What is everyone's opinions on the ultimate light weight hunting rifle? Caliber ? Barrel length? Stock? Action?
I have a short action titanium, standard 308 bolt face. Can't make up my mind on what to build. I want it to be light but still be able to make a 5-600 yd shot if needed. Leaning toward a 260 ackley with 130 Bergers or 708 ackley
I'm one that believes a rifle can be built too light. A 6.5lb all-up rifle (w/ scope, sling, rounds) is the least weight for my wants/needs, and I'd always take a muzzle heavy rifle with something like a no. 2 contour @ 22".
The cartridge is essentially meaningless among any standard .473 SA rounds. The 100 fps of an Ai translates into little meaningful gain and more hassle.
The standard 308, 7-08 and 260 are basically equals inside 600 yards, with the nod to the 6.5-08 for less drift. As always, the shooter makes the rifle, not the reverse.
Pick one that speaks to you, but I'd not bother with an Ai anything of those you mention. Push to shove, I'd go with the one with Lapua Brass availability.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
I like a "lightweight" to be somewhere between 6.5-7lbs scoped, with good balance. If I already had a Ti 700 action, I'd probably lean toward a 21" 6.5 Creedmoor. Contour would be a #2 or Remington Sporter. The stock would be an Edge Classic or Edge Mountain Rifle. I'd go with a Timney at 2lbs. That rifle would have a bit of forward balance, but still be quite light, at 5 3/4lbs or so for the naked rifle.
JPro, I have a Kimber MT 257 Rob... if I don't get it shooting the way I want I'm going to put one of SAS's Lilja modified Model 84M (no.2) contours on it chambered in 6.5 Creed. That round makes a ton of sense.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Montana with a little more contour has always seemed like one of the neatest packages out there. If it were me, I'd be tempted to look at the .169/.170 freebore reamer for the Creedmoor over the later (and now standard) .199/.200 freebore. I was playing with some brass and bullets this morning and the slightly shorter throat looks to be a bit more flexible in a 2.82" magazine box.
What is everyone's opinions on the ultimate light weight hunting rifle? Caliber ? Barrel length? Stock? Action?
Mine's a stainless 700, 23" Rock #3 fluted, in a Classic no paint Edge, 2.5-8 Leupold in Talleys, chambered in 7-08, weighing in at 6lb 13oz empty.
It is milled out for a Wyatts box, and while I have good loads for 162 Amax or 168 Bergers, I put the regular mag box in it and have great matching loads of either 140 BT's or Accubonds at 2940.
I'll be using it mainly for deer and antelope possibly elk. I just fill under gunned when I'm chasing elk if I don't have a magnum in my hands even though I've killed plenty with as small as a 243. I'm also a speed freak , reasoning for the ackley
I think it'd be hard to beat the plain Jane 308 for the game you describe. I'd keep it 6.5 -7 lbs use Talley lightweights and your favorite lightweight scope - done.
I put together a 7lb 15oz Ti M700. Standard barrel cut to 18", suppressor, edge mountain rifle stock and zeiss diavari 3-9x42 in Warne premiers together with recknagel 3position safety.
Even with a 1lb suppressor on the end it is still a light rifle to aim at the one chance I had after a long flight and 5 days hunting.
I have a Montana w/ a slightly heavier contour barrel, finished at 23" and cahmbered in 7mm-08AI. Easy to shoot accurately, easy to load for. I am shooting shooting MOA or better to 500yds from supported field positions,. The rifle topped w/ a 3-9x42 SS SWFA weighs 7.0 pounds.
I strongly disagree with the whole AI "not being worth it" when having a new tube installed. I wouldn't go to the expense to rechamber a factory barrel, but it costs no more to AI a new barrel. An AI w/ a highly finished custom barrel and a tight chamber will achieve the same velocities w/ factory fodder as a facory non AI equivalent - my 7mm-08AI routinely gets printed velocity or a little higher w/ factory 7mm-08 ammunitiin.
While Ackley chambers don't provide a huge boost in performance, more is reliably more. My 7mm-08AI pushes 150grn Scenar L's at 29000+ fps with long brass life. Just starting to work up 145 LRX's but they are looking very promising. Not having to trim brass is a nice bonus.
If you're wanting lightweight, I'd do a New Ultralight Arms. Melvin knows how to do it right. Personally, I'd go with the Model 20 with its 3" mag for COAL latitude. This would allow a 260 to shine.
If you're wanting lightweight, I'd do a New Ultralight Arms. Melvin knows how to do it right. Personally, I'd go with the Model 20 with its 3" mag for COAL latitude. This would allow a 260 to shine.
How fast could you push the .260, .260 AI, and a 6.5-.284 Win from a 22" barrel?
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
I've been tempted to build a light 7SAUM for a long time, but then I found the Kimber 280, and the shine wore off of a build.
If I were sitting on a TI action with .473 bolt face I'd build a 7-08/AI or 260/AI. Most likely dupe the TI/MR barrel profile, and edge mountain rifle McMillan for the stock.
Building a midweight on a TI action just seems wrong, but I guess it depends on what you are planning to do with it.
I recently had a 23" Lilja #1 6x47 installed on an ADL and dropped it in a Ti first gen stock, seemed about right. But compared to the recently re-barreled 84M 6.5x47 I knew what direction I was headed.
If I had a 700 Ti I would definitely build it and take advantage of the light weight and use no heavier than a Lilja #1 or similar contour and Edge stock.
No matter what you build there will be something on the left and the right that looks good. If flying a number 2 tube would may consider flipping the ti action and paying for the rest of the build and be very happy.
Factory considerations are nominal. Flyweights are fun. Anything on the 308 case down would be a hoot.
The creed is getting lots of love and is perfectly capable of whatever you may choose to kill out to 1/4 mile plus with factory fodder.
The 308 is money.
708 always a favorite and about the best in the middle category for big to little and in a pinch factory offerings.
Wont matter what you build as there will be something to scratch shortly after completion.
My 10 pennies would offer opening bolt to mag. Chambering up a #2 to 350 Mag at 22" and relish in the fact you have the most bitchin 35 cal on the planet.
But thats me. And I have no problem hammering things inside of 300 with a hammer above reproach...
Cheers...
W
Last edited by woofer; 10/13/16.
"I would build one again, if it were not for my 350RM (grin)."
How fast could you push the .260, .260 AI, and a 6.5-.284 Win from a 22" barrel?
I specifically recall a 4lb 9 oz(bare)Rifles Inc. SA Ti700 6.5/284 pushing 140gn Barnes at 2945(hunting load) but ones needs to take into account its longer barrel(24") and any vel. variation one encounters from rifle to rifle.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
I've done the whole AI thing and to me it just ins't worth it, maybe a varmint round that gets shot a lot the trimming might factor in but not in a hunting rifle, the velocity gains are not big enough to me to make me want to go that route again, there are so many good cartridges out now , for your action and you being a gunsmith the 6.5 284 would be perfect......good luck with your project!!
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
The present trend seems to be centered around short-action rifle and cartridges, and I've had my share of light rifles based on that theme. But the one I've had the longest, and killed the most big game with, is a NULA .30-06 that's now 20 years old--and would be one of the last I'd part with. Despite having a 24-inch #2 Douglas barrel it weighs six pounds on the nose with scope.
One of the great virtues of NULA's is they shoot a LOT of ammo well, and often to the same point of impact, one reason I've never permanently settled on one load. (The other is new bullets and powders over the last 20 years.) Another is that unless the scope goes bad, or somebody falls on it, they retain zero year after year, even when traveling from continent to continent. My wife's first NULA was a .270 Winchester with a #1 22" barrel, and for a decade she'd go to the range early each fall and shoot one round. It would land two inches high at 100 yards, never varying more than about a 1/4", and she'd go hunting. The scope finally died (the sometimes do on real lightweights) but that wasn't the fault of the rifle, and in that period it had not only hunted all over Montana but went on two caribou hunts involving several plane rides, plus bouncing around in boats, one on the Arctic Ocean.
Some people make a big deal about the lighter weight and shorter bolt throw of short action, but the .30-06 is a Model 24, which means the action weighs 24 ounces. The bolt throw is less than half an inch longer than that of a Model 20 NULA action.
I acquired this rifle back when I was traveling a lot more than today, one reason it's a .30-06: If anything happened to my ammo, some could be easily found, anywhere ammo is available on earth. If making the same choice today I might opt for a .308 Winchester, but maybe not One thing I've noticed is the .30-06 also works fine with what are essentially .308 loads, whether factory ammo or slightly reduced handloads.
All in all, however, the virtue of my NULA isn't the chambering but the overall consistency of NULA rifles. Eileen eventually replaced her .270 with another NULA, a Model 20 in .257 Roberts, not for lighter weight but due to less recoil. We went to the range the other day to check the zero before pronghorn season, and it put one shot in exactly the same place it has for several years.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
How fast could you push the .260, .260 AI, and a 6.5-.284 Win from a 22" barrel?
I specifically recall a 4lb 9 oz(bare)Rifles Inc. SA Ti700 6.5/284 pushing 140gn Barnes at 2945(hunting load) but ones needs to take into account its longer barrel(24") and any vel. variation one encounters from rifle to rifle.
I think I've settled on a build I've kinda swayed from my original thoughts of doing a 260 or 7mm. I wish I had a long action. So going with what I have I'm going to build a 6mm competition match with a 24" fluted #2 contour 8 twist on the pierce titanum sitting in a McMillan edge stock with the nightforce 2.5-10x42. I love the 6mm caliber for its light recoil and bullet selection. I think it will fit my needs perfectly. If I had a long action, the good ol 270 would probably get the go ahead or me wanting something different, the 270 Gibbs
I'll be using it mainly for deer and antelope possibly elk. I just fill under gunned when I'm chasing elk if I don't have a magnum in my hands even though I've killed plenty with as small as a 243. I'm also a speed freak , reasoning for the ackley
Build up a 6.5 SAUM.
M700 action, magnum boltface, mill the action for a Wyatt's extended box, put it in a blind-mag ultralight high quality stock of your choice. Maybe flute the bolt and replace the shroud/pin etc if you are REALLY gonna get geeky with it.
You'll have one in the chamber and two down, about the lightest recoil your gonna get for the drift ballistics, it'll feed slick as snot with the Wyatt's, etc. Brass can be bought from GAP.
Do you NEED to do this? No. A 7-08 MR would be just fine. Would it be "best"? Dare I say it................. YES!
Anybody who seriously concerns themselves with the adequacy of a Big 7mm for anything we hunt here short of brown bear, is a dufus. They are mostly making shidt up. Crunch! Nite-nite!
I can find some similar rifle you can make do with.
Anybody who seriously concerns themselves with the adequacy of a Big 7mm for anything we hunt here short of brown bear, is a dufus. They are mostly making shidt up. Crunch! Nite-nite!
I have a Montana w/ a slightly heavier contour barrel, finished at 23" and cahmbered in 7mm-08AI. Easy to shoot accurately, easy to load for. I am shooting shooting MOA or better to 500yds from supported field positions,. The rifle topped w/ a 3-9x42 SS SWFA weighs 7.0 pounds.
I strongly disagree with the whole AI "not being worth it" when having a new tube installed. I wouldn't go to the expense to rechamber a factory barrel, but it costs no more to AI a new barrel. An AI w/ a highly finished custom barrel and a tight chamber will achieve the same velocities w/ factory fodder as a facory non AI equivalent - my 7mm-08AI routinely gets printed velocity or a little higher w/ factory 7mm-08 ammunitiin.
While Ackley chambers don't provide a huge boost in performance, more is reliably more. My 7mm-08AI pushes 150grn Scenar L's at 29000+ fps with long brass life. Just starting to work up 145 LRX's but they are looking very promising. Not having to trim brass is a nice bonus.
David
I figure a .284, 150 gr. @ 29000 FPS, to be around 28000 ft lbs of Energy. Any issues with Recoil?
I have a Montana w/ a slightly heavier contour barrel, finished at 23" and cahmbered in 7mm-08AI. Easy to shoot accurately, easy to load for. I am shooting shooting MOA or better to 500yds from supported field positions,. The rifle topped w/ a 3-9x42 SS SWFA weighs 7.0 pounds.
I strongly disagree with the whole AI "not being worth it" when having a new tube installed. I wouldn't go to the expense to rechamber a factory barrel, but it costs no more to AI a new barrel. An AI w/ a highly finished custom barrel and a tight chamber will achieve the same velocities w/ factory fodder as a facory non AI equivalent - my 7mm-08AI routinely gets printed velocity or a little higher w/ factory 7mm-08 ammunitiin.
While Ackley chambers don't provide a huge boost in performance, more is reliably more. My 7mm-08AI pushes 150grn Scenar L's at 29000+ fps with long brass life. Just starting to work up 145 LRX's but they are looking very promising. Not having to trim brass is a nice bonus.
David
I figure a .284, 150 gr. @ 29000 FPS, to be around 28000 ft lbs of Energy. Any issues with Recoil?
I built this .308 before Kimber put out the Montana or Rem the Ti.
It shoots lights out, but if I had to do it now I think I'd buy a Montana in 6.5 Creedmoor and call it good.
"What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated." Thomas Paine
I'm not opposed to long actions.... when there's a reason.
However the "ultimate light weight hunting rifle" will most assuredly be a short action. It's that whole "ultimate" thing.
Flame suit on!
Phooey. Internet hyperbole.
Bob, you and I put together our ultimate actual using hunting rifles. Jeff argues a theoretical concept.
Anybody who seriously concerns themselves with the adequacy of a Big 7mm for anything we hunt here short of brown bear, is a dufus. They are mostly making shidt up. Crunch! Nite-nite!
What would a short action Pierce weigh in an edge with a 22" in a winchester ultralight contour? For one thing, you sacrifice beautiful wood for synthetic but it is lighter
The present trend seems to be centered around short-action rifle and cartridges, and I've had my share of light rifles based on that theme. But the one I've had the longest, and killed the most big game with, is a NULA .30-06 that's now 20 years old--and would be one of the last I'd part with. Despite having a 24-inch #2 Douglas barrel it weighs six pounds on the nose with scope.
One of the great virtues of NULA's is they shoot a LOT of ammo well, and often to the same point of impact, one reason I've never permanently settled on one load. (The other is new bullets and powders over the last 20 years.) Another is that unless the scope goes bad, or somebody falls on it, they retain zero year after year, even when traveling from continent to continent. My wife's first NULA was a .270 Winchester with a #1 22" barrel, and for a decade she'd go to the range early each fall and shoot one round. It would land two inches high at 100 yards, never varying more than about a 1/4", and she'd go hunting. The scope finally died (the sometimes do on real lightweights) but that wasn't the fault of the rifle, and in that period it had not only hunted all over Montana but went on two caribou hunts involving several plane rides, plus bouncing around in boats, one on the Arctic Ocean.
Some people make a big deal about the lighter weight and shorter bolt throw of short action, but the .30-06 is a Model 24, which means the action weighs 24 ounces. The bolt throw is less than half an inch longer than that of a Model 20 NULA action.
I acquired this rifle back when I was traveling a lot more than today, one reason it's a .30-06: If anything happened to my ammo, some could be easily found, anywhere ammo is available on earth. If making the same choice today I might opt for a .308 Winchester, but maybe not One thing I've noticed is the .30-06 also works fine with what are essentially .308 loads, whether factory ammo or slightly reduced handloads.
All in all, however, the virtue of my NULA isn't the chambering but the overall consistency of NULA rifles. Eileen eventually replaced her .270 with another NULA, a Model 20 in .257 Roberts, not for lighter weight but due to less recoil. We went to the range the other day to check the zero before pronghorn season, and it put one shot in exactly the same place it has for several years.
There is no doubt that the NULA is an absolutely awesome lightweight rifle. I've truly enjoyed mine. I've had a few different calibers. My 30-06 is incredibly accurate, but I don't enjoy shooting it as much as the other, especially in a prone position. I'm not exactly carrying a lot of extra weight and my stiff handloads pack about as much punch as I can tolerate. I've been debating rebarrelling to something a bit tamer since I'm such a wus. For a lightweight carrying rifle, I wouldn't look any further.
What would a short action Pierce weigh in an edge with a 22" in a winchester ultralight contour? For one thing, you sacrifice beautiful wood for synthetic but it is lighter
If you go to Jon Beanlands website to the build section, check out build #15. Its pretty much what you just described and per the website it weighs 5 lbs.
"Rather hunt Mule deer than anything else" "Team 7MM-08"
The present trend seems to be centered around short-action rifle and cartridges, and I've had my share of light rifles based on that theme. But the one I've had the longest, and killed the most big game with, is a NULA .30-06 that's now 20 years old--and would be one of the last I'd part with. Despite having a 24-inch #2 Douglas barrel it weighs six pounds on the nose with scope.
One of the great virtues of NULA's is they shoot a LOT of ammo well, and often to the same point of impact, one reason I've never permanently settled on one load. (The other is new bullets and powders over the last 20 years.) Another is that unless the scope goes bad, or somebody falls on it, they retain zero year after year, even when traveling from continent to continent. My wife's first NULA was a .270 Winchester with a #1 22" barrel, and for a decade she'd go to the range early each fall and shoot one round. It would land two inches high at 100 yards, never varying more than about a 1/4", and she'd go hunting. The scope finally died (the sometimes do on real lightweights) but that wasn't the fault of the rifle, and in that period it had not only hunted all over Montana but went on two caribou hunts involving several plane rides, plus bouncing around in boats, one on the Arctic Ocean.
Some people make a big deal about the lighter weight and shorter bolt throw of short action, but the .30-06 is a Model 24, which means the action weighs 24 ounces. The bolt throw is less than half an inch longer than that of a Model 20 NULA action.
I acquired this rifle back when I was traveling a lot more than today, one reason it's a .30-06: If anything happened to my ammo, some could be easily found, anywhere ammo is available on earth. If making the same choice today I might opt for a .308 Winchester, but maybe not One thing I've noticed is the .30-06 also works fine with what are essentially .308 loads, whether factory ammo or slightly reduced handloads.
All in all, however, the virtue of my NULA isn't the chambering but the overall consistency of NULA rifles. Eileen eventually replaced her .270 with another NULA, a Model 20 in .257 Roberts, not for lighter weight but due to less recoil. We went to the range the other day to check the zero before pronghorn season, and it put one shot in exactly the same place it has for several years.
There is no doubt that the NULA is an absolutely awesome lightweight rifle. I've truly enjoyed mine. I've had a few different calibers. My 30-06 is incredibly accurate, but I don't enjoy shooting it as much as the other, especially in a prone position. I'm not exactly carrying a lot of extra weight and my stiff handloads pack about as much punch as I can tolerate. I've been debating rebarrelling to something a bit tamer since I'm such a wus. For a lightweight carrying rifle, I wouldn't look any further.
That's the beauty of the 308... especially in a true lightweight, I notice the difference in recoil between it and the 30-06.
My "lightweights" (I consider a true lightweight sub 7lbs scoped, with sling and rounds) have all been Kimber MT's. What I've found is my enjoyment level peaks out at the 308 in the 84M and 270 in the 84L.
One of these days I'm going to rebarrel a Montana to a no.2 contour, in which case I'd consider them about the pinnacle of lightweight design. As it is, I consider the NULA with its no.2 about perfect.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The present trend seems to be centered around short-action rifle and cartridges, and I've had my share of light rifles based on that theme. But the one I've had the longest, and killed the most big game with, is a NULA .30-06 that's now 20 years old--and would be one of the last I'd part with. Despite having a 24-inch #2 Douglas barrel it weighs six pounds on the nose with scope.
One of the great virtues of NULA's is they shoot a LOT of ammo well, and often to the same point of impact, one reason I've never permanently settled on one load. (The other is new bullets and powders over the last 20 years.) Another is that unless the scope goes bad, or somebody falls on it, they retain zero year after year, even when traveling from continent to continent. My wife's first NULA was a .270 Winchester with a #1 22" barrel, and for a decade she'd go to the range early each fall and shoot one round. It would land two inches high at 100 yards, never varying more than about a 1/4", and she'd go hunting. The scope finally died (the sometimes do on real lightweights) but that wasn't the fault of the rifle, and in that period it had not only hunted all over Montana but went on two caribou hunts involving several plane rides, plus bouncing around in boats, one on the Arctic Ocean.
Some people make a big deal about the lighter weight and shorter bolt throw of short action, but the .30-06 is a Model 24, which means the action weighs 24 ounces. The bolt throw is less than half an inch longer than that of a Model 20 NULA action.
I acquired this rifle back when I was traveling a lot more than today, one reason it's a .30-06: If anything happened to my ammo, some could be easily found, anywhere ammo is available on earth. If making the same choice today I might opt for a .308 Winchester, but maybe not One thing I've noticed is the .30-06 also works fine with what are essentially .308 loads, whether factory ammo or slightly reduced handloads.
All in all, however, the virtue of my NULA isn't the chambering but the overall consistency of NULA rifles. Eileen eventually replaced her .270 with another NULA, a Model 20 in .257 Roberts, not for lighter weight but due to less recoil. We went to the range the other day to check the zero before pronghorn season, and it put one shot in exactly the same place it has for several years.
There is no doubt that the NULA is an absolutely awesome lightweight rifle. I've truly enjoyed mine. I've had a few different calibers. My 30-06 is incredibly accurate, but I don't enjoy shooting it as much as the other, especially in a prone position. I'm not exactly carrying a lot of extra weight and my stiff handloads pack about as much punch as I can tolerate. I've been debating rebarrelling to something a bit tamer since I'm such a wus. For a lightweight carrying rifle, I wouldn't look any further.
That's the beauty of the 308... especially in a true lightweight, I notice the difference in recoil between it and the 30-06.
My "lightweights" (I consider a true lightweight sub 7lbs scoped, with sling and rounds) have all been Kimber MT's. What I've found is my enjoyment level peaks out at the 308 in the 84M and 270 in the 84L.
One of these days I'm going to rebarrel a Montana to a no.2 contour, in which case I'd consider them about the pinnacle of lightweight design. As it is, I consider the NULA with its no.2 about perfect.
Brad, if the 308 is your suggestion to herchel, it's a good one. However, if he's shooting a 30-06 right now and his rifle is a long action I'd probably lean more towards the 7x57mm mauser. As much as we like to give Ingwe chit about it, it's still a damn good cartridge..
Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.
fwiw... Rifles that are both very light and easy to shoot well are expensive propositions and for me at least, get chosen for hunts with more on the line in money, prep and years accumulating points. Personally speaking...have had Nula, Montana and a custom lightweight M-70. Prefer a barrel with a bit more out front. I'm not crazy about 700s, but the 700TI cuts weight where others (cept Pierce) can't.
A 24" #3 tube reduces the waving wand effect when panting at altitude and it has been a notable improvement for me, over past lightweights.
Prefer the 280AI as recoil-wise the 280AI is as much case capacity as I want to stand in a 6# all-up piece. The scope included in that 6# figure is a 3-9x42 Zeiss 1" (16oz). At the time of the build, the smith talked me out of the 7 Rem SAUM, which has effectively the same capacity. Since then Nosler made the 280AI legitimate w/brass. I like the way it worked out.
If I had your SA TI, I do whatever 6.5 or 7mm case without having to fireform, that would get me the most FPS with a .248 SD class bullet.
I'm not opposed to long actions.... when there's a reason.
However the "ultimate light weight hunting rifle" will most assuredly be a short action. It's that whole "ultimate" thing.
Flame suit on!
Phooey. Internet hyperbole.
Bob, you and I put together our ultimate actual using hunting rifles. Jeff argues a theoretical concept.
Not so! I've put together a 7-08 M700 MR that while perhaps not the "ultimate", is on the face of it, more properly in the conversation than a LA M70 buildup. To wit, an ultralight glass stock, blind mag, aluminum TG, Gre-Tan shroud, Talleys, Leupold. It's very light, AND it possesses great potency.
Then I have a 7 WSM Montana. Can't really say I put that one together, though it is a re-barrel, but it's one heck of a light rifle, again if the idea is matching weight against capability.
You guys are starting from the premise that the ultimate rifle is a LA M70, then building light from there, then calling that the ultimate lightweight hunting rifle. If viewed more correctly for the purposes of this discussion then maximum utility per pound is the metric.
By the way I think those M70's are great looking and well thought out packages. I just think you are trying to shoehorn them into the category. Take the word "ultimate" out of the title and replace it with "excellent" or "classiest" and you might just have it.
This is my All around 308 bartlein 5r 20 inch barrel Defense an even machine rebel action Manners t1
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
What would a short action Pierce weigh in an edge with a 22" in a winchester ultralight contour? For one thing, you sacrifice beautiful wood for synthetic but it is lighter
If you go to Jon Beanlands website to the build section, check out build #15. Its pretty much what you just described and per the website it weighs 5 lbs.
Thanks! I am going to order an action soon, I just need to decide if I want to go with a .260 or a 6.5 GAP......Decisions decisions
fwiw... Rifles that are both very light and easy to shoot well are expensive propositions and for me at least, get chosen for hunts with more on the line in money, prep and years accumulating points. Personally speaking...have had Nula, Montana and a custom lightweight M-70. Prefer a barrel with a bit more out front. I'm not crazy about 700s, but the 700TI cuts weight where others (cept Pierce) can't.
A 24" #3 tube reduces the waving wand effect when panting at altitude and it has been a notable improvement for me, over past lightweights.
Prefer the 280AI as recoil-wise the 280AI is as much case capacity as I want to stand in a 6# all-up piece. The scope included in that 6# figure is a 3-9x42 Zeiss 1" (16oz). At the time of the build, the smith talked me out of the 7 Rem SAUM, which has effectively the same capacity. Since then Nosler made the 280AI legitimate w/brass. I like the way it worked out.
If I had your SA TI, I do whatever 6.5 or 7mm case without having to fireform, that would get me the most FPS with a .248 SD class bullet.
YMMV...
His boltface is wrong (easily correctable) but the 6.5 SAUM does as you spec.
What would a short action Pierce weigh in an edge with a 22" in a winchester ultralight contour? For one thing, you sacrifice beautiful wood for synthetic but it is lighter
If you go to Jon Beanlands website to the build section, check out build #15. Its pretty much what you just described and per the website it weighs 5 lbs.
Thanks! I am going to order an action soon, I just need to decide if I want to go with a .260 or a 6.5 GAP......Decisions decisions
.260 Rem
Life Member SCI Life Member DSC Member New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
Take your responsibilities seriously, never yourself-Ken Howell
You guys are starting from the premise that the ultimate rifle is a LA M70, then building light from there, then calling that the ultimate lightweight hunting rifle. If viewed more correctly for the purposes of this discussion then maximum utility per pound is the metric.
By the way I think those M70's are great looking and well thought out packages. I just think you are trying to shoehorn them into the category. Take the word "ultimate" out of the title and replace it with "excellent" or "classiest" and you might just have it.
With due regard to my good friends Bob and Rick, I agree 100% with everything you wrote there Jeff.
For my definition of "lightweight" (sub 7lbs, scoped with sling and rounds - it doesn't make sense to talk about a rifle any other way), most M70's just can't get there. Not really.
Case in point, I have a superb little SA M70 Classic Stainless 308 Featherweight. It's in a McMillan Edge with 1/2" Pad. Replacing the all-steel versions, it wears PT&G aluminum bottom metal, and a graphite follower. With a 6x36 Leupold in X-Low Talley Lwt's, 4 rounds and an Uncle Mikes Mountain Sling (about the lightest functional sling out there) it still weighs 7lbs 3.5 oz's.
That's 13.2 oz's heavier than my Kimber MT 308 with the same scope...
While I wouldn't call my M70 an "Ultimate Lightweight," in some ways its extra heft is a good thing, and I sure as heck like M70's. But I can promise 13 oz's less weight on a BP hunt makes a difference.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
I've gotten excellent accuracy in my NULA .30-06 with 150-165 grain bullets using several powders, including both H4350 and IMR4350, IMR4451 and Ramshot Big Game. Anything around a published starting load will result in .308 ballistics and recoil, though often a magnum primer helps with Big Game.
The last 150-grain bullet I tried was the Cutting Edge Raptor. 54.0 grains of Big Game got around 2850 fps and tiny groups, with what I consider very tolerable (if not downright pleasant) recoil. And I'm not nearly as willing to tolerate recoil as I used to be.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
I'm not opposed to long actions.... when there's a reason.
However the "ultimate light weight hunting rifle" will most assuredly be a short action. It's that whole "ultimate" thing.
Flame suit on!
Phooey. Internet hyperbole.
Bob, you and I put together our ultimate actual using hunting rifles. Jeff argues a theoretical concept.
Not so! I've put together a 7-08 M700 MR that while perhaps not the "ultimate", is on the face of it, more properly in the conversation than a LA M70 buildup. To wit, an ultralight glass stock, blind mag, aluminum TG, Gre-Tan shroud, Talleys, Leupold. It's very light, AND it possesses great potency.
Then I have a 7 WSM Montana. Can't really say I put that one together, though it is a re-barrel, but it's one heck of a light rifle, again if the idea is matching weight against capability.
You guys are starting from the premise that the ultimate rifle is a LA M70, then building light from there, then calling that the ultimate lightweight hunting rifle. If viewed more correctly for the purposes of this discussion then maximum utility per pound is the metric.
By the way I think those M70's are great looking and well thought out packages. I just think you are trying to shoehorn them into the category. Take the word "ultimate" out of the title and replace it with "excellent" or "classiest" and you might just have it.
Phooey again.
"Ultimate" is subjective. "Lightweight" is subjective.
There is no substantive difference between a rifle weighing a few ounces under 7 pounds to a few ounces over 7 pounds...neither in terms of portability or shootability.
The rifle in the photo above weighs 7 pounds on my scale with scope and mounts. Call me a liar and say 7.25. That's with leupold DD's,medium rings,and a S&B Summit. Scope and mounts are not lightweight gear, and I can easily get that rifle under 7 pounds with Talleys and a 4-6X scope. I know because I have done it...owned the rifle for 30+ years and shot out 2 barrels on it.
It isn't "shoehorned" in any way.....
Can I get a lighter rifle? yes.
Will it be better than the M70? No.
If by "ultimate" we mean "lightest" then say so. I won't comment on plastic parts, flimsy extractors, plunger ejectors, and enclosed triggers that usually accompany such pearls but that's another subject.
I wonder what my M700 MR weighs... there's no more obvious ways to lighten it (other than skeletonizing and fluting) but it's not a Ti.
Bob, since you mention triggers, I do recall your story about an issue with an enclosed M700 trigger when you were but a "yute" and I don't doubt you. That said, really light rifles need light triggers IMHO and I've never like the feel of the M70 trigger. With the new FN built ones it's compounded by the fact that you can't get replacements for them, either. Maybe that's changed.
On balance the Kimber starts looking hard to beat <grin>. At least on my sample of 1 the trigger is fantastic, and I have it set really light.
Anyway.... semantics aside as far as what the OP meant, clearly you've blueprinted one heck of a lightweight hunting rifle.
6.5 SAUM/GAP holds much potential when talking "ultimate lightweight"... I'm building one now but as a midweight. Once I have the reamer, who knows what mayhem might ensue.... grin. I think my Kimber would make a great 6.5 SAUM.
Just 'cause self-inflicted irony is cleansing, I actually packed a PIG of a rifle on my last backpack hunt. I wanted the capability. It's certainly easier to shoot a heavier rig über-accurately.
Jeff and Brad, I won't disagree with any of what you have said. But for me, ultimate lightweight and ultimate lightweight hunting rifle are not close to the same thing. I have had the Montana 7mm-08, no thanks.
The green stocked 280 above is 7 pounds 0 oz with a 6X36 and 7-4 with that Kahles CL. It was designed for lightweight backpacking but more importantly hitting in the field. When I spec'ed it I didn't go all-out for lightest weight, obviously. That is a kevlar stock, 22.9 oz with alloy trigger guard and blind mag. DD rings which are in every way superior to LWs except for a couple ounces, a barrel 23" with a .575" muzzle which could have been slimmer but was designed to be slightly muzzle heavy. A Leeper-tuned original pre-64 trigger which is safe, 2 pounds and dead crisp. And yes Brad, the bolt modified to clear a super low ocular, not that you can tell (the 6X36 is in super-low DDs).
I could have easily dropped a half pound but designed it for hitting in the field and backpacking durability. And like yours my rifles see mountains every year.
I don't post as much here anymore but shoot a lot more. In excess of 10 000 rounds a year, 2/3 of that in silhouette. You want to learn hitting in the field which at its essence is trigger squeeze and more importantly follow through, take up silhouette. There is no replacement for actual trigger time. I know what fits, and hits, for me. You want to see a backpacking AND hitting field rifle, look again at my pic. i will carry the extra half pound. Been there done that.
Last edited by RickF; 10/15/16.
Anybody who seriously concerns themselves with the adequacy of a Big 7mm for anything we hunt here short of brown bear, is a dufus. They are mostly making shidt up. Crunch! Nite-nite!
I'm not opposed to long actions.... when there's a reason.
However the "ultimate light weight hunting rifle" will most assuredly be a short action. It's that whole "ultimate" thing.
Flame suit on!
Phooey. Internet hyperbole.
Bob, you and I put together our ultimate actual using hunting rifles. Jeff argues a theoretical concept.
Not so! I've put together a 7-08 M700 MR that while perhaps not the "ultimate", is on the face of it, more properly in the conversation than a LA M70 buildup. To wit, an ultralight glass stock, blind mag, aluminum TG, Gre-Tan shroud, Talleys, Leupold. It's very light, AND it possesses great potency.
Then I have a 7 WSM Montana. Can't really say I put that one together, though it is a re-barrel, but it's one heck of a light rifle, again if the idea is matching weight against capability.
You guys are starting from the premise that the ultimate rifle is a LA M70, then building light from there, then calling that the ultimate lightweight hunting rifle. If viewed more correctly for the purposes of this discussion then maximum utility per pound is the metric.
By the way I think those M70's are great looking and well thought out packages. I just think you are trying to shoehorn them into the category. Take the word "ultimate" out of the title and replace it with "excellent" or "classiest" and you might just have it.
Phooey again.
"Ultimate" is subjective. "Lightweight" is subjective.
There is no substantive difference between a rifle weighing a few ounces under 7 pounds to a few ounces over 7 pounds...neither in terms of portability or shootability.
The rifle in the photo above weighs 7 pounds on my scale with scope and mounts. Call me a liar and say 7.25. That's with leupold DD's,medium rings,and a S&B Summit. Scope and mounts are not lightweight gear, and I can easily get that rifle under 7 pounds with Talleys and a 4-6X scope. I know because I have done it...owned the rifle for 30+ years and shot out 2 barrels on it.
It isn't "shoehorned" in any way.....
Can I get a lighter rifle? yes.
Will it be better than the M70? No.
If by "ultimate" we mean "lightest" then say so. I won't comment on plastic parts, flimsy extractors, plunger ejectors, and enclosed triggers that usually accompany such pearls but that's another subject.
I was contemplating a similar response... but neither was my rifle (though I have some like it) and I knew Bob would come back with sound logic.
Regardless, the word "ultimate" was exactly why I would have considered Bob and Rick's M70's great suggestions. To me, ultimate means tops in reliability, ruggedness and shootability. Who knows if the OP is at all interested in a 70 (as he has a Ti in hand) but ultimate certainly describes more to me than "lightweight" or otherwise trimmed and tricked out!
"You know why nobody panic buys 30-06 ammo? ... Because men with 30-06's don't panic"
Jeff I saw two Rem 700 trigger/safety mechanisms quit on the same day in Northern Maine. I have also had to flush out a Rem 700 trigger mechanism twice in Wyoming in separate years to make the rifle work.Dust,silt whatever.
Im not saying it happens all the time,but in distinguishing between rifles I play with and rifles I build to hunt with, I will take the open architecture of a M70.
I will echo what Rick says. I can easily build a lighter rifle than that M70;after having done it, I like something like that one.
I think the Kimber is hard to beat in certain configurations. I like this one so far. I just got it; off the shelf and I did nothing to it.
Here's what it does so far.....for 5 shots; not 3.......
Jeff I saw two Rem 700 trigger/safety mechanisms quit on the same day in Northern Maine. I have also had to flush out a Rem 700 trigger mechanism twice in Wyoming in separate years to make the rifle work.Dust,silt whatever.
Im not saying it happens all the time,but in distinguishing between rifles I play with and rifles I build to hunt with, I will take the open architecture of a M70.
I will echo what Rick says. I can easily build a lighter rifle than that M70;after having done it, I like something like that one.
I think the Kimber is hard to beat in certain configurations. I like this one so far. I just got it; off the shelf and I did nothing to it.
Have one just like it in 257 Roberts with a leupold 2.5x8x36 VX3 thats hard to beat.
Here's what it does so far.....for 5 shots; not 3.......
Can I repeat? Who knows? we'll see.
Never take life to seriously, after all ,no one gets out of it alive.
"Ultimate" actually leaves a lot of room for interpretation...
The "ultimate" custom lightweight is really anything your heart desires... you'd have to be very specific to come up with a winner here.
The "ultimate" factory Lightweight is undoubtedly the Kimber Montana...
The "ultimate" value Lightweight is probably the Tikka SL...
The "ultimate" Custom/Semi-Custom is probably the NULA... or the Rifles, Inc. Strata...
Is it the "ultimate" LW Deer rifle... or Elk rifle... or Sheep rifle? Because those can certainly be different in dimension, weight, and caliber.
Here's my "ultimate" Lightweight... and pretty much "ultimate" hunting rifle in general. It's not the lightest "Lightweight" on this thread... but so far, it's the only one you can shoot without plugs and/or muffs...
Kimber Montana in .300 WSM, cut to 17" for use with a suppressor. With the can attached: it's the same length as your average 24" barreled '06. It only weighs 7.5lbs all up, with rounds, sling, optic, and suppressor. It shoots 200s/208s at 2750 and 155s at 3050... does it easily sub-moa, with recoil similar to that of a .270 Win. It sounds like a .22 lr when you shoot it... but it's fully capable of clobbering any critter that I ever hope to hunt.
Shoots several bullets like this... at 100
... to 700
You better pray to the God of Skinny Punks that this wind doesn't pick up......
Jeff and Brad, I won't disagree with any of what you have said. But for me, ultimate lightweight and ultimate lightweight hunting rifle are not close to the same thing. I have had the Montana 7mm-08, no thanks.
The green stocked 280 above is 7 pounds 0 oz with a 6X36 and 7-4 with that Kahles CL. It was designed for lightweight backpacking but more importantly hitting in the field. When I spec'ed it I didn't go all-out for lightest weight, obviously. That is a kevlar stock, 22.9 oz with alloy trigger guard and blind mag. DD rings which are in every way superior to LWs except for a couple ounces, a barrel 23" with a .575" muzzle which could have been slimmer but was designed to be slightly muzzle heavy. A Leeper-tuned original pre-64 trigger which is safe, 2 pounds and dead crisp. And yes Brad, the bolt modified to clear a super low ocular, not that you can tell (the 6X36 is in super-low DDs).
I could have easily dropped a half pound but designed it for hitting in the field and backpacking durability. And like yours my rifles see mountains every year.
I don't post as much here anymore but shoot a lot more. In excess of 10 000 rounds a year, 2/3 of that in silhouette. You want to learn hitting in the field which at its essence is trigger squeeze and more importantly follow through, take up silhouette. There is no replacement for actual trigger time. I know what fits, and hits, for me. You want to see a backpacking AND hitting field rifle, look again at my pic. i will carry the extra half pound. Been there done that.
The thread was about "ultimate lightweight", so I offered my opinion and experience.
As devoted an M70 fan as I am, I just don't think they belong in the category. IMO however, they are a superior all-around wilderness wandering rifle when properly kitted.
I do think, to fully qualify, they need detachable scope mounts and open sights. And yes, I will take the M70 open trigger over any closed trigger for a hard-duty rifle. I'll disagree about your DD's being "superior in every way" to Talley Lwt's. I see it exactly the opposite. To each his own. Will add, I fully believe the plain-jane Weavers superior to the DD's in every way for a rifle in this category.
Here's one of my M70s... a 270 with 6x36. As shown, 7lbs 1.9oz's. Same as yours, just that the McMillan is 24.0 oz's, hence the difference. It will eventually get open sights. It's a superb midweight "practical rifle" that settles down easier for the shot than my Kimbers... but I'll always take one of my Kimbers for mountain hunting, BTDT.
Differences make the world go round, and there are many paths to the same end.
Its older, heavier brother:
To me, the "ultimate" is still a muzzle heavy, sub 7lb all-up rifle, but with a no.2 contour (.600+ @ 22")... I'll eventually own such a rifle when one of my Kimbers gets rebarreled.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Ultimate" actually leaves a lot of room for interpretation...
The "ultimate" custom lightweight is really anything your heart desires... you'd have to be very specific to come up with a winner here.
The "ultimate" factory Lightweight is undoubtedly the Kimber Montana...
The "ultimate" value Lightweight is probably the Tikka SL...
The "ultimate" Custom/Semi-Custom is probably the NULA... or the Rifles, Inc. Strata...
Is it the "ultimate" LW Deer rifle... or Elk rifle... or Sheep rifle? Because those can certainly be different in dimension, weight, and caliber.
Here's my "ultimate" Lightweight... and pretty much "ultimate" hunting rifle in general. It's not the lightest "Lightweight" on this thread... but so far, it's the only one you can shoot without plugs and/or muffs...
Kimber Montana in .300 WSM, cut to 17" for use with a suppressor. With the can attached: it's the same length as your average 24" barreled '06. It only weighs 7.5lbs all up, with rounds, sling, optic, and suppressor. It shoots 200s/208s at 2750 and 155s at 3050... does it easily sub-moa, with recoil similar to that of a .270 Win. It sounds like a .22 lr when you shoot it... but it's fully capable of clobbering any critter that I ever hope to hunt.
Shoots several bullets like this... at 100
... to 700
Good thread.
This suppressed Montana is a very interesting take on a lightweight hunting rifle.
I think for true wilderness backcountry use, such as a backpack type hunt the pr-64 M70 with open sights and quick detach scope mounts makes a lot of sense to me.
Many of these types of hunts take place in grizzly country, so a long action round also makes sense.
If packing in by horse you can skip the open sights a just carry a Leupold fixed power spare in q.d. rings for a back up. Never know when a horse wreck could damage your scope.
Originally Posted by Judman PS, if you think Trump is “good” you’re way stupider than I thought! Haha
Bob, I agree (and have said it many times) an M70 mid-weight is as ideal an all-around rifle as one can find. Light-weights, like my Kimber's, are much more specialized tools and not as user-friendly as a mid-weight. But all things are a compromise of sorts, weighted in one direction or another. An "ultimate lightweight" is not an all-around rifle, though I think one could argue a muzzle heavy NULA or Kimber MT with a no 2 contour is certainly closer to an all-around rifle than those with a lighter barrel.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Agree with all that. One notable positive when I rebarreled my Kimber 8400 MT from .325 WSM to 7 WSM was that it became noticeably less whippy feeling up front... the balance point moved forward. Wonder if I'd notice more of that going from .284" to .264" bore.... Basically it equates in terms of weight to a 24" long metal "straw" with .010" thick walls.
I think Jordan is going with a bit heavier barrel on his 8400 next re-barrel. He's got a barrel maker who will do the Kimber profile, but a bit heavier from the shank forward.
The ultimate SCOPE for our mythical ultimate light rifle is a more interesting question to me, anyway. My 7-08 MR has a 2.5-8 Leup on it; my Kimber 7 WSM has a NF SHV. The Nightforce is much heavier but also much more capable, at least as the range stretches out there.
Yeah, I've got a KS Arms 7mm 8" twist 5R tube in the safe waiting to go on a 7WSM Montana. It's a contour dupe to the end of the fore-end, and then tapers to 0.600" at 24". Should improve balance a bit, with a slight muzzle bias more to my liking. But this is a utility killing rifle, at 7.5lbs with scope, not an "ultimate lightweight". My 7-08 Montana at 6.5 lbs scoped fills that role for me, and goes sheep hunting whenever I do.
Jeff's question of the ultimate scope for the ultimate lightweight rifle is an interesting one. While some here tend more toward a slightly heavier rifle in the name of reliability, I do the same with scopes. My Kimber setups could easily each drop 0.5+lbs if I were to go back to Talleys and Leups, but I've had far more failures in the field with scopes than rifles, so I tend to cut weight on my rifles and add it to my scopes. Instead of M70's with Leups, I end up with Montanas and SWFA SS's.
Here's my ultimate 6.5 SAUM light weight. Pierce Ti action with lightened bolt handle. McMillan Game Scout Edge fill, Brux #3 fluted 8.5 tw, Wyatt's box, Timney trigger. It weighs 6 lbs bare, 7 1/4 lbs or so scoped in Talleys. Built by Cloud Peak Gunworks in Basin, WY. JLK 130's shoot little groups and kill stuff good.
"Ultimate" actually leaves a lot of room for interpretation...
The "ultimate" custom lightweight is really anything your heart desires... you'd have to be very specific to come up with a winner here.
The "ultimate" factory Lightweight is undoubtedly the Kimber Montana...
The "ultimate" value Lightweight is probably the Tikka SL...
The "ultimate" Custom/Semi-Custom is probably the NULA... or the Rifles, Inc. Strata...
Is it the "ultimate" LW Deer rifle... or Elk rifle... or Sheep rifle? Because those can certainly be different in dimension, weight, and caliber.
Here's my "ultimate" Lightweight... and pretty much "ultimate" hunting rifle in general. It's not the lightest "Lightweight" on this thread... but so far, it's the only one you can shoot without plugs and/or muffs...
Kimber Montana in .300 WSM, cut to 17" for use with a suppressor. With the can attached: it's the same length as your average 24" barreled '06. It only weighs 7.5lbs all up, with rounds, sling, optic, and suppressor. It shoots 200s/208s at 2750 and 155s at 3050... does it easily sub-moa, with recoil similar to that of a .270 Win. It sounds like a .22 lr when you shoot it... but it's fully capable of clobbering any critter that I ever hope to hunt.
Shoots several bullets like this... at 100
... to 700
In your list, throw in the Savage Lightweight Hunter, Model 16. 7-08 in that has proven itself real well. Add a Swaro Z3 on it.
The degree of my privacy is no business of yours.
What we've learned from history is that we haven't learned from it.
this is a great thread... the discussion about open triggers, detachable scopes, iron sights, etc a couple pages back for a hard use wilderness rifle makes me wonder why the older Ruger Mark IIs with iron sights never come up in these best rifle discussions...
Stand by...I have a germ of an idea for the ultimate lightweight, and its about to festering a full-blown infection..gonna take a couple months though...
"...the left considers you vermin, and they'll kill you given the chance..." Bristoe
What is everyone's opinions on the ultimate light weight hunting rifle? Caliber ? Barrel length? Stock? Action?
I have a short action titanium, standard 308 bolt face. Can't make up my mind on what to build. I want it to be light but still be able to make a 5-600 yd shot if needed. Leaning toward a 260 ackley with 130 Bergers or 708 ackley
Depends on what I'd be hunting.
For Daughter #1 we went with a 22" Ruger Hawkeye in .308 Win for antelope to elk. Not exactly a lightweight but not heavy either.
No really lightweight rifles for me, either, although I have a 6.25lb Ruger Scout. Accurate little rifle and will do almost everything i've done over the last 35 years, antelope to elk. Considering getting a synthetic stock for my M77 .257 Roberts. My .30-06 skeleton stocked MKII is a pleasure to carry.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
Depends on the hunt and what not but for backpack hunting its either gonna be my 6.2 pound scoped 338-06 or my 4.4 pound (yes that is with a scope) 358 win.
Depends on the hunt and what not but for backpack hunting its either gonna be my 6.2 pound scoped 338-06 or my 4.4 pound (yes that is with a scope) 358 win.
aka, the "What happened to your eye?" rifle? I've got a 6.5 scoped .358 that's not bad at all. Guessing you have to be kinda careful with that one.
Depends on the hunt and what not but for backpack hunting its either gonna be my 6.2 pound scoped 338-06 or my 4.4 pound (yes that is with a scope) 358 win.
aka, the "What happened to your eye?" rifle? I've got a 6.5 scoped .358 that's not bad at all. Guessing you have to be kinda careful with that one.
HAHA...she's stout no doubt with 200 TTSX and 225 NPTs. But its only a 16" ported barrel so velocity is only 2600 and 2400 respectively.
With my poor recoil skills, 12.5 pound rifles keep them in the kill zone out to 600 yards, 10 pound rifles reach 500 yards, and 8 pound rifles reach 400 yards.
I am counting the weight of the bipod, sling, ammo, and scope.
I shoot most everything from within 50 yards of the truck, but the 8 pound rifle is so much easier to get in and out of the truck.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
With my poor recoil skills, 12.5 pound rifles keep them in the kill zone out to 600 yards, 10 pound rifles reach 500 yards, and 8 pound rifles reach 400 yards.
I am counting the weight of the bipod, sling, ammo, and scope.
I shoot most everything from within 50 yards of the truck, but the 8 pound rifle is so much easier to get in and out of the truck.
If you've shot enough to figure out that the weight of a rifle determines how far out you can kill, why not figure out how to manage recoil?
Screw you! I'm voting for Trump again!
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the 24HCF.
1952 manlicher in 257 Roberts is my LW rig ...not the lightest one I have but probably the easiest to Cary and handle....the balance is as important as weight...need a another one in 7x57
Hows this for lightweight?! And it is a long action 300 wby no less!
Truthfully though, it is a very purpose built rifle. It's good for carrying up a mountain, making a long shot on a sheep or elk, then carrying back down. It's not unpleasant to shoot, but the thin barrel certainly makes it a bit of a challenge. Should the barrel ever wear out during my time with it, it will get something a little heavier out front. I am okay to carry a few extra ounces on the barrel to be able to settle the barrel in on a shot.
I have a similarly built 270 that is 7.25 pounds wearing a factory remington 700 sporter contour barrel, and it is by far easier to shoot on a consistent basis. Not terribly to carry either, but much better for "all-around" use.
If you died tomorrow, what would you have done today ...
Yes, just waiting to clear up a few chores and get the new Montana .270Win. out to the local range. This and a Sightless pre '64 .270 Win. will be my "go to" pair. If a bigger bore is needed, the Alaskan 375 H&H will come out. There is a stunning and accurate Win. Fwt. SG 7x57 hiding in the corner just for sunny days. But for 80% of the time, the 84L will get the call.
Last edited by bigwhoop; 05/21/17.
My home is the "sanctuary residence" for my firearms.
Should add, I like a few others here have had a pile of white Kimber boxes. Over the years I've come back to the cartridge I grew up reading about through JOC. I do think a 300WSM is an excellent companion to the .270 Win. but now I've seen or been in on at least 50 elk kills over 18 years. At 65 I don't cherish a boomer anymore and realize that a good bullet in the right place will bring down any elk you want to put in the freezer.
My home is the "sanctuary residence" for my firearms.
Depends on the hunt and what not but for backpack hunting its either gonna be my 6.2 pound scoped 338-06 or my 4.4 pound (yes that is with a scope) 358 win.
aka, the "What happened to your eye?" rifle? I've got a 6.5 scoped .358 that's not bad at all. Guessing you have to be kinda careful with that one.
Detached retina comes to mind whenever I see that little Kimber!!!!
Haha!!! Honestly my 6.1 pound all up browning TI in 325 wsm recoils worse...which makes sense since it's shooting 200 grainers the same speed I am shooting 150s-160s out of this little Kimber.
That brake doesn't look like it would do much good. How do you like it? Can you see your impacts at 100 yards?
It's ported not a brake and yes it recoils less now than when it weighed 3/4 of a pound more and was unported.
As for spotting shot...absolutely not. That said I gotta work st it to see my impacts at 200-300 yards even with my 12-13 pound 6.5 Creedmoor let alone 100 yards with a 4.4 pound rifle
Hows this for lightweight?! And it is a long action 300 wby no less!
Truthfully though, it is a very purpose built rifle. It's good for carrying up a mountain, making a long shot on a sheep or elk, then carrying back down. It's not unpleasant to shoot, but the thin barrel certainly makes it a bit of a challenge. Should the barrel ever wear out during my time with it, it will get something a little heavier out front. I am okay to carry a few extra ounces on the barrel to be able to settle the barrel in on a shot.
I have a similarly built 270 that is 7.25 pounds wearing a factory remington 700 sporter contour barrel, and it is by far easier to shoot on a consistent basis. Not terribly to carry either, but much better for "all-around" use.
Sevens, who made those rings?
Originally Posted by 16penny
If you put Taco Bell sauce in your ramen noodles it tastes just like poverty
Hows this for lightweight?! And it is a long action 300 wby no less!
Truthfully though, it is a very purpose built rifle. It's good for carrying up a mountain, making a long shot on a sheep or elk, then carrying back down. It's not unpleasant to shoot, but the thin barrel certainly makes it a bit of a challenge. Should the barrel ever wear out during my time with it, it will get something a little heavier out front. I am okay to carry a few extra ounces on the barrel to be able to settle the barrel in on a shot.
I have a similarly built 270 that is 7.25 pounds wearing a factory remington 700 sporter contour barrel, and it is by far easier to shoot on a consistent basis. Not terribly to carry either, but much better for "all-around" use.
Sevens, who made those rings?
Not Sevens but I believe those are DNZ 2 piece rings
"after the bullet leaves the barrel it doesn't care what headstamp was on the case" "The 221 Fireball is what the Hornet could have been had it stayed in school"
Hows this for lightweight?! And it is a long action 300 wby no less!
Truthfully though, it is a very purpose built rifle. It's good for carrying up a mountain, making a long shot on a sheep or elk, then carrying back down. It's not unpleasant to shoot, but the thin barrel certainly makes it a bit of a challenge. Should the barrel ever wear out during my time with it, it will get something a little heavier out front. I am okay to carry a few extra ounces on the barrel to be able to settle the barrel in on a shot.
I have a similarly built 270 that is 7.25 pounds wearing a factory remington 700 sporter contour barrel, and it is by far easier to shoot on a consistent basis. Not terribly to carry either, but much better for "all-around" use.
Sevens, who made those rings?
Not Sevens but I believe those are DNZ 2 piece rings
Correct, DNZ. They are aluminum, but a little thicker than the favored Talley Light Weights.
It gains you about an ounce, but seemed like an okay place to sacrifice a little weight for strength. The reports of cracked Talley's concerned me.
If you died tomorrow, what would you have done today ...
The present trend seems to be centered around short-action rifle and cartridges, and I've had my share of light rifles based on that theme. But the one I've had the longest, and killed the most big game with, is a NULA .30-06 that's now 20 years old--and would be one of the last I'd part with. Despite having a 24-inch #2 Douglas barrel it weighs six pounds on the nose with scope.
One of the great virtues of NULA's is they shoot a LOT of ammo well, and often to the same point of impact, one reason I've never permanently settled on one load. (The other is new bullets and powders over the last 20 years.) Another is that unless the scope goes bad, or somebody falls on it, they retain zero year after year, even when traveling from continent to continent. My wife's first NULA was a .270 Winchester with a #1 22" barrel, and for a decade she'd go to the range early each fall and shoot one round. It would land two inches high at 100 yards, never varying more than about a 1/4", and she'd go hunting. The scope finally died (the sometimes do on real lightweights) but that wasn't the fault of the rifle, and in that period it had not only hunted all over Montana but went on two caribou hunts involving several plane rides, plus bouncing around in boats, one on the Arctic Ocean.
Some people make a big deal about the lighter weight and shorter bolt throw of short action, but the .30-06 is a Model 24, which means the action weighs 24 ounces. The bolt throw is less than half an inch longer than that of a Model 20 NULA action.
I acquired this rifle back when I was traveling a lot more than today, one reason it's a .30-06: If anything happened to my ammo, some could be easily found, anywhere ammo is available on earth. If making the same choice today I might opt for a .308 Winchester, but maybe not One thing I've noticed is the .30-06 also works fine with what are essentially .308 loads, whether factory ammo or slightly reduced handloads.
All in all, however, the virtue of my NULA isn't the chambering but the overall consistency of NULA rifles. Eileen eventually replaced her .270 with another NULA, a Model 20 in .257 Roberts, not for lighter weight but due to less recoil. We went to the range the other day to check the zero before pronghorn season, and it put one shot in exactly the same place it has for several years.
The present trend seems to be centered around short-action rifle and cartridges, and I've had my share of light rifles based on that theme. But the one I've had the longest, and killed the most big game with, is a NULA .30-06 that's now 20 years old--and would be one of the last I'd part with. Despite having a 24-inch #2 Douglas barrel it weighs six pounds on the nose with scope.
One of the great virtues of NULA's is they shoot a LOT of ammo well, and often to the same point of impact, one reason I've never permanently settled on one load. (The other is new bullets and powders over the last 20 years.) Another is that unless the scope goes bad, or somebody falls on it, they retain zero year after year, even when traveling from continent to continent. My wife's first NULA was a .270 Winchester with a #1 22" barrel, and for a decade she'd go to the range early each fall and shoot one round. It would land two inches high at 100 yards, never varying more than about a 1/4", and she'd go hunting. The scope finally died (the sometimes do on real lightweights) but that wasn't the fault of the rifle, and in that period it had not only hunted all over Montana but went on two caribou hunts involving several plane rides, plus bouncing around in boats, one on the Arctic Ocean.
Some people make a big deal about the lighter weight and shorter bolt throw of short action, but the .30-06 is a Model 24, which means the action weighs 24 ounces. The bolt throw is less than half an inch longer than that of a Model 20 NULA action.
I acquired this rifle back when I was traveling a lot more than today, one reason it's a .30-06: If anything happened to my ammo, some could be easily found, anywhere ammo is available on earth. If making the same choice today I might opt for a .308 Winchester, but maybe not One thing I've noticed is the .30-06 also works fine with what are essentially .308 loads, whether factory ammo or slightly reduced handloads.
All in all, however, the virtue of my NULA isn't the chambering but the overall consistency of NULA rifles. Eileen eventually replaced her .270 with another NULA, a Model 20 in .257 Roberts, not for lighter weight but due to less recoil. We went to the range the other day to check the zero before pronghorn season, and it put one shot in exactly the same place it has for several years.
My early Forbes in 270 is fast becoming my favorite. It's basically a poor man's NULA. I would love to try a NULA but this forbes is shooting 3/4-1/2 moa with quality factory ammo in a couple different loads.I just topped it with a Swaro Z5 3.5-18 with the 4w reticle and an elevation turret. I may have found one good enough that I won't be saving for the next one right away.
I guess I'm basically saying that I agree with MD and would buy a NULA in a heartbeat if I had the money to spend.
Ultimate is my Merkel K3 single shot. Less than many rifles listed in this post but still a lot of $. It is a single shot but it is nothing short of amazing, and it shoots steel groups to 500 under half MOA, t is a 7-08 and loves everything it is fed. Has put a lot of meat on the table and in the freezer. Longest kill is 426 yards with 140 grain accubond. Bang-Flop. could not think of a better mountain gun. YES, the second shot takes longer, but I am fine with that. Rarely get to shoot twice with a bolt gun as is.
Well, to keep this going for what it's worth, my lighty-tighty is a 284 on a Rem SA by Rifles Inc. it's cerakoated and has a 3-color, GAP type paint job. It has a box that allows a COAL of 2.95" and with R17 boots the 140-gr TTSX to 3100 fps out of a 23" tube and into .65 MOA at 400 yds, far enough for me. A PTG bolt and a Swarovski Z3 brings it to ~ 6.3 lbs.
Lord-willing, it'll be in the mountains and kill a bull in the next year or two.
Earlier this year I had a 700 LTR in 308 turned into a lightweight long range hunter. I first had it tried and timed, replaced the stock trigger with a Calvin elite, an chambered a barrel just like the one I shoot longrange BR with. Only difference is the contour of the barrel. I went with a 6.5x47L on a sendero 8 twist finished at 24" with a .290 neck. This thing shoots lights out and weighs in just under 9 lbs scoped and loaded. Oh it's on a HS precision ltr stock.
![[Linked Image]](http://s1297.photobucket.com/user/woodsonchris/media/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_3598_zpsepa7mtu8.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1297.photobucket.com/user/woodsonchris/media/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_3670_zpsqghbuqsp.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1297.photobucket.com/user/woodsonchris/media/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_3596_zpsdcfzwogs.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1197.photobucket.com/user/boxhead61/media/IMG_0853_zpsjloitcbh.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1197.photobucket.com/user/boxhead61/media/IMG_0929%201_zpsrdvjjuqs.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z395/BobinNH1/IMG_0686.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s2.photobucket.com/user/RickF/media/IMG_1429_zpsqruxftl7.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/images/600_weight.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s827.photobucket.com/user/irfubar/media/IMG_1052.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s827.photobucket.com/user/irfubar/media/IMG_1085.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj222/bmt4tax/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_0422_zpsubnjgweb.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z395/BobinNH1/IMG_0685.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z395/BobinNH1/IMG_0702.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s8.photobucket.com/user/DDP2005/media/6C54D87C-9F6F-4FDF-970E-02D804CF67E4_zpswo51xukt.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s352.photobucket.com/user/dogdownproductions/media/50ED2DD0-C739-466F-BD83-5651DFE94CCD_zpscowyviyq.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s8.photobucket.com/user/DDP2005/media/BF6B85C6-454D-41BE-ACA9-C3099588A9BC_zpspk6n7n5b.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/bradmacmt/Gun%20Stuff/m70-270fwt_zpsuugfqcm9.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/bradmacmt/Gun%20Stuff/m7030-06.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s12.photobucket.com/user/sambo3006/media/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_1095_zpsvghifdw5.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s35.photobucket.com/user/cowboybart/media/Colt/000_0748_zpsd7fe163e.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/BwanaA/IMG_1411.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/bradmacmt/Gun%20Stuff/270MT5.2.17_zpszh0r7jpc.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s184.photobucket.com/user/alaska_lanche/media/Gun%20Pics/F831B536-DB9C-4A66-9B6E-9C49866A6B5B_zpsoaesfbe1.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s56.photobucket.com/user/boltsonly/media/DSCN2137_zpszuc8hi7q.jpg.html)
