Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Backpack Hunting Backpack rifle help

I hear ya. In fact, now that I've gotten the "sub 5 lb." thing out of my system, I'm settling on somewhat heavier stuff myself. My 284 has crept up a little bit because I added that Zeiss scope and it's now at about 5 lb. 12 oz or so. That's light enough and I wouldn't be opposed to heavier if I ever build something more powerful.

I'd strongly suggest saving weight in the back half and adding it to the front (Ie: barrel). A short action like a 600 or M-7 can come in at maybe 28.0 - 29.0 oz with all the light parts and an alloy adl guard. I'd for sure use a 1/2" pad if using a decellerator.

Here's an easy formula that would balance superbly.

S/A with light parts.................28.0
Edge w 1/2" pad.....................21.0....(from memory via a post by CAS)
6x42 in Talleys.......................13.0
Kreiger fwt contour @ 21"........38.0

Total weight.........6.25 lb.

"In fact, now that I've gotten the "sub 5 lb." thing out of my system, I'm settling on somewhat heavier stuff myself."

Interesting to hear Jim... I'm happy with something in the 7 to 7.75 lb range myself.

My 30-06 is going on a diet after the season. Will get a blind magazine Edge which will get it in the 7lb 10 oz "all-up" range.

My Kimber 300 WSM Kimber is 7lbs 3 oz's "all-up." I doubt it would be sensible to want it lighter!

I admit to a hankering for a 7-08 Montana with a 6x36 on top in Talley's... that would go around 6.5 lbs or a bit less all-up.

I've never found any real advantage to a scope with anything over 6X. I've used all sorts of scopes over the years, 2.5-4X, 2.5-8X ( way back in 1960 ! ), the 1.75-6X, the 3-9X, and the 6.5-20X. I've also use the simple 4X and the simple 6X's. No comparision. The longest shots I've ever made, some over 500 yds. have been with 4-6X scopes. They work fine. After all, a scope allows you to see better, it doesn't help you shoot better.
On a really light, back pack rifle, their resistance to the effects of recoil is much superior to variables. They also allow you to mount them further forward, which, due to the recoil velocity of the light rifles, can be a factor as well. E

I used a straight 6X Leupold from 1974 to 1994 only scope I ever used for those 20 years while hunting, so I'm very familiar with the 6X.

I also competed heavily in MS for years as well and used a straight Leupold 16x scope for that application.
I would disagree with you in that "yes" if it helped me see better then it only follows to reason it helped me shoot better and it did.

E, I highly respect your opinions, but your still pulling out 1960
arguments.
In regards to variables being used on light rifle's and their resistance to the effects of recoil, to say that a straight is better is a total bunch of hooey. Were talking a 260 here, I think you've been eating to much wild mountain honey. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Ill make a deal with you, when my variable's break as a result of being on my 260 Ti or my light total weight 8# 338 win mag.I'll buy you any scope you want.

Recoil factor and recoil velocity....They also allow you to mount them further forward? There is no factor here, none.

You may not have found an advantage of anything over 6X, that's okay with me but I have and if they made a straight 8X scope I would take it over any other straight out there.

Since 1994 I've gone to variables and not looked back except for a couple of years ago I bought a straight 6X used it one year and then sold it here on the fire. After going variable I found it, the 6X, limited me to the kind of hunting I enjoy doing.
I had the latest 6X mounted on my 338 for bear hunting in the berry patches. Trying to follow bears while they did the vacum cleaner eating system with that 6X scope and judge them in the shadows was horrible. I put on the 4.5x14 LR and
uh la la...what a change! Yes, I used my bino's as well but by the time you put your bino's down and put your rifle up the bear is gone. "Now you see em, now you don't" You have to be quick. 6X scope & 338

I think the 6X is way overrated on this site, It has an almost cult following, I've found better tools and use them accordingly.

SU, nice post. Agreed.

Nice pic, SU. Pretty country.

I like Leupie's VXII 2-7X33 or the 2.5-8 for light S/A rifles. Thats all I'm going to say since this is such a subjective topic.

MtnHtr

Mtn, looking forward to that finished 7-08 project!

I've often thought the Rem LVSF in 7-08 dropped in an Edge would be a dandy... course then I'd want a Gentry 3 Position and a Rifle Basix trigger and the whole thing is suddenly a lot more than a Kimber Montana!

I can't see much real advantage in using a scope over 6x for big game hunting here in BC, although I certainly have and do own and shoot moslty variables, up to 4x12x. I prefer the Leupy VXIII-1.75x6 HDM to any other scope I have used including the LPS 1.5x6, my "real" Zeiss, Swaros, S&Bs and so forth.

I really prefer to keep my scope set at 1.75x when hunting, usually shoot my longer shots at 4x and use the 6x for sighting in. I don't like fixed 6x scopes, never have and do, like Leupy 2.5x, 3x and 4 x scopes, of which I have quite a few.

I just scored a beautiful C-ring 98 mauser so this looks like my action. Sure it's not a light weight, but I love Mausers and this should be a good home for my 6.5x55, I've been wanting to build.

I'm probably going to go Bansner for the stock, and Pac-Nor for the barrel. Any suggestions as to barrel contours, I'm hoping to hit 7 lbs. all up with the 13 oz. of scope and rings (that should give me plenty of weight for optics).

My thoughts when I saw this action was that with the work that my 9.3x62 on a FN 98 is getting, I should be able to make these rifles almost identical. Something about a matched pair of 9.3x62 and 6.5x55 with all the other componets being the same gives me the warm fuzzies!

Just a suggestion. You might want to discuss weight with Pac-Nor to see what they recommend for a barrel contour.
I use Hart barrels for rifles I want a stainless barrel on. They do the figuring for what contour to use when I tell them the overall weight I want for the full-up rifle, including scope.

Good luck. I love Mauser actions.

Don

I don�t know your gear or rifle situation, but I see two choices here:

Choice A
Carry lightweight camping gear deep into game country, be comfortable at night, and bag good trophies with an existing rifle that you upgrade in $400 increments over time.

Choice B
Hump heavy obsolescent gear, get tired and set it down before you get to where the big ones live, be miserable at night, settle for taking mediocre heads with a custom rifle, and take up golf when you get back.

Yeah, these are extremes, but the backpacking bug bites just as hard and fast as the rifle bug. If you�re smoked before you get where you want to go and then you don�t sleep well, your rifle won�t matter. I did the misery thing in the Army, and I�m glad it�s over.

A Mystery Ranch NICE frame and bag, a good LW sleeping bag, Meindl boots and some kind of shelter will absolutely destroy $1,500.

But you�ll be living Choice A.


Okie John

[quote]If you�re smoked before you get where you want to go and then you don�t sleep well, your rifle won�t matter.[quote]

That was some of the finest advice that has been stated as of late.

John, what are the iron sights that are on your Cloward, btw. Also, have you ever set that rifle on a scale?

Okie John, $1500 is what I have budgeted for this rifle project...other gear gets budgeted with other money.

If you are right-handed, I cannot see how you will get more rifle than a stock Kimber. Even if it has to get tweaked at their factory a tad, there is simply nothing you can do to an existing rifle/action for $1500 to trump what the Montana offers.

Not saying everyone ought to own a Kimber just because..., but if you really have a direct need for a mountain-class rifle, and $1500 bones to throw at it, the montana is yours.

If you want "custom" to say that you have a "custom", better budget a chitload more than $1500. Double it. If you have a donor action, double it and subtract $500.

Power to you. And hang on to that wife - women like her don't grow on trees.


Okie John

Thanks. My 308 had stock irons until I fell and busted the front sight off. I'll replace it after the 2006 seasons end. I'll have to check my notes, but I want to say just under 8 pounds scoped, loaded and with a sling.


Okie John

John, do you advocate iron sights/QD scope system as a staple for this type of rifle? I see it adds around 6-8oz to the overall weight of a rifle.