplace, where it can be admired and gawked at, and then get a 300WB in a synthetic stock. He'll enjoy a wider selection of .30-cal bullets to reload with, along with better sectional density for penetration on the big critters (bears), and it's laser-accurate.

The .300WB is the one do-it-all rifle for the AK bush - or anywhere else, frankly.

I know that you are kidding about 30-caliber bullet SD, which in fact is quite good with bullets from 200 to 220 grains. But the SD of a 33-caliber 250-grain bullet = .313, and a 265-grainer = .331. There is a reason why the .338WM was introduced as The Alaskan in 1964. Besides that, the most widely used cartridges with hunters in Alaska are the .30-06, .300WM, and.338WM. The nearest one is the .7mm Magnum, and then the .375H&H. You will be hard pressed to find .300WB ammo at the local stores. With 180-bullets it is close to the .300WM and the .300RUM

quote:

along with better sectional density for penetration on the big critters (bears), and it's laser-accurate.

The better SD is only with same weight bullets. The 338 can shoot heavier bullets, better SD, AND more diameter. Diameter counts for something, if it didn't why would anyone want an expanding bullet?

The true benefit of an accurate 300 Weatherby over a 338 is for longer range shots. So if you're shooting over 350 yards on normal shots, go for the Weatherby. Otherwise, use a 338WM until you start thinking about a 416Ruger.

The only difference in the .338 and its big brothers is when you shoot a .338 the snot doesn't come flying out your nose and fogging up the scope!! That and the big .338 only have a couple of hundred FPS difference if one owns a chronograph and disregards the BS claims.