This seems like a very light gun for either of these rounds. The Ruger in either caliber is 7.75 pounds, the wood Kimber 8400 is 7 pounds and the Montana is 6 pounds 9 ounces. I would think the 300 or 338 would be difficult to sight in off the bench.

I have a Montana .300 WSM and it's quite pleasant to shoot. The stock design seems to mitigate recoil somewhat and the rifle is equipped with a pretty cushy recoil pad. Really not bad at all to shoot even for extended sessions, and a wonderfull hunting tool as well.

Just sighted my kimber 338 in yesterday with a new scope. I pulled off the leupold to use on another gun and put a burris on. It must have been a combination of a too small shooting bench and the change in eye relief between the scopes, but I did get bumped in the glasses by the scope one time. The gun does not hurt at all when it recoils, but it does come back a bit.

I have a few Kimbers, one of them a Montana in 7-08, which is a truly wonderful rifle. Despite the fact that I am not a .30 caliber fan, I would definietly go with the .338 - recoil shouldn't be much different. Lou

I would need to know what you are hunting , where you hunt and what other rifles you have now to make a recomendation.
the .338 is as much power as any hunter needs in North america. Some say its light for the big bears, I can't say but its a round a guy should be able to handle.
Mine is in a model 70 classic. I can shoot it comfortably enough for 20 rounds or so off the bench.
A 300 is a great round also, but not my choice for moose or Big bear , in my experence it kicks about the same or a little worse than a .338. ...tj3006

The use for the rifle is Elk and whatever else I can afford once I get my college age kids out of my hair. Next year is the intended date! I am most definately leaning towards the .338 WM, and was close to buying one in a Ruger. Then someone had the good wisdom to mention Kimber to me. I really like the light weight Montana for this application. My concern was the ability to hold and shoot a light weight rifle is more difficult as a heavier rifle and muzzle heavy rifle is easier for me to shoot off hand as far as I can tell. Then there is the matter of recoil. I am not stranger to the 300 WM in an A bolt, but the Montana is a very light rifle. The concern is that it would knock the snot out of me at the bench in 338 WM! I even have questions as to the technique of sighting such a rifle in based on recent internet conversations I have been reading!

I am of the opinion that bigger is better in your case. I also believe that magnum 300s should have a 26" tube, whereas a 24" tube poses no handicap to the 338 Winchester.
The way I see it, the 338 Winchester offers one the trajectory of a 30-06 along with the power of a speeding locomotive. That's a good spot to be in while out in the field.

One interesting observation: my .338 WM Kimber Montana actually weighs 6 lbs 5 oz...not 6 lbs 9 oz. I was surprised to see this, enough so that I weighed the rifle 3 or 4 times.

Chet

another fact...Kimber says that you void the warranty (whatever that means) if you cut the barrel shorter!

Hmmmm, light for that much gun, BUTT the Kimber man told me at the SHOT show the fibers in the stock give and soak up some recoil. I can believe that, as my laminate stock on one rifle seems to have NO give and kicks more than a lighter syn. stock.

I'd choose the 338 Federal if I were sure my hunting was under 300 yds, despite the size of the game. Magnum will reach out if you need it though.....

Considering barrel length for velocity, accuracy for the cartridge, weight of rifle, recoil, how to scope it, bullet selection, animals hunted and rifle design; I would chose the one I can pick up from the bench, shoulder the rifle, aquire the target at 100 yards in 3 seconds, fire three rounds in 5 seconds and hit the 4" bullseye time after time after time. Seems logical to hone my shooting skills first and select the rilfe second.

I have not shot a Kimber Montana, but I have shot a lot with a Tikka T3 Lite in 338 Win Mag. Its a rediculous rifle, far too light. I think it gave me a concussion. After my shoulder went numb, my neck hurt, spreading to the top of my head. It took 20 shots to get there. 3-5 shots is survivable, but that makes load development hard.

It would be a fine rifle to carry all day, but shooting it is seriously unpleasant.

The Kimber guy I spoke with said that with only ounces of difference in weight between the 338 Montana and the classic wood stocked 338 gun that he could not tell the difference when shooting them! I think stock design has a lot to do with it. The Kimber stock looks to have little drop at comb and heel.

Yessir it has straight back recoil characteristics and the pitch of the stock is near to zero...another favorable factor in regards to recoil...as to the fibers of the synthetic stock absorbing some of the recoil...my dealer suggested that factor was about 25-30 % reduction...hard to tell...other things being equal for me it is a toss-up between the Ruger Hawkeye and the Montana or Classic in 338 WinMag...I prefer the 26inch barrel over the 24inch barrel though and the trigger would have to be changed on the Ruger along with the recoil pad...so.....

quote:

Originally posted by buckshot:
I am of the opinion that bigger is better in your case. I also believe that magnum 300s should have a 26" tube, whereas a 24" tube poses no handicap to the 338 Winchester.
The way I see it, the 338 Winchester offers one the trajectory of a 30-06 along with the power of a speeding locomotive. That's a good spot to be in while out in the field.

One year later and I haven't changed my mind