Which would you get


  • Total voters
    30
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
5
Looking at getting a 300 win mag rifle to hunt with. I think I’ve decided on a Winchester model 70 (current production). However, I’m torn between the model 70 Super Grade and the Alaskan. does anybody have any experience with either of these or can provide any input.

I’ve also toyed with the idea of a sako 85 but I like the idea of the reliability that the model 70 provides

Edit: this will be my one and only hunting rifle (for now at least) I know some may say the 300wm is overkill but I’ve got a thing for it. The smallest things I’d be hunting is deer and hogs, however I’d like to be able to hunt elk, moose and bear. As to location mostly the woods of Virginia and West Virginia, possibly Colorado or Montana. Which ever I end up going with I’ll probably cut the barrel down to 24” if it doesn’t come with it already.

Edit 2: The main reason I was looking at the model 70 over the Sako is the controlled feed feature of the 70
 
Last edited:
They are three good choices. I've got a thing for the Alaskan. I voted Sako because they are great rifles, very reliable, some are quite gorgeous, and it's a little different. No matter which way the vote goes, you can't lose.
 
As nice as Winchester 70:s are, I'd rather pick Sako. A personal preference perhaps, but the only non-rimfire, non-magnum bolt action I have, have had or am likely to ever have is a 60's vintage L579. The 85 is its direct descendant. A gun for life may be a worn phrase these days but the older I get, the more it seems to hold true in this case.
 
As nice as Winchester 70:s are, I'd rather pick Sako. A personal preference perhaps, but the only non-rimfire, non-magnum bolt action I have, have had or am likely to ever have is a 60's vintage L579. The 85 is its direct descendant. A gun for life may be a worn phrase these days but the older I get, the more it seems to hold true in this case.
I have an L61r “Fiberclass” in 375 in stainless. They did a contract with McMillan back in the 90s. It’s heavy but very well machined. I can agree. The new sakos are closer in feel to tikkas in my opinion
 
Between the 2, Supergrade, but if it had to be walnut/blue I'd much rather save $400 and get the Sporter and use the money for a better scope. My personal pick for a single do everything, everwhere, any time, any weather, no excuses rifle would it be the EW in 300 WSM. It gives up 50 fps to 300 WM, but uses about 10-15 gr less powder which translates into less recoil. Plus you don't need the 26" barrel nor a long action.

I have and use both PF and CRF rifles. But the harsher the weather, the more remote and rugged the hunt the more likely I am to pick CRF. You've got to be in a situation where the rifle is pretty abused for it to make a difference. But bad things do happen. Rifles get wet, they get snow, mud, ice and debris in the action. Hunters fall when hunting and sometimes in mud, water, and ice. And when they do rifles get dropped in mud, ice, water and dust. A CRF rifle is far more likely to keep working in those conditions than a PF.

I've seen all of those things happen while hunting. That is why my preference for SS/Synthetic and CRF.
 
Between the 2, Supergrade, but if it had to be walnut/blue I'd much rather save $400 and get the Sporter and use the money for a better scope. My personal pick for a single do everything, everwhere, any time, any weather, no excuses rifle would it be the EW in 300 WSM. It gives up 50 fps to 300 WM, but uses about 10-15 gr less powder which translates into less recoil. Plus you don't need the 26" barrel nor a long action.

I have and use both PF and CRF rifles. But the harsher the weather, the more remote and rugged the hunt the more likely I am to pick CRF. You've got to be in a situation where the rifle is pretty abused for it to make a difference. But bad things do happen. Rifles get wet, they get snow, mud, ice and debris in the action. Hunters fall when hunting and sometimes in mud, water, and ice. And when they do rifles get dropped in mud, ice, water and dust. A CRF rifle is far more likely to keep working in those conditions than a PF.

I've seen all of those things happen while hunting. That is why my preference for SS/Synthetic and CRF.
What’s your opinion on backup iron sights on a bolt action?
 
What’s your opinion on backup iron sights on a bolt action?

I've got several rifles with irons and QD scope mounts, "just in case". I've taken many a fall, including a short spill down a mountain chasing Chamois in Austria, rifles have been dropped, knocked over etc. and I've yet to have to pull a scope and resort to irons.

I'd also look a a .300WSM over the .300WM. A friend of mine has one, whereas I have a .300WM. They'll do the same thing (.30-06 +P), but the .300WSM will do it in a shorter, lighter package.
 
I voted for the super grade, but I like deep bluing and high grade wood., not that I have any. Mine are mostly synthetic working class rifles. No matter what it is you pick you can't go wrong.
 
Which one fits you better? I buy guns based on how they shoulder. Looks are secondary.
 
Sako over Winchester.

Among the Winchester, I’d get a Super Grade Stainless over a blued Super Grade, or Alaskan. No use for irons on a 300win mag for me, just something to snag.

Won’t lie, I’ve been tempted by the Super Grade Maple several times.

But. Sako over Winchester.
 
So I noticed that the Model 70 Alaskan is in the lead. Can someone who voted for the Alaskan say why you picked that over the super grade?

My reason for voting for the Alaskan is pretty simple really – I prefer the looks of the Alaskans over the Super Grades. We all have different tastes. I just prefer what I think are the “more rugged” looks of the Alaskans.:)
I also like the looks of open/iron sights on a big game rifle. If I was getting myself a Model 70 Alaskan, I’d put a scope on it anyway. So the open/iron sights would probably serve no practical purpose. But I still like how they look.;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top