Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors lets design ideal old 70 hunting rifle

ruffedgrouse,

For what it is worth, my .300WM, Classic Stainless BOSS, Brown Precision Stock, Leupold 3.5-10x40, with sling, unloaded, weighs 8 lb. 12 oz.

I don't know if I would want it lighter, as I don't believe I have ever shot a lighter .300 WM to compare. Even if I did want it lighter, I don't know how much lighter I could get it anyway. If I didn't want to change the barrel or whittle on the action (neither of which I would consider), my available options are an even lighter stock, lighter scope, and lighter bottom metal. I'm pretty happy with it the way it is. It is a tad muzzle heavy, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Gun Doc

This one will work. It's in 7x57, which is fine, but I'd want a .30-06. 22" barrel nicely floated, controlled feed, one-piece bottom metal of steel, classic stock of good wood. Maybe an extra McMillan stock for the hard hunts. New MOA trigger is OK and easy to adjust, but the old 70 trigger is great, too. Steel and walnut, made in America (2008). Scope is a Meopta 3-9X, in steel Talleys. I could live with this one (and I'm a lefty).
Bob

Is that one yours Bob? Nice rig.

Mr. Gundoc7: Thank you for your post and input about your .300 wm. It sounds like our .300s are just about identical from a weight standpoint and frankly I didn't think it problematic to carry that much weight on my goat hunt. I'm rather used to rather physical work so an ultra lite weight rifle is not what I think best for me. I'm certainly vulnerable to excitement at the point of the shot, especially in a far away place, and then when climbing mountains in Alaska it gets your heart pumping. I did however try to somewhat minimize weight on my rifle. As I mentioned, I did go with Talley aluminum mts-rings and then used an ultralight homemade (by my wife) sling of nylon webbing that worked fine. I thought about switching to aluminum bottom metal but decided against it. I always prefer steel to aluminum but kind of violated that by going with the Talleys. I'm not going to change a thing on my elk hunt this fall; same rifle-same set-up. Recently I was looking over the D'Arcy Echols blog where he described building two identical .300s for a married couple that went to Asia on one of those sheep/ibex hunts. He said those 2 rifles weighed almost exactly 10 lbs. which he felt was just about perfect for that type of hunt. After reading that I thought to myself that I must be a wimp carrying only a 9 lb. rifle !!

Thanks again gundoc.

Great rifles and talk here. Never felt much difference between the 338 Win and the 300 magnums. On a blind test with two of the same rifles it'd be even tougher.

Just measured my 59 Alaskan in the "new" stock I am inletting and finishing. Still have to shape the forearm and grind the but pad to fit and it weights 8 pounds even.

After Talley's, the 3x9x40 Burris C4 and three in the mag and one in the pipe I don't see it being an issue carrying up and down the mountains.

Then again I have never been one to worry about how heavy a rifle was so I was surprised it was even at 8 pounds.

Yes, it's mine; thank you for the compliment. I got it at the Buda Cabela's. We gotta hook up and look at your knives!
Bob

Well....Yeah! For decades the prototypical "mountain rifle" for the dedicated international BG hunter(the kind who can afford Darcy's rifles) was a 9# 300 magnum,especially for the big-basin, treeless and wind swept basins of central Asia and the same rifle got used on the plains of Africa and even here in North America. I bet more World Slams of sheep have been taken by such rifles than anything else.

The writings of guys like John Batten, Jay Mellon,Elgin Gates,Herb Klein,the Kleinbergers and others are rife with references to those rifles.

But in Central Asia,those hunters are accompanied by a string of yaks,and enough sherpa guides and gun bearers that a heavy rifle can be handed off if they become a burden at 15,000+ feet. No doubt the extra weight becomes a blessing for very long shots at sharp eyed sheep who "make" you at great distance in rolling terrain.

In contrast the poor NA slob,who has to schlepp his rifle by himself, pack it all day alone,can certainly use something like a 9# 300, but might want to consider something a pound or two lighter. For a good many years guys like JOC said the ideal "mountain rifle" for North America might be a rifle of about 8# for a balance of shoot ability and portability.

Lightweight synthetics,better barrels,bullets, and more accurate light weight packages have lowered the bar these days, so that we can build something in the 7.5-8 pound range that still throws strikes at great distances. Even lighter rifles are available as well.

It all depends on what we are ready, willing,and able to carry.

Still can see many of those pics in my mind of JOC's mountain hunt stories. The country, Him, his rifle, the horses....

Yes good post as always. However, I submit there is something else to consider. These remote unsupported hunts rely on what you have with you for your creature comforts or even survival. The obvious fact is that what you are carrying is not only your rifle/scope combo but a backpack filled with "necessities". I believe it is more important to consider the weight of the "total package" rather than just dwell on the weight of the rifle. Yes I realize this is the rifle lunacy we crave but you are your own "sherpa"! There is no reason not to have a solid 7# "all-up" performing rifle.

I know from past practices that what I carry out on Day 1 of the hunt is not what I leave the tent with on Day 2. In other words, I cull out the extraneous items as a luxury not a necessity. Obviously that equates to less bulk and weight. There is also a need to consider a lighter empty backpack - as long as it fits and performs to your needs.

Also lets consider your physical fitness and overall weight. You are at your peak performance potential on Day 1. After that, the accumulated physical effects add up. Not to mention different foods and sleeping arrangements.

In other words, everything that goes on your back should be considered, not just the rifle. You will hunt as far as what your feet will "tell you". So... just how "good" are those boots?

bigwhoop: I agree. And the older I get the more sense it all makes.

I would like to SEE a non-resident hunter, say from "The Esstern Seaboard" states ACTUALLY carry a 9-10lb. rifle up and down a few BC mountains, every day for 10-14 days and not have his guide really carry it.

I have carried rifles of this weight in BC, hunting and wilderness working for over 50 years, often every day for months, working fire L/Os in some of the most remote parts of BC and AB.

It was not hard until my late 40s, twenty years ago and with the pack that "bigwhoop" so correctly mentions sbove, BUT, I NOW carry my 8.5 lb. Dakots 76-.338s, ZG-47-9.3x62, at about the same weight st the most and even these can be a real burden.

Frankly, from my experience in a few GO camps here, the visting US hunter is FAR better off with a 7.5lb. 270 or 30-06 and being a GOOD shot using premium bullets. I also favour 4x scopes, or, smaller variables, Talley QDs and a spare, matching scope in camp.

Other than thin air, however that is a definite downside for an Eastern seaboard hunter, you don't have to be in BC to appreciate an easy carrying rifle. Places here, such as WV and parts of Pa will test the legs and what you have in your hand equally.

One day up, down and around is one thing. Everyday for a couple weeks another.

Buttue: The further east I get, the lighter I like them.


SNAP: Touche!

Bob, my post was not intended as any form of "put down", I just have found that most guys find heavy rifles a real burden in BC's typical Devil's Club, Buckbrush and VERY steep country....I am used to it and I sure do!

SNAP: I was applauding your wisdom and choices.

Forgive me if my response did not convey that.

I agree with most everything, but not being 20 to 40 pounds overweight, and in good aerobic condition means more on a hunt, than an extra pound of rifle.

Most hunters, including too often myself, are not at the weight and physical condition needed to hunt mountains, or really do anything but ride a four wheeler.

Yes and as the hunt progresses, the out of shape hunter loses less drive to climb the next ridge or walk up the valley one more time. He is defeated not by his 8+# rifle but his overweight/out of condition abilities. It matters little if he had a "bean field rifle" or a Kifaru Rambling rifle.
Again, its all fun to talk about losing the last 2 oz. from a "lightweight" rifle but
the real limitation just may be the person staring back at you in the mirror.