TargetTalk

Can any one answer these questions about the KK500, please?

1. What is the advantage of the Anatomic stock and why does it cost considerably more than the Alutec (though, for some reason, not nearly as much more as the KK300 Anatomic costs compared to its own aluminium alternative)?

2. What are the differences between the two types of pistol grip that apparently are available?

And, finally, would either the KK500 or KK300 really make much difference to the scores of the average club shooter who is already equipped with, say, a perfectly good (i.e. fairly low mileage) Anschutz 1800 barrel and action, expensive modern stock and butt plate, top quality sights, batch tested ammunition, etc? Brutally honest answers appreciated. I know about the short reach loading port on the KK500. Is there anything else? Or is it the sum of all the detail improvements that makes the KK500 so desirable?

I will comment on the KK300 reference. A KK300 anatomic stock is laminated wood (I have this rifle), an Aluec stock is cast aluminum. Amongst other differences like differing hardware and sights. I believe the action is the same.

All KK300 except Blacktec have been discontinued for over 6 months now.

I don't know if any or all of the above is true for the KK500 version comparison.

If you are buying "new" now it is either a KK300 Blacktec or a KK500 variant. Any KK300 other than Blacktec is old stock. For my own case my KK300 Anatomic is approximately 6 months old, upon ordering, the end of sale had already passed but Walther specially assembled it for me to order from spare parts they held - mine is left hand so no-one had stock of one to buy off the shelf.

Hi Roger,

to add to the above:

1) The Anatomic is wood laminate. Some shooters consider that wood absorbs/dampens firing vibrations better than aluminium. I would take an educated guess that the difference in price between the KK500 Anatomic and Alu versions is less than the difference between the KK300 versions because the KK500 alu is more expensive than the KK300 alutec. The KK500 is machined (possibly extruded, maybe Ulrich Eichstadt will chip in here) where the KK300 alutec is cast/injection moulded. The KK500 alos has the joint at the wrist to allow the butt to the cast off, and has fancier looking cheekpeice and butt hardware.

2) I think the standard grip on both KK500 rifles is a blue laminate, the other is the Protouch, a slightly beefier and more anatomical plastic grip.

3) A KK500 will not turn 9.0s into 10.9s. Reportedly both the KK300 and KK500 group very well, which should translate into finding good ammunition easily. The short KK500 bolt could reduce movement during loading for greater consistently. As someone with a broad face that no cheekpiece fits, I really like the cast-off facility. However I don't think you need a KK500. If your 1813 barrel was worn out, or will only hold a 10.2 average when you need a 10.5 to be competetive, or you were shooting a BSA Mk II or Anschutz 1407 and wanted something modern, then the KK500 appears to have some real advantages over the Anschutz 54.30, but as you currently have a good modern rifle that groups acceptably, my gut instinct is that any improvement in your scores will not be commensurate to the cost.

That said, if you really want a KK500, it looks to be an excellent rifle, and you should be able to sell your 1813-Gemini easily to off-set the cost.

Cumbrian wrote:Can any one answer these questions about the KK500, please?

1. What is the advantage of the Anatomic stock and why does it cost considerably more than the Alutec (though, for some reason, not nearly as much more as the KK300 Anatomic costs compared to its own aluminium alternative)?

2. What are the differences between the two types of pistol grip that apparently are available?

And, finally, would either the KK500 or KK300 really make much difference to the scores of the average club shooter who is already equipped with, say, a perfectly good (i.e. fairly low mileage) Anschutz 1800 barrel and action, expensive modern stock and butt plate, top quality sights, batch tested ammunition, etc? Brutally honest answers appreciated. I know about the short reach loading port on the KK500. Is there anything else? Or is it the sum of all the detail improvements that makes the KK500 so desirable?

Cumbrian,
The main difference between KK300 and KK500 other than the close loading port is the 3 lug bolt and 6 O'Clock firing pin. I own and shoot both the KK300 and KK500 and I don't think many club level shooters could tell the difference if both guns were set up correctly. Early testing is showing the 500 to be very accurate and is shooting very good elevation groups so maybe the 6 O'Clock firing pin has value, time will till. Both guns have excellent triggers and are far better than any Anschutz trigger I have used. I do think that a national/world class shooter could tell a difference over time but it would be a very small difference and very hard to prove.
Ed

One thing I noticed in the recent world Cup final was that in the 3p final Milenko was using a KK500 but for standing he seems to have machined a different butt with a lower butt plate ratchet. I suspect that because Milenko is very tall, the very high butt plate ratchet on the KK500 alu stock is too awkward for use in standing. The anatomic stock seems to have a lower butt plate ratchet. So that is something to think about if you are tall.

Also the anatomic stock has a more rounded forend than the alu stock for those that like those very round forends like on the Anschutz Precise, Esprit Carabine/GE600 etc.

Thank you all very much for your helpful and interesting contributions.

Tim,

I am most grateful for your candid assessment of a KK500 in relation to the average club shooter - in my case a very average club shooter. It accords with my own spontaneous thoughts. I'll save my money for something else, especially now that sterling is tanking against the euro.

I find it odd that the KK300 Alutec should be moulded or cast aluminium rather than milled after Anschutz's somewhat unfortunate experiences with their early cast aluminium stocks and their subsequent use of milled aluminium for the Precise.

Roger

Cumbrian wrote: I find it odd that the KK300 Alutec should be moulded or cast aluminium rather than milled after Anschutz's somewhat unfortunate experiences with their early cast aluminium stocks and their subsequent use of milled aluminium for the Precise.

Roger

Roger,

The KK300 alutec is now nearly twenty years old. The original (1995?) KK200 alu stock, as used by Guy Starik, was machined from billet, but after a few years (around the time that Walther were bought by Umarex) the material switched to cast. It may be a coincidence, but the Precise and Anatomic both arrived at much the same time, but Walther considered the Anatomic a premium alternative, where Anschutz chose to discontinue the 2213 and 2313.

Tim,

Thank you for the explanation. I had not realised that the KK300 Alutec was as old as that. As usual I am impressed by your knowledge, including Walther's company history.

(Still wish I could justify a KK500 to myself!)

Roger

efoleyjr wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:Can any one answer these questions about the KK500, please?

1. What is the advantage of the Anatomic stock and why does it cost considerably more than the Alutec (though, for some reason, not nearly as much more as the KK300 Anatomic costs compared to its own aluminium alternative)?

2. What are the differences between the two types of pistol grip that apparently are available?

And, finally, would either the KK500 or KK300 really make much difference to the scores of the average club shooter who is already equipped with, say, a perfectly good (i.e. fairly low mileage) Anschutz 1800 barrel and action, expensive modern stock and butt plate, top quality sights, batch tested ammunition, etc? Brutally honest answers appreciated. I know about the short reach loading port on the KK500. Is there anything else? Or is it the sum of all the detail improvements that makes the KK500 so desirable?

Cumbrian,
The main difference between KK300 and KK500 other than the close loading port is the 3 lug bolt and 6 O'Clock firing pin. I own and shoot both the KK300 and KK500 and I don't think many club level shooters could tell the difference if both guns were set up correctly. Early testing is showing the 500 to be very accurate and is shooting very good elevation groups so maybe the 6 O'Clock firing pin has value, time will till. Both guns have excellent triggers and are far better than any Anschutz trigger I have used. I do think that a national/world class shooter could tell a difference over time but it would be a very small difference and very hard to prove.
Ed

You said KK500 and KK300 triggers are far better than far better than any Anschutz trigger you have used. Have you tried match 54 or match 54.30? Jober Velasco says KK500 trigger not as good as an Anschutz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaw675HtWtQ&t=21s
Who should I listen?

That's the word on the street. If you search this forum, you'll find a number of discussions of the KK300 trigger, and several owners agreed it was better than the Anschutz 5018. That's not to say the Anschutz is bad, because it's certainly not, but it is nearly 40 years old now.

The 54.30 has the same 5018 trigger as the 1913 and its predecessor, the 1813. Match 54, i.e. pre-1977 14xx models, are rather less sophisticated than the 5018.

Olympic Dreamer wrote:

efoleyjr wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:Can any one answer these questions about the KK500, please?

1. What is the advantage of the Anatomic stock and why does it cost considerably more than the Alutec (though, for some reason, not nearly as much more as the KK300 Anatomic costs compared to its own aluminium alternative)?

2. What are the differences between the two types of pistol grip that apparently are available?

And, finally, would either the KK500 or KK300 really make much difference to the scores of the average club shooter who is already equipped with, say, a perfectly good (i.e. fairly low mileage) Anschutz 1800 barrel and action, expensive modern stock and butt plate, top quality sights, batch tested ammunition, etc? Brutally honest answers appreciated. I know about the short reach loading port on the KK500. Is there anything else? Or is it the sum of all the detail improvements that makes the KK500 so desirable?

Cumbrian,
The main difference between KK300 and KK500 other than the close loading port is the 3 lug bolt and 6 O'Clock firing pin. I own and shoot both the KK300 and KK500 and I don't think many club level shooters could tell the difference if both guns were set up correctly. Early testing is showing the 500 to be very accurate and is shooting very good elevation groups so maybe the 6 O'Clock firing pin has value, time will till. Both guns have excellent triggers and are far better than any Anschutz trigger I have used. I do think that a national/world class shooter could tell a difference over time but it would be a very small difference and very hard to prove.
Ed

You said KK500 and KK300 triggers are far better than far better than any Anschutz trigger you have used. Have you tried match 54 or match 54.30? Jober Velasco says KK500 trigger not as good as an Anschutz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaw675HtWtQ&t=21s
Who should I listen?

Olympic Dreamer,
I have used many Anschutz triggers but not the one on the the new 54.30. How a trigger fells is a very personal thing but to me the Walther trigger are better. But if you want an Anschutz trigger I have one attached to a very accurate round Anschutz action with a Benchmark 2-groove 16.5" twist barrel with 10,000 rounds thru it that I will sell for $1100. As always, your mileage may vary.

Ed