So I'm looking to get into this backpacking game, and with my changing jobs at the end of the month I'm expecting a 1200-1500 check for my unused vacation time. The wife said I could use that money to buy/build a rifle. So I need some imput on a rifle within that budget. I have a definite preference for high end...

I'm all set up to load for the 6.5x55 and the 6.5-284 and would like not to have to reload another cartridge. Max weight should be ~6.5 with scope and rings (nothing heavier then a Leupold 6x42) I'm not on any time line, so a build is certainly an option.

Thoughts?

McMillan Edge $500, cha-ching$$!!!

I'll let the other members post the rest............ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

MtnHtr

For a $1200-1500 budget I'd find a NIB SA Kimber Montana or Remmy Ti and call it good. You'd have a little change left over for glass.

1

Based on the rifles I have actually seen and handled, my lightweights will continue to be built on HVA actions in cals. such as the 25-06 to the .338-06; these can be brought in at about 7 lbs.,, scoped and ready to rock. I find the HVA action MUCH smoother and better built that any Kimber or Remmy I have seen to date, they are available used w/o too much trauma and are CRF, which I prefer.

For a "ready-made" light rifle, I would choose an Ultralight and find a minty used one in your price range. I have my eye on a .223 at my gunshop, these are a VERY neat piece.

I've only seen one HVA action ever around here and it was pretty well beat up and they still wanted $650 for it. I do like CRF and love the 6.5x55 cartridge but my other serious hunting rifle is a 9.3x62 and it only goes 7lbs. 13oz, and I still plan to put it on a diet with some different scope rings and possibly a different stock.

i figure a smaller bore rifle should go at least a pound lighter. Anyone have any thoughts on punching out the Ti to 6.5-284?

JimF has a super light rifle, in 6.5x284 I think but my memory may be wrong. I think he is down well under 6 lbs. and maybe under 5 with scope mounted. Search the archives if he he doesn't pitch in on this thread. Have no idea how much loot he has in his light weight job. IMO it sounds like an ideal combo of cartridge and weight for backpacking after deer sized critters and would do for bigger in careful hands.

I think a .260 Ti would be close enough that I wouldn't bother. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

McM Edge stock, remmy Ti Punched 6.5-284, Leupy 6x42 with Elevation Turret.

Works for me.

BMT

BMT done nailed it.... were it me...

If you have two rifles for the same round, the same handloaded ammo rarely works really well in both.
I like the Kimber Montana better than the Remington Ti. Better balance, like the action features better, I like the stock dimensions better, etc.
Really no flies in either.
I know a Rem Ti can easily be punched out to a 6.5-284. The Kimber should, but I'm not sure as the whole action is scaled down.
I wouldn't try to build a rifle from the ground up with scope for that money. JimF's guns, for instance, are outstanding. But they are all highly reworked with all sorts of extra machine work. Many of his components he has hunted down very carefully for bargain prices over the years. It can be done. He did. But, I personally, wouldn't go to that much trouble or work at it that long. E

I shoot a Ti in 260 and have thoughts of punching it out to 6.5-284.
I might gain 150 fps, maybe not.

I would go with something more than just 6x on the scope but then thats just me. My rifle has a Leupold 2.5x8 and set on 8x 80% of the time. I have not killed a deer or elk in the past 10 years with my scope set on less than 8x. Ranges are normally 300 +.
8x is my favorite setting.


I took this deer this year at over 500 yards using 130 Swift Sciroccos loaded to 2,900 fps. I don't think a x284 case would have made any difference.
The only thing I would change are my mounts and rings to some
Talley LW's. Which I will do this year.

As far as going with a Mcmillan Stock, the Ti stock works just great I don't know what you would gain by going with a Mcmillan?

Stock out of the box the Ti works and for that fact a Kimber just as well. Have the Ti trigger done and your ready to hunt.

It's a real KISS rifle.

Figured a McM Hunters Edge was "high end" so I recommended one. You go with what you want, just make sure you will be satisfied in the end. Good luck! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

MtnHtr

SU,

He would gain some nice checkering, a few less oz and a slightly trimmer, stiffer stock by going with a McM Hunters Edge. Its tough plunking down hundreds more $$ so the McM Hunters Edge is not for everyone. I would have never bought one if not for a great source (paid less than full price). Even then I'll probably only own/build one for myself as I view them as a specialty stock, which a backpacking rifle is. The Ti or Kimber remains a great choice.................

MtnHtr

Mtn Hunter,

You are right and I believe you! I wish I had one!

It has to be the ultimate BP hunting stock. My pocketbook tells me
I have to get by with what I have, maybe one day.

Next purchase though is going to be that new Nikon Spotter
50 mm ED.

You could do the build at 1500 if the glass is not part of the budget. If it is, you'll be a tad short if using an Edge. Your weight target is easy either way and I'd be tempted to go along with those suggesting a Ti or a Kimber. The downside there is that there is no guarantee that either factory rifle will be exceptionally accurate.

Some will chime in their (insert flavor here) shoots 1/2" groups "all day long" it may be true that theirs does, but I wouldn't necessarily expect yours to. It might, but it probably won't. (Unless of course we are talking about "internet" groups)

I never spent much more than about $1400 on mine, but I have always used Bansner or Ti stocks and done the stock work myself. Using an Edge, and or/paying for the bedding/finish can rob your budget for other things.

Re: The 6.5x284 thing I'm not sure that it's a good Idea to punch out a Kimber. Some say yea and others nay and I can't say either way. For sure you could do 'er on a Ti. As much of a fan of that chambering as I am, I'd suggest saving the rechamber cost and spend it on 260 dies if you went for a Kimber.

JimF

Going whole hog custom with a $500.00 barrel will not guarantee a half minute rifle either, especially a buggy whip barrel.

You're right, it sure won't. In fact I probably shoulda said that myself. I don't expect any ~~ 6 lb rifle to shoot that well. I do think that the chances are better with that $500 custom barrel. But maybe not enough to justify the cost difference.

JimF

I'm aiming for 7lbs all up with my backpack rifle project due to the #2 Lilja. Anything under that will be icing on the cake!

MtnHtr

What the weight difference between a long action and short action Remington? I'm trying to figure out a parts break down by weight, so I can figure out what I can get away with and still hit my goals.

http://www.brownprecision.com/SelectingComponents.htm

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.

Yes! My wife knows I fall down a lot and that I shoot irons pretty well. She would kick my ass if I blew all a hunt's worth of money and vacation time by not having iron sights when I trashed my rifle.


Okie John

Yup, good point, OJ, I have always quietly chuckled when I am in a remote camp in northern B.C. and see guys who have paid BIG $$$$ for a hunt and they bring a rifle wearing a large variable scope in something like Leupy DD mounts.

I have seen this quite often and I have good irons on all my hunting rifles as an incident in my second season, 1965, when a brand new Bushnell scope fogged on me up in the then-remote Lardeau area of B.C. taught me a lesson, the hard way.

I prefer the P-64 Mod. 70 Alaskan in a synthetic stock, with a one-piece Leupy QR base, QR rings, Leupy 1.75x6 scope and an old, steel receiver sight with sourdough front for all my serious backpack hunting. Not the lightest rifle around, but, the reliability, power and available spare irons has worked for me since the early '90s; before that, I used Redfield one piece mounts and the receiver sight setup for years, especially on work rifles.

Part of my preference for the .338 "old" Mod. 70s over the .375s, at one point I had five in .338 and three in .375, is the fact that the .338s can be setup this way and the .375s cannot. Here in Canada, where good gunsmiths are very few, one has to often work out practical setups on one's own rifles and this works just fine.

kute, any chance we could see a photo of that sight setup?


Okie John

Where are the differences between one piece and 2 piece bases (on the leupold QR format)?

I'm sorry, but, I do not have a digital camera or the gizmo to post pix and I don't expect to get one until next year. Just visualize the old Redfield 1-piece base, only in the Leupy QR style, with high rings and an old type steel receiver sight mounted in the factory side holes, slide left in.

This only works well with Leupy scopes, synthetic stocks with their high combs and the sourdough front, but, if done with 8/40 screws as mine are and epoxied to the receiver, it works and it has yet to fail me. I also have a spare B&L Balvar 1.5x6x32 in Leupy QR rings for the two Alaskans I use most and even some spare parts from a beater P-64.

You cannot do this with an FN, Brno, HVA or any other CRF actioned rifle I know of and this is one of the reasons I prefer the P-64-.338 and have been willing to seek them out and pay the high $$$$$ they command in the market.

The major difference is that the 1-piece base is attached by 3 screws, so, I strengthen it by 8/40s and epoxy and the 2-piece has four screws and it's design precludes a setup like this. I started using this type of thing many years ago due to the influence of older guys I worked with in the bush who used the Redfield 1-piece base and a receiver sight.

I don't consider this the ultimate solution, however, it works for my needs where I hunt. There are alternatives, such as Brockman's peep-base for Talley rings, which I ain't real keen on and this costs a lot more $$$$.

Each to his own, but, the Talley's I just put on my very lovely older Dakota 76 do NOT impress me, I would go with EAW mounts if I did it again.

I'm going w/ leupy QR 2pc basses on my M70 LH. I liked the talleys, but I want a solid QR setup with least weight added.

I have tried about everything over the years and I prefer properly setup Leupy mounts and scopes to anything; I can afford the other stuff and do like EAWs for certain things, as the Leupy bases on the Dakota look like hell struck with a club, but, all BS and "snob appeal" aside, Leupy makes gawdam good stuff!

My other choice, IF, you could find them, would be Tom Burgess rings on custom bases with Recknagel irons.

"My other choice, IF, you could find them, would be Tom Burgess rings on custom bases with Recknagel irons."

...That just "pronounces" too expensive. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The leupolds will be fine until Talley makes a better offering.