Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Backpack Hunting rifle weight and body weight

I haven’t read through all of the comments but there isn’t a correlation between rifle weight and loosing a few pounds to offset it IMO. Obviously being in better shape overall helps for anything physical but it doesn’t correlate to how an extra pound or two of rifle weight feels in your hands or slung over your shoulder.

Ideally, you get your body weight down to the optimal amount so you are both fitter as well as carrying less body weight, and you also get your rifle weight down to the optimal weight. People tend to concentrate more on rifle weight because it is easier to do than losing body weight (which requires a lot of sustained effort and willpower).

Would like to know how many who posted spend more than a mile on their feet at the end of the day. Around here....which isn't the same everywhere, but in more places than a few.....Deer hunters are mostly perched in trees.

I understand what you're saying....but...

On non-rainy days that I'm likely to be perched in a tree, the hike up the mountain can be pretty tough. Some days it's a mile +, other days it may only be 1/2 mile....in a few locations it may only be a few hundred yards. With few exceptions, it's always up the mountain (on the way in). One of the issues that makes it tougher is time, which translates to increased speed of the hike. The additional weight of a stand or saddle setup, plus the extra rush/time needed for the tree climb/setup makes it tougher as well. Days I'm hunting perched in a tree are the most physically taxing. Saving weight any way I can is helpful.

On rainy days, when I'll be still hunting, on my feet covering much more ground, but also moving at a much slower pace, with much less weight carried, are really less physically taxing than a rushed hike with a lot more weight...but a lighter rifle in hand still feels much better than a heavier one.

Again, I understand what you're saying. I should add, I work to stay in shape year round, but don't pay much attention to my bodyweight, other than trying to avoid losing it.

Within the context of this forum (backpack hunting), it all comes back to what the rifle feels like in your hand (in bear country0 or hanging on your pack. How it handles and balances while still hunting is another matter, though related. Fitness, weight, and age all play a part, but at some point, what that rifle is like to carry becomes a fairly big deal. Now and then, I'll take my 11 pound Hawken for a walk. It is surprisingly comfortable to carry, being slim at the balance point, but old shoulders get tired now, just from that weight. A rifle which is too heavy might be mildly bothersome on a day hike up a mountain. It will be much more so on the fourth or fifth day of carrying it and the pack. This especially if you are carrying it in your hands. On the pack, it's not as much of an issue, but still counts. I've carried a pack and a nine pound rifle quite a bit and, I can tell you, a couple pounds off that rifle makes a huge difference to me. I've been on trip where I lost ten pounds or more over the course of the trip. I promise, that rifle didn't lose a goddam ounce! GD

A lot of repetition here from the same few which is not necessarily representative of the many. And there's an assumption made to bolster that view: Backpack hunting is assumed to equate to climbing mountains, plus EVERY day! I've not hunted the Rockies, but the videos I've watched (and some just a few days ago) of hunters going up rugged mountains in Alaska and the Rockies, were after sheep and/or goats. In their backpacks were the basic essentials, including camping gear, to stay there until either they were defeated in their search or until they scored. And many who hired guides were not faced with dealing with the aftermath alone.

Having said that, at my current age (87) I don't have the strength or ability of even a decade ago, but as someone (s) has stated, a lot more than is realized or confessed by a majority is that how we deal with ageing and its impact on hunting and its essentials comes down to how we think about it: I still carry my 10 lb .375 H&H (ready to hunt) and my .458 Ruger No.1 (10.75 lbs ready to hunt) for bears in wilderness areas, though I prefer my relatively lightweight .35 Whelen and 9.3 x 62, which are both under 8 lbs ready.

Why? Because I refuse to give in to my desire for more "comfort" as I get older and more lazy! I stay "fit" and have lost 35 lbs over the last decade, but I'll not be climbing the same steep ridges ten times in a day that I did when in my 50s and 60s.

Soon, God willing, I'll be writing more on this in coming weeks.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

It was I who posted the original question way back. I guess what prompted me most was 2 things: in my view there seems to be an obsession with trying to reduce rifle weights. I must admit that I believe mostly because many/most people wanting to achieve that are overweight and not in shape. Many of the people on the campfire post pictures of themselves and their pics and it appears that many are a lot overweight. Then too, my son is an Alaskan guide, and he could tell you many stories of his fat-out of shape clients.

Like the last poster, I do a lot of things to keep weight off and stay in shape. I am 75 years old and like the previous poster Bob, I bear hunt in Alaska with a 10# plus .375 and goat and bear hunt with a 9# .300 WM. Much of that reasoning is that as a youth, I did a lot of small bore shooting. We sure didn't use lightweight rifles to shoot our best and I've never lost that mindset that I can shoot a somewhat heavier rifle more accurately, especially when I'm really excited and have made a hard stalk.

I'm certain that many of you are in better shape, and are better game shots. And you probably shoot well with your ultra-light rifles. Good on you for being able to do both. However, the Lord has given me good health and the ability to make some great hunts, especially with my son in Alaska. I just put more emphasis on conditioning and body weight than shaving another couple pounds off my rifle.

I dunno, once I started carrying my 6.5 pound suppressed, scoped kimber 308 I have really had a hard time taking anything else hunting honestly. Such a short light rifle straps to a backpack very easily, is effortless in the hand, and doesn't get hung on brush. With the weight saved over my other rifles I can carry an extra day or two of food or other quality of life improvement items like whiskey, inflatable pillows, or a set of camp slippers. I hear the arguments about losing the weight in other places including around my gut but for me dropping weight off equipment usually means I end up carrying the same amount of total weight in the form of other gear and am more comfortable and thus better rested, motivated, or energized to hunt hard when I get to where I'm going. Also I'll never be mad if my pack is lighter when I'm strapping half a deer on it to pack through some hell hole.

I don't see myself ever going back to a heavier rifle. No reason to. I don't ever see myself needing to lose additional weight either (God willing)

Absolutely not.

Will it benefit you? Yes.

But with rifle weight it is an object that you are having to carry, handle, manipulate out away from your body which compounds the effect of the weight. It is also a weight that even when slung, throws off your balance left-right.

So, there is real benefit to lightening your rifle. And I am no expert, just walked a fair amount with different rifles and now hunt mostly with Montanas.

That is definitely the opposite side of the equation with lighter rifles. Your ability to hit longer ranges are definitely impacted.

I would probably adjust my rifle choice if I hunted differently. If I thought I was going to be in a situation that might require a 350+ yard shot, I don't think a 6.5# rifle would be my choice.

But where I am hunting with my son this past weekend deer hunting and cow hunting, I was very happy with my Montana. My son who is trim and fit and in excellent shape packed his heavy as heck bergara and told me at the end, he is done with that rifle and he needs to get a liighter rifle.

Elk hunting, it's not uncommon for me to walk 10 to 15 miles a day. Get to my spot while it's still dark out. Wait for an hour or two past sunrise. Still hunt till 10 AM, walk back to camp, walk to a closer spot until dark, then back to camp. Dumbells help a lot. You work out with 15 lb dumbells regularly it's amazing how much that lighter that rifle feels.

Most interesting thread....have learned a lot about people. But from experience it is not hard to learn to shoot a light rifle well

I'll add one additional thing....When the legs start leaving you are like a boxer...the reflexes will be not far behind and you best lighten the load. Rifle included, if you want to arrive at the place to shoot.

Great legs equate more to what you can carry around comfortably than a half pound difference in rifle weight.

Addition:

One loses 1% of their VO2 max every year past the age of 35...So at 60 you have lost 25% more of your hearts ability to work. It is why marathon times increase past a certain age. Your mitochrondia stores are most likely down 50%. Which all means what works for a 35 year old has little relevance to a 60 year old. And the 60 year old needs to find a way to improve their playing time. The weight they carry, body, boots, gear, rifle all are part of it.

Age is always going to be a factor but exercise-training- and diet is likely even a greater factor. It's not as if everyone has a set standard VO2 max at age 20 that steadily decreases over time. There are ways to greatly improve VO2 Max even for older people. HIT type training seems to be one of the best.

There is simply no reason to focus on age since the only way to change that factor is to die.

Name me one active sporting endeavor where age doesn't rob one of their endurance and strength. I exercise usually 5 days a week...weights, cardio, hiit, zone 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I'm not even close to when I was 35 or 40. And then there is age related wear and tear, age related longer recovery. Maximum sustained HR declines with age.

It's why there are Masters events for runners, Senior events for golfers, tennis, etc, etc. You will find few who are still guiding Sheep hunters after they hit 40. It seems the early 30's is when VO2 max starts taking a hit.You can improve your VO2 max for your age bracket, but one will never be a trained 35 again. And unless one is more than a little serious, lean muscle loss is real after age 50.

Cross fit athletes are no longer on the podium much past 35. At 35 one goes into the Master division.

None of this means older hunters can't get it done.....but they won't get it done as easily. And wearing 10 pounds boots or carrying more rifle wight than they need will be of any help.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. The first thing I said was," age is always going to be a factor." I simply prefer to concentrate on the parts I can change.

Great attitude....keep at it!!!! Which goes back to one of my first thoughts. Good legs are one of the things that make carrying things easier. Without them, everything get heavier....

Example: Good legs and one can carry two 60 pound kettle bells for a 50 yard farmers walk. Without....2x20 may be a chore. We used to have a saying hunting Ruffed Grouse in the Pa Mountains....
"Legs kill Grouse".

I don't have 60lb kettle bells, but I could carry 2 for 50 yards. I was always strong. My dad didn't have a mule so he used me. We loaded pulp wood by hand, cut and hauled fire wood. As a kid I was too dumb to know not to lift as heavy as I could. I did hurt some stuff over the years. I do all kinds of stuff to try to fight back the years. At one time I got pretty fat but I'm very fit for my age now. I'm 55 6'2 180lbs and I exercise at least 3 days a week a few hours at a time.

The HIT type stuff, high intensity interval is supposed to be about the best to bring up VO2 max. There was also an interesting study concerning fasting that was in that fasting fiasco of a post. The basic take was that elite cyclists actually had an increase in VO2 max just from adopting a strict 16-8 fasting protocol. I'm not as influenced by VO2 max increase. I do the fasting to get the increase in testosterone and human growth hormone. I've read studies that equate the hormone boost to what would cost about $3K a month if you paid for it. I don't know if it's all that great, but I can definitely tell a difference when I am being strict about it VS when I get sloppy.

Good comments on age and VO2maz. Mine is "excellent" for my age (43-44) but it sure doesn't feel that way when I have a 30 lb pack and climbing 1500 feet of elk mountain. In fact, I've been studying what I can do to be in the best possible condition. I've pondered maxing strength, increase muscular endurance, increasing VO2max - and came to: work on all 3 in different phases. But....

At the end of the day, I'm not as strong as I was in my 30s and 40s, my vo2 max has declined, and my muscular endurance is less. At 60, I'm supposedly in excellent condition as measured by most metrics - but still time has taken its toll.

In the past couple of years I've really noticed it. I climb slower these days and don't try to minimize elk loads any more - 4-5 trips per elk. My main goal every day is to keep my heartrate below 130 bpm as much as I can. I find I can hunt all week if I don't stress my body excessively. I used to pound up the mountain as fast as I could - and need a day off in midweek. I also don't cover 15 miles a day any more. Some days I do, but not often. I generally cover 8-10 miles in an average day, some days a bit less.

And I'm mentoring a couple young guys