comerade - I don't think there's much point in a 22" barreled Weatherby magnum,
I agree.
...which is why they currently come in 26", and the older ones were available in 24" & 26". The cartridges were designed to run in longer barreled rifles - they need the inches to hit their stride. I hunt frequently in thick woods and swamps in the southeast, usually with a 22" 30-06, and have never wished for a shorter barrel or felt like the longer barrel was a hindrance.
There we disagree. Although I' have a 26" barreled rifle, I choose not to carry it afield. Personal prefernce is 22" or shorter.
Ziggy - I agree. How long ago was it that men (and some women) carried 8 & 9 lb rifles all over the place and never whined about it? I do have one lightweight rifle and enjoy carrying it, but I sure as Hell don't feel sorry for myself when I'm humping around a full sized rifle.
I'm not Ziggy, but how long ago was it since I gave a flying F what others choose? And why should anyone care if others choose differently? The older I get the more I appreciate light rifles with light recoil. But once I was young and stupid and didn't know better. Now I know I don't need to put up with heavy recoil or weight to get the job done. Many others have apparently come to the same conclusion. Apparently light rifles and low recoil age work for a lot of people.
This "cost" argument never fails to crack me up. Even if I was forced to buy Weatherby factory ammo at full cost, it would still be the cheapest part of the whole hunting experience. If money's a problem, you'll find it's probably a lot cheaper to just go to the grocery store than gear up to go hunting.[/quote]
Cost is a relative thing. A few $ to one person is a lot, to another it is nothing. While I've reached the point in my life where I can do what I want, I'm still a cheapskate that prefers to spend his money on bullets rather than brass and powder. Especially when the end result (game down) is the same but with less recoil.
