Do any of you guys have any experience with this gun? I have heard they used a Dakota action and I have also heard that they used a Dakota action copy. I found a new one in .338 for $1000, any thoughts on this deal?

It is my understanding that they use the Dakota 97 action not the 76. The Dakota 97 is a $2400 rifle vs the 76 which is $4500+++.

Check the Dakota Site they give you the difference.

From what I've heard of the Mato it was a good rifle. Prices range from $900 for fiberglass to $1200 for wood. Yours is in the range.

I have a Mato in .338 Winny. Its a great rifle and a bargain for $1,000. The Mato is based on a Dakota 97 action. It is CRF. The stock is a real Kevlar/fiberglass stock not an injection molded affair. My understanding is Beretta used Kreiger barrels in the MATO but I have also heard they were Walther/Lothar barrels. The action is slick and the triggers are crisp. My only complaint is they use a funky detachable box magazine not a hinged floorplate. It looks like a hinged floorplate but trust me...its not.
Mine will put 5 shots into an honest 1-1.25" at 100 with 210 Nosler partitions.

Bottom line is its a tremendous value for $1,000 and you could spend alot more for a rifle these days (like on a Sako 75) and get alot less gun.

I have 2 Beretta Matos with synthetic stocks. A 300 win mag and a 338 win mag. The first I bought from a friend for $800.00 and liked it so well that I bought one on GunBroker.com for $800.00.

The barrels are Lothar Walther, the stock is H S Precision with a full bedding block, the action is a Dakota 97 type with 3 position wing safety, and the trigger is made by Shilen. Beretta stopped putting them together when they bought Sako.

Both mine are consistent 3/4" to 1" shooters when I do my part.

They do make an excellent 338 win mag gun because of the straight stock which reduces recoil, the CRF action, and the barrel which has a lot of steel in it. Some say they are even muzzle heavy.

JMHO

good value compared to a Dakota97, $1000 is about all you would want to pay for what is essentially, a CRF Rem700.

I would disagree with that last statement a little.
about the only thing the Mato has in common with with the 700 is the round receiver. Unlike the Remington 700 the Mato has a recoil lug integral to the receiver--this is one of the things that Beretta did differently than Dakota did on their M97 with its recoil shoulder like a Remington 700. The Mato's recoil lug is in fact integral to the receiver. The ejector is fixed much like a Win 70. It has a fully adjustable Shilen trigger.
Of course the bolt has a three position safety and a large mauser type extractor. And the bolt release is built into the receiver body aka a Dakota 97.

I have one in .30-06 that I bought used in like new condition with a extra magazine and topped with a Bushnell 3200 4-12 scope in Talley Rings for $750. The action says Dakota just above the bolt release so I assume that this one was bulit using a Dakota 97 action. Consistent 3/4" shooter. Son took a nice doe this year using it.

Better deals can be found. Galyan's stores closed them out a few years ago for $500. I bought a .270. It looked and shot great. It had 2 negatives to me_it was heavy for a .270 and I did not like the detachable magazine. I sold mine about a year ago for I think $750.

Here's a picture of one

http://dealer.berettausa.com/photo_viewer_detail.cfm?photoid=2554

quote:

Originally posted by KY Nimrod:
I would disagree with that last statement a little.
about the only thing the Mato has in common with with the 700 is the round receiver. Unlike the Remington 700 the Mato has a recoil lug integral to the receiver--this is one of the things that Beretta did differently than Dakota did on their M97 with its recoil shoulder like a Remington 700. The Mato's recoil lug is in fact integral to the receiver.

Sorry but you are dead wrong.
I have 3 Mato's and a Dakota 97. The Dakota 97 uses a separate lug like a 700 but quite a bit thicker. The Mato uses a thinner separate lug but it is milled into a slot in the top of the receiver so that it doesn't show up as a separate piece from the top but it is a separate lug.

Though as said before perhaps a little heavy for a 270 more like an old std Model 70 or something, I find them to be an excellent rifle. The Stock that comes with them is IMHO one of the finest production stocks ever made. It is a true classic pattern. The wood stocks were made out of some pretty nice Claro.
The very first ones were actually made by Dakota (I've seen one so stamped) and a very few of the original stocks were McMillans - they were the ones with checkering. Look at the pictures in Rifle magazine of I think it was a 280 belonging to one of their contributers I forget his name at the moment it has the very early checkering, the later ones don't.
But early or late I really like them and thought seriously about the 338 you saw for $1000. If I'd had the free money at the time I would have owned it.....................DJ

Well DJ, You are right and I was wrong. I went and pulled my Mato out of the stock and sure enough the recoil lug is indeed a separate part. However, just as you said its recessed into the receiver ring the the only visible evidence that its really a separate part are two very small lines on either side of the lug where it goes into the receiver ring. I never noticed those before and always wondered how they would machine something like that onto the receiver? I suppose this setup makes some of the problems inherent with the Remington Recoil lug such as a canted lug a non-issue since the receiver makes it mechanically impossible to twist.

KY Nimrod, I made the same mistake until I traded for a Dakota 97 and took both apart. I actually somewhat prefer the thicker separate recoil lug on the Model 97 even though the way the Mato does it looks neater.
Every Mato I've had has shot great but doesn't that recoil lug look a little thin to you? It seems to work just fine but it just seems thin, especially on a 375 H&H or something.
But nonetheless and trivial details apart I hope you like yours as much as mine, sorry if my post was so blunt. Rereading it makes it seem like I could have been more polite............DJ