If you want the expected value, one answer is $n E[S_{(m)}]$, where $S_{(m)}$ is the $m$th order statistic of a sample of $n$ gamma$(k,1)$ random variables. While this expression may not have a simple closed form, you may be able to get a decent-sized approximate answer from the literature on moments of order statistics.
(EDITEdit: Looked up literature on moments of order statistics. BEGIN new stuff.)
David and Nagaraja's text Order Statistics (pp. 91-92) says that, for $k > 1$, $$\frac{m-1}{n} \leq P(k,E[S_{(m)}]) \leq \frac{m}{n},$$ where $P(k,x)$ is the regularized incomplete gamma function. So we now have the bounds
$$n P^{-1}\left(k,\frac{m-1}{n}\right) \leq n E[S_{(m)}] \leq n P^{-1}\left(k,\frac{m}{n}\right).$$
Some software programs can invert $P$ for you numerically. Trying a few examples, itThis appears that the bounds given by David and Nagaraja canto be quite tight. For example, taking $n$ = 100,000, $m$ = 50,000, and $k$ = 25,000, the two bounds give estimates (via Mathematica) around $2.5 \times 10^9$, and the difference between the two estimates is about 400. More extreme values for $k$ and $m$ give results that are not as goodcase, but even values as extreme as $m$ = 10, $k$ = 4when comparing with $n$ = 100,000 still yield a relative error of less than 3%. Depending on the precision you need, this might be good enough.
Caution: There are two versions of the regularized incomplete gamma function: the lower one $P$ that we want with bounds from $0$ to $x$, andknown asymptotic expression for the upper one $Q$ with bounds from $x$ tocase $\infty$. Some software programs use the upper one$m=n$.
(END new stuff See discussion at end.)
For more on this idea, see Lars Holt's paper "On the birthday, collectors', occupancy, and other classical urn problems," International Statistical Review 54(1) (1986), 15-27.
(ADDED: Looked up literature on moments of order statistics.)
David and Nagaraja's text Order Statistics (pp. 91-92) implies the bound $$n P^{-1}\left(k,\frac{m-1}{n}\right) \leq n E[S_{(m)}] \leq n P^{-1}\left(k,\frac{m}{n}\right),$$ where $P(k,x)$ is the regularized incomplete gamma function.
Some software programs can invert $P$ for you numerically. Trying a few examples, it appears that the bounds given by David and Nagaraja can be quite tight. For example, taking $n$ = 100,000, $m$ = 50,000, and $k$ = 25,000, the two bounds give estimates (via Mathematica) around $2.5 \times 10^9$, and the difference between the two estimates is about 400. More extreme values for $k$ and $m$ give results that are not as good, but even values as extreme as $m$ = 10, $k$ = 4 with $n$ = 100,000 still yield a relative error of less than 3%. Depending on the precision you need, this might be good enough.
Moreover, these bounds seem to give better results for $m \approx n$ versus using the asymptotic expression for the case $m = n$ given in Flajolet and Sedgewick's Analytic Combinatorics as an estimate. The latter has error $o(n)$ and appears to be for fixed $k$. If $k$ is small, the asymptotic estimate is within or is quite close to the David and Nagaraja bounds. However, for large enough $k$ (say, on the order of $n$) the error in the asymptotic is on the order of the size of estimate, and the asymptotic expression can even produce a negative expected value estimate. In contrast, the bounds from the order statistics approach appear to get tighter when $k$ is on the order of $n$.
(Caution: There are two versions of the regularized incomplete gamma function: the lower one $P$ that we want with bounds from $0$ to $x$, and the upper one $Q$ with bounds from $x$ to $\infty$. Some software programs use the upper one.)