There is a LOT of emphasis on lowering rifle weights as much as possible for mountain hunting, but I seldom read anything on an equal emphasis on lowering body weight for the same benefits. Lets say you are not overweight: your bmi is right where it should be. And you can either reduce your rifle weight by even 1-2 lbs, or you can work on your body weight and lose say 4-5 lbs. Is the loss of body weight going to have the same benefits on your your ability to walk at a good pace in rough conditions as that 1-2 lbs. of less rifle weight to carry. I've never seen anything on this question.
There is a LOT of emphasis on lowering rifle weights as much as possible for mountain hunting, but I seldom read anything on an equal emphasis on lowering body weight for the same benefits. Lets say you are not overweight: your bmi is right where it should be. And you can either reduce your rifle weight by even 1-2 lbs, or you can work on your body weight and lose say 4-5 lbs. Is the loss of body weight going to have the same benefits on your your ability to walk at a good pace in rough conditions as that 1-2 lbs. of less rifle weight to carry. I've never seen anything on this question.
A rifle's weight is NOT the same as your body's weight, and there is not much correlation between lowering one vs the other.
A rifle is a static thing that you carry. It's typically in your hands or on your shoulder, away from your center of gravity. Those pounds are, in the real world on a mountain, heavier pounds than what extra you may be packing on your body.
It stands the test of good sense to have a lean body mass, but as anyone that has spent a lifetime climbing and backpacking will tell you oz's make pounds quickly. And extra pounds on your back or in your hands conspire to deplete energy.
I'm a 60 yo, 5'10", 148 lbs man that eats a whole food, plant-based, low inflammation diet and works out hard. Last weekend I did a 20.3 mile day (actual miles - not fitbit bullchit) here in the Montana Rockies. I felt great, and can promise you there aren't a lot of guys that could have kept pace. But I will pare away ounces mercilessly to preserve energy. OUNCES MAKE POUNDS, POUNDS DEPLETE ENERGY. A rifle is just one place to lose weight, but it's an important one because it's away from your center of gravity through much of a hunting day.
Another important place to lose weight is your footwear...
“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 reason I like a light rifle is the pack out. I'm 69 in good condition. When I put meat on my back it's not like it used to be. I use a 6.5# Kimber MT 308 for the last few years. So many good light rifles that will kill. Goal is to hunt elk and pack meat til I am 75. We shall see
If you are fit and pretty lean you will profit more from losing 2 lbs of rifle weight than 4-5 lbs of body weight. My #1 rifle weighs 8 lbs and I would gladly shed 2 if I were not such a cheapskate. I would like to shed 20 years even more
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
A rifle's weight is NOT the same as your body's weight, and there is not much correlation between lowering one vs the other.
A rifle is a static thing that you carry. It's typically in your hands or on your shoulder, away from your center of gravity. Those pounds are, in the real world on a mountain, heavier pounds than what extra you may be packing on your body.
It stands the test of good sense to have a lean body mass, but as anyone that has spent a lifetime climbing and backpacking will tell you oz's make pounds quickly. And extra pounds on your back or in your hands conspire to deplete energy.
I'm a 60 yo, 5'10", 148 lbs man that eats a whole food, plant-based, low inflammation diet and works out hard. Last weekend I did a 20.3 mile day (actual miles - not fitbit bullchit) here in the Montana Rockies. I felt great, and can promise you there aren't a lot of guys that could have kept pace. But I will pare away ounces mercilessly to preserve energy. OUNCES MAKE POUNDS, POUNDS DEPLETE ENERGY. A rifle is just one place to lose weight, but it's an important one because it's away from your center of gravity through much of a hunting day.
Another important place to lose weight is your footwear...
All of this^^^
Casey
Not being married to any particular political party sure makes it a lot easier to look at the world more objectively... Having said that, MAGA.
I can't find much to disagree with here concerning extra weight on the waist vs extra weight in equipment being carried. The center of gravity argument has merit but it isn't the whole story. I think it is also important to mention that more body weight (specifically muscle, not necessarily fat I guess) requires more oxygen to maintain and more so to actually use. Oxygen gets thinner as you climb elevation.
Here’s my take, I’m no physical specimen, didn’t even give it much thought until a few years ago. Now I’m 47, 5’8” and 180. I work out or hike/bike 4 days a week for 40 minutes. I can hike all over for as long/far as I want, without a pack or rifle. But throw a 40# pack and 8# rifle on my back and I’m sucking wind. So ya taking 2# off my rifle or pack would make a difference.
I could loose 5-10# off my ass, but I’d have to alienate my wife and her great cooking, which she also cooks for my 10th grade starting offensive football player and 19yo son. I could also give up good beer, but I’d rather spend several $100 on a new rifle and have the best of all worlds.
I'd rather lose it from the body and it's the cheapest place to lose it from, not to mention being healthy. It is still weight you are carrying up a mountain. It is way more comfortable to carry extra pounds in your gut than to carry it in a pack strapped to your shoulders but you are still carrying it.
Plus, if you lose 2 pounds off your body, it won't make you shoot worse. If you lose two pounds off your rifle, especially if it's a hard-kicker, it will probably make you shoot worse.
There is a LOT of emphasis on lowering rifle weights as much as possible for mountain hunting, but I seldom read anything on an equal emphasis on lowering body weight for the same benefits. Lets say you are not overweight: your bmi is right where it should be. And you can either reduce your rifle weight by even 1-2 lbs, or you can work on your body weight and lose say 4-5 lbs. Is the loss of body weight going to have the same benefits on your your ability to walk at a good pace in rough conditions as that 1-2 lbs. of less rifle weight to carry. I've never seen anything on this question.
Good post. I am nearly 64 and have always taken fitness seriously, even in my 20's I stayed in shape year around so I could Sheep hunt. Sheep hunters are fanatical about shaving ounces off all things, everything was was weighed and reweighed. Including myself, I would run, skate, play hockey etc in the off season to keep the flab off. The rifle is a different matter, I have gone ultra light at one time but found the weight wasn't as important as the portability of it. I now carry a Browning BLR takedown, It can be split in two to carry in my pack or saddlebags, I have s Burris 2x7 scout scope on it, the scope is also quick detachable. This rifle is beaten but holds poi well. I have grown to prefer take downs and single shot rifles, providing they are under 40" long
A thought about balance and motivation… Lots of folks can’t effectively shoot a featherweight rifle but just as many won’t go the distance up the next hill to check for blood if they didn’t see a “solid hit” or a DRT. Chalking it up to a miss that was obviously the fault of some other influence that all to often results in scavenger bait.
Shoot a rifle that you can carry/fits you and have the stamina/balance to get yourself up the hill then over the next hill to verify your shot…
I personally am far more effective past 250 yards with my 7lb.30-06 than I am with my 5.5lb .308
Like others said a few pounds of body weight doesn't compensate for rifle weight. I admit a lighter rifle is "Nicer" to carry and I have a couple. I'm 64, still go up the mountains, a bit slower though, and don't worry about rifle weight too much. Never really weighed any of mine, I pick the one I want to take. It might be a weatherby that I'm guessing weighs 9+ lbs (maybe more) or one of lighter ones that might go around 7 or so. I may change my mind about that in 10 years or so.
thank you all for your input. Here is why I ask this question. I am soon to be 74. 6'2" and I've always weighed between 170-175, although I'm probably a small bit heavier at the moment. I eat VERY healthy: almost all plant based food, no beer,no pop, no fast food and no processed food. Work physically hard: still work part time in a potato packing business, cut and split all our firewood, etc.
My son is a guide in alaska and he and I have tags for spring brown bear on Kodiak. We've hunted Kodiak before: it is hours of spotting, but when a decision is made to go, you have to go. And it can be a VERY hard climb up and thru alder patches. It is very difficult to find any place around where I live that duplicates those conditions. I have rifle options, but obviously for brown bear small calibers are out. I want to take my .375 which is kind of "the" brown bear caliber for browns, but it weighs 9 1/2# plus. I have smaller calibers that range from 8 up to 9 lbs, but each of them have their down sides as well. However, its only a difference of 1-2 lbs and so if its the same amount of carry on my shoulder vs. as part of my body, it won't be that difficult to lose another 5 lbs. or so.
It’s not just eating healthy but if you are eating a lot, you will weigh what your caloric intake sustains (eat more, weigh more). Most people eat way too much and snack constantly, even if they think they are eating healthy. Anyways, I’d probably take what I shot well and was comfortable for the terrain regardless of the caliber. You have a lighter 270 or 308? Take that. 9.5 lbs plus is heavy even for a 375. S
thank you all for your input. Here is why I ask this question. I am soon to be 74. 6'2" and I've always weighed between 170-175, although I'm probably a small bit heavier at the moment. I eat VERY healthy: almost all plant based food, no beer,no pop, no fast food and no processed food. Work physically hard: still work part time in a potato packing business, cut and split all our firewood, etc.
My son is a guide in alaska and he and I have tags for spring brown bear on Kodiak. We've hunted Kodiak before: it is hours of spotting, but when a decision is made to go, you have to go. And it can be a VERY hard climb up and thru alder patches. It is very difficult to find any place around where I live that duplicates those conditions. I have rifle options, but obviously for brown bear small calibers are out. I want to take my .375 which is kind of "the" brown bear caliber for browns, but it weighs 9 1/2# plus. I have smaller calibers that range from 8 up to 9 lbs, but each of them have their down sides as well. However, its only a difference of 1-2 lbs and so if its the same amount of carry on my shoulder vs. as part of my body, it won't be that difficult to lose another 5 lbs. or so.
So not really a mountain-backpack hunt. More dayhiking out of a base camp. Really, a pretty different scenario. This is, after all, the "Backpack Hunting" forum. I wouldn't sweat rifle weight in the scenario you describe.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
A thought about balance and motivation… Lots of folks can’t effectively shoot a featherweight rifle but just as many won’t go the distance up the next hill to check for blood if they didn’t see a “solid hit” or a DRT. Chalking it up to a miss that was obviously the fault of some other influence that all to often results in scavenger bait.
Shoot a rifle that you can carry/fits you and have the stamina/balance to get yourself up the hill then over the next hill to verify your shot…
I personally am far more effective past 250 yards with my 7lb.30-06 than I am with my 5.5lb .308
I decided not to mention shootability in order to keep the conversation centered on the original post, but you make some good points. For me a 6.75lb "all up" (scoped w/ sling and rounds) rifle with a weight forward balance is ideal. I'd call that a "lightweight," not an "Ultra-lightweight." My Kimber 84M MT's are both going to get rebarelled with the modified Lilja 84M contour that finishes at .620" at the muzzle. For me that's the right compromise between packability and shootability. That's the sort of thing only time and experience can teach you, and others will find a different answer undoubtedly.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Yeah, lose the 3-4 lbs body weight too if you can (or more). I don’t know what the equation is but, for example, and 9 lb rifle all-up as we like yo say, is not at the center of gravity (COG) like your body weight is in an upright walking position.
Your rifle then is on a lever with the COG, the fulcrum. And the further it is from the body (how you carry it, etc) ,”the more it weighs”.. we all know that on a teeter-totter, a light weight way out on the end of one side balances a heavier weight closer to the fulcrum on the other side.
Arbitrary chosen numbers for an example: a carried rifle 2 pounds heavier than an ideal (say 7.0 lbs) may exert the equivalent of an extra 6 or 7 lbs of body weight at COG . So there is no equivalence between body weight and rifle weight as to what you feel.
Of course as COG moves as you bend, move around, twist, things change for better or worse. So within reason — your call — light is right.
Apologize for being redundant. I missed Brad’s post above saying essentially the same thing.
As you probably know a kodiak bear hunt requires that you carry enough clothing to deal w/ a harsh environment and good optics as well as the rifle. The ground underfoot can be as challenging as the terrain and vegetation. Moving quickly to attain a good position for a shot w/ your gear will be a whole body event w/ an emphasis on cardio and muscular endurance. You may end up making several stalks in a single day. Every ounce that you carry should be the most efficient that you can afford, boots, layers, rain gear etc.
At your age being able to maintain a heart rate of 120-130 bpm for an hour non stop would be a good goal to maximize your ability to maximize your chances of a successful hunt. Doing this 2-3 times in the course of a day while wearing your gear will get you ready for anything and is attainable in the time available barring medical problems.
Your guide son is probably a physical beast who will be glad to carry dad's optics etc have a great hunt.
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
Not surprisingly, I agree with Brad on physical stature and conditioning. I'm 58, 5 ft 8, 155 lbs and 11-12% body fat. I spend all year staying in elk condition. Pounds on the body means something different. 2-5 lbs of muscle is not the same as 2-5 of body fat which is simply dead weight. I've weighed as much as 182 lbs back when I was into being as big and strong as I could. Elk hunting at that weight plain sucked because I had little aerobic conditioning. Mitochondria and ATP is where it's at for mountain hunting. Deadlifting 400 lbs or squatting 300 lbs wont help you at all if you dont have the aerobic base/conditioning to capitalize on that strength. Suffice to say, I'll take 2-5 lbs on my frame over 1-1.5 lbs of rifle weight.
I'm taking my Kimber Montana 308 next week (CO 1st season). Weighs 6.7 lbs with a NF SHV on board. It will likely be rebarreled after season to the Lilja 84M modifed contour. I did my 338 Fed with that contour 2 years ago. It points better and is easier to shoot offhand that the standard Kimber 84m contour.
Another factoid in the same vein is boot weight. I forgot the exact equivalent but think its 1 lb on your feet equals 10 lbs on your back. I switched to shoes for hiking this summer (Brad may have told me that several years back....). Have done a bunch of 15-17 mile days with 22 lbs pack this summer. Did several over 20. Weight on your feet is a real thing. Salomon makes their X-Ultra with 200 gr Thinsulate and waterproof plus it has a better tread pattern than the Quest 4d. I'll know how they work after next week. I literally saved 2lbs by switching from my Crispi Guide to the Salomons. Still taking the Crispis in the event it doesnt work so well.....
There is a LOT of emphasis on lowering rifle weights as much as possible for mountain hunting, but I seldom read anything on an equal emphasis on lowering body weight for the same benefits. Lets say you are not overweight: your bmi is right where it should be. And you can either reduce your rifle weight by even 1-2 lbs, or you can work on your body weight and lose say 4-5 lbs. Is the loss of body weight going to have the same benefits on your your ability to walk at a good pace in rough conditions as that 1-2 lbs. of less rifle weight to carry. I've never seen anything on this question.
1-2 lbs less in a rifle will be very noticeable to a person going up a mountain (or even walking flat). It's easy to feel the difference as soon as you pick it up and that difference never goes away.
4-5 lbs less body weight at the same level of fitness will be very hard for a person to notice going up a mountain.....again, at the same level of fitness.
Regardless of how well or poorly conditioned a person is, it's always easier to carry 7 lbs in their hand than it is to carry 9 lbs in their hand.
I'm a believer in being in good condition year round. For me, circuit and interval training for both lifting and cardio is the best fit. I believe it is the most time efficient way to maximize results that apply directly to the way I hunt as well as general fitness for everyday life. Find what works for you and a way you can implement it continually throughout the year doing something you enjoy.
Most of my hunting rifles weigh between 9.25 and 10.5 pounds. I have hunted mountains all my life. I am only 5' 6" tall (short) but solid and quite muscular with very little fat. 187 pounds. But living at near 1 mile high in the valley and then going up from there for almost every hunt I go on for mule deer, elk carrying 10 pound rifles is not anything new. I have been doing it for over 1/2 a century. Most of my mountain hunts are at 7000 to about 8800 feet. Some a bit higher, but once you get much over 9500 there is usually not a lot of game to hunt. Game doesn't live very far from food or water and at 9500+ food and water get scarce.
The other side of the coin is interesting however.
I do own a few rifles that come in between 6 pounds, 14 oz and 8.2 pounds and when I do take them out they are a delight to carry and hunt with. So some feel a "need" for a very light rifle and it's not really a need at all. It's simply a want and there is nothing at all wrong with that.
In the last 15 years or so I have had more fun from hunting with iron sighted rifles then I do with scoped rifles and I have killed almost all my game in the last 15 years over irons. I average around 7 kills each year. Some years more, and a few years I killed as few as 5. But I think 7 per year is probably an accurate average. Over the last 15 years that's around 115 head of game. Of those I think about 20 were killed with scoped rifles. All the rest were killed with rifles and iron sights ----- except for about another 20, which were killed with handguns with issue iron sights.
The reason most of my light guns are light is simply a lack of a scope and mounts. The only rifle I own that I made specifically to be light is my 25-06.
As I have aged I cannot shoot very far with iron sights with total confidence, so I simply don't shoot much past 200 yards as a rule with peeps sights and never past about 125-135 with open sights. Such a "limitation" has not helped the game animals very much however. I just shot my buck antelope with a Savage M99 in 300 2 weeks ago from prone over my pack at about 215 yards. Peep sight.
My lightest 2 scoped rifles are a Mauser in 25-06 and a Mauser scout carbine in 30-06. I have never hunting elk with the 25-06 but with correct bullets I would not refuse to do it. Many of my friend have killed elk with 25-06s and done fine. My Scout carbine is a 30-06 and I have killed elk antelope deer and a huge pile of varmints with that little gun. My 25-06 with scope, loaded and with the sling weighs 7 pounds 2 oz. My Scout weighs 8 pounds even, loaded with it's sling.
My lightest rifle of any center fire I have is my Lee Speed 303 at 6 pounds 14 oz. I have killed antelope and deer with it, but not elk (yet) But I will hopefully kill an elk with it some day. I know I can because the 180 grain bullet is the same speed as a 180 grain 300 Savage, and that I have killed elk with a 300 savage and I have seen it done several other times too.
My Savage M99 weighs 8 pound exactly. I did kill an elk with a 300 Savage, M99, but not this one I have now. In fact, it was the very first elk I ever killed back when I was a kid. The rifle was my dad's, which he got from a gunsmith friend of his in AZ in 1947 just 1-1/2 years after the war. It was the only center-fire rifle in our home from when I was born until I got my first 270 at 12 years old. Back in those days we shot everything that needed to be shot with either the 22 Winchester pump (M62A) or the 300 Savage. So as I grew up I started getting more and more guns, but weight was never even something I thought about.
As advantageous as lightening our body and rifle may be, I think the best approach is seeking better endurance and strength for the hunt demands first. By training more and better, we gain abilities and the body should lean out close to optimal with even a moderately healthy diet. Unlike gear, where we need to compromise function and lightweight, pursuing better fitness gives us the best of both worlds and opens more opportunity to carry superior (heavier) equipment.
There is a LOT of emphasis on lowering rifle weights as much as possible for mountain hunting, but I seldom read anything on an equal emphasis on lowering body weight for the same benefits. Lets say you are not overweight: your bmi is right where it should be. And you can either reduce your rifle weight by even 1-2 lbs, or you can work on your body weight and lose say 4-5 lbs. Is the loss of body weight going to have the same benefits on your your ability to walk at a good pace in rough conditions as that 1-2 lbs. of less rifle weight to carry. I've never seen anything on this question.
A rifle's weight is NOT the same as your body's weight, and there is not much correlation between lowering one vs the other.
A rifle is a static thing that you carry. It's typically in your hands or on your shoulder, away from your center of gravity. Those pounds are, in the real world on a mountain, heavier pounds than what extra you may be packing on your body.
It stands the test of good sense to have a lean body mass, but as anyone that has spent a lifetime climbing and backpacking will tell you oz's make pounds quickly. And extra pounds on your back or in your hands conspire to deplete energy.
I'm a 60 yo, 5'10", 148 lbs man that eats a whole food, plant-based, low inflammation diet and works out hard. Last weekend I did a 20.3 mile day (actual miles - not fitbit bullchit) here in the Montana Rockies. I felt great, and can promise you there aren't a lot of guys that could have kept pace. But I will pare away ounces mercilessly to preserve energy. OUNCES MAKE POUNDS, POUNDS DEPLETE ENERGY. A rifle is just one place to lose weight, but it's an important one because it's away from your center of gravity through much of a hunting day.
Another important place to lose weight is your footwear...
What's a bloody vegan doing posting on a MEAT eaters HUNTING forum? Are you a Euell Gibbons wild asparagus hunter?
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
Just like Brad, I’ve found there is a compromise between rifle weight and shootability, and I prefer something in the 6 3/4 lb range with scope and mounts, minus sling, scope cover, and ammo.
I have had rifles that weigh 6 lbs and they were difficult for me to shoot. I have a 30-06 AI that weighs less than 6 1/2 lbs and with a full house 200g Partition load gives nothing up to a 300WM when it comes to recoil.
My 270’s at 6 3/4 lbs are easy shooters for me. I’ve demonstrated to myself that a 243 w/ 100g Partitions is fine elk medicine, and have a 243 SS bbl waiting in the wings for one of my SA M700 actions for when I get older and probably less recoil tolerant.
Casey
Not being married to any particular political party sure makes it a lot easier to look at the world more objectively... Having said that, MAGA.
thank you all for your input. Here is why I ask this question. I am soon to be 74. 6'2" and I've always weighed between 170-175, although I'm probably a small bit heavier at the moment. I eat VERY healthy: almost all plant based food, no beer,no pop, no fast food and no processed food. Work physically hard: still work part time in a potato packing business, cut and split all our firewood, etc.
My son is a guide in alaska and he and I have tags for spring brown bear on Kodiak. We've hunted Kodiak before: it is hours of spotting, but when a decision is made to go, you have to go. And it can be a VERY hard climb up and thru alder patches. It is very difficult to find any place around where I live that duplicates those conditions. I have rifle options, but obviously for brown bear small calibers are out. I want to take my .375 which is kind of "the" brown bear caliber for browns, but it weighs 9 1/2# plus. I have smaller calibers that range from 8 up to 9 lbs, but each of them have their down sides as well. However, its only a difference of 1-2 lbs and so if its the same amount of carry on my shoulder vs. as part of my body, it won't be that difficult to lose another 5 lbs. or so.
If you are now a bit overweight, then definitely lose that 5 lbs as it will make a difference. If you can reduce the weight of the .375 by up to half a pound with a lighter stock that will help a bit. Even quarter of a pound is better than nothing. You wouldn't want the .375 to weigh less than 9 lbs at your age.
Some great points made for sure, for me I have found the sweet spot for a scoped rifle to be 7 3/4- 8 Lbs. or so. All my rifles are model 70's either in good synthetic stocks or factory featherweights. I've had a handful of LWT Kimbers and I just don't shoot them as well, so I quit trying. I still get up the mountains fine every year but if that slows a bit as I age, I'll know it's me, not my rifle.
I think the point here is simple: no sense carrying extra weight in any way shape or manner.
I dont disagree with SZHN about rifle weight. I can, and have, taken 9 lb rifles up steep/high mountains - but why? I think heavier rifles may be a bit easier to shoot but I shoot my 7-7.5 lb rifles just as accurate from field positions. Same goes with body weight, heavy optics, heavy backpacks, all manner of equipment. It does boil down to personal preference. For me, I'm lighter/faster now than when I was younger. And carry way less cumulative weight on the mountain, gear/body/rifle weight - the whole package. It is easier for me to cumulatively carry less weight up the mountain.
He's hunting brown bear, a lightweight rifle in a small caliber is not appropriate. A .375 is appropriate but not less than 9lb for a 74 year old. The ideal weight for a 7-08 or .270 is less than the ideal weight for a .375. If he were younger he could possibly get away with an 8 1/2 pound .375. Also, if you are lean and fit, losing bodyweight might actually be detrimental as the weight you lose would consist mainly of muscle mass and that will make you weaker. However, if you are carrying a bit of excess weight (fat), losing 5 lbs would be very beneficial. I was carrying medium weight rifles around for decades and it wasn't really an issue (except that they are more awkward) until I started to carry a 7lb rifle. Then all of a sudden, the 8 1/2 pound rifles seemed heavy. What I am saying is that there is benefit in carrying a light weight rifle but also some of the benefit is just in our heads. When I had to carry a 10 1/2 pound rifle around again, it was only "heavy" for the first day, then after that I got used to it and it wasn't such an issue. But climbing up mountains you really notice the added weight. I'd rather carry a 20 lb pack than a 10 lb rifle.
My 375 Improved is an old P64 300 that was rebored/rechambered to 375 Improved. It weighs 9lbs on the nose with a 6x36 on it. Shooting 250's a bit over 2900, even in the Legend stock is brisk. It doesn't hurt a bit but I am not sure how much lighter I would want it.
if your in-shape maybe a heavier rifle is no big deal and your a bigger stronger man ? if your a smaller man maybe you need a smaller rifle ? not everyone is the same ,myself i like a heavier rifle ,heavy rifles shoot better for me but i am 6 ft. 2 inch and 240 lbs., i climbed poles and shoveled dirt for a living for 35 years plus i was a farm kid . none us are the same everyone has a weight they can handle in a rifle ???
if your in-shape maybe a heavier rifle is no big deal and your a bigger stronger man ? if your a smaller man maybe you need a smaller rifle ? not everyone is the same ,myself i like a heavier rifle ,heavy rifles shoot better for me but i am 6 ft. 2 inch and 240 lbs., i climbed poles and shoveled dirt for a living for 35 years plus i was a farm kid . none us are the same everyone has a weight they can handle in a rifle ???
So not a mountain backpack hunter then…
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
if your in-shape maybe a heavier rifle is no big deal and your a bigger stronger man ? if your a smaller man maybe you need a smaller rifle ? not everyone is the same ,myself i like a heavier rifle ,heavy rifles shoot better for me but i am 6 ft. 2 inch and 240 lbs., i climbed poles and shoveled dirt for a living for 35 years plus i was a farm kid . none us are the same everyone has a weight they can handle in a rifle ???
I think that's true pete, some of this weight thing is just in our heads, the same with recoil. Not all of it, but some of it.
[quote=pete53]if your in-shape maybe a heavier rifle is no big deal and your a bigger stronger man ? if your a smaller man maybe you need a smaller rifle ? not everyone is the same ,myself i like a heavier rifle ,heavy rifles shoot better for me but i am 6 ft. 2 inch and 240 lbs., i climbed poles and shoveled dirt for a living for 35 years plus i was a farm kid . none us are the same everyone has a weight they can handle in a rifle ???
So not a mountain backpack hunter then…
>>> not anymore but i got smarter and now we kill bigger bulls near alfalfa fields.
Until you have a "healthy" BMI, body weight will be a factor. Usually a big one.
........
Had my wellness check at work yesterday. Total cholesterol 165, Triglycerides 47, Resting heart rate of 48. 6' 218 lbs puts me at a BMI of 30 which is listed as obese.
This morning was 12 rounds: DE bag 3 min, 2 min elliptical (1 minute forward, 1 minute backwards) Heavy bag 3 min, 2 min elliptical (1 minute forward, 1 minute backwards) ...then back to the DE bag.
There is a LOT of emphasis on lowering rifle weights as much as possible for mountain hunting, but I seldom read anything on an equal emphasis on lowering body weight for the same benefits. Lets say you are not overweight: your bmi is right where it should be. And you can either reduce your rifle weight by even 1-2 lbs, or you can work on your body weight and lose say 4-5 lbs. Is the loss of body weight going to have the same benefits on your your ability to walk at a good pace in rough conditions as that 1-2 lbs. of less rifle weight to carry. I've never seen anything on this question.
My best shooting rifles are LW Nula's and a re-barreled Kimber. I may use a heavier rifle, but have yet to have a miss I would blame on the LW's.
As far as losing 4-5 pounds....4 to 5 of itself, will not do one much good on endurance, without being in better physical condition than before you lost the 4-5. Many loose more than than 4-5, and are in no better shape than previously. Conversely, one could hit the weights, along with improving cardio and gain 10 pounds, and be in better hunting shape than when they were lighter.
Been hanging around long enough for certain truths to become evident...One being, most people over 40 are not in shape...and most will not put in the effort to be so. And only losing 4-5 pounds means little if the work isn't put in.
And as far as shooting a heavy better than a lightweight...I find it to be true when shooting off the bench or fooling around from off hand...However, when the adrenaline and focus is on edge...I find little difference.
Had my wellness check at work yesterday. Total cholesterol 165, Triglycerides 47, Resting heart rate of 48. 6' 218 lbs puts me at a BMI of 30 which is listed as obese.
This morning was 12 rounds: DE bag 3 min, 2 min elliptical (1 minute forward, 1 minute backwards) Heavy bag 3 min, 2 min elliptical (1 minute forward, 1 minute backwards) ...then back to the DE bag.
BMI is a crock for men who train.
True that. Thicker bone structure is also a factor that skews the efficacy of BMI as a measure of body composition.
I think Brad & BWinters nailed it. Personally I’m in continuously above average shape for 49 (but not where I know I could be) and know my body well enough to know that lighter boots & cardio are where it’s at for me. This item or that item won’t really make a difference if my finger tops are sweating. A lighter or more nimble rifle might make that alder choked hillside a bit more bearable but honestly that’s gonna be terrible no matter what. Alders, after all, were hand planted by satan himself.
Until you have a "healthy" BMI, body weight will be a factor. Usually a big one.
........
Had my wellness check at work yesterday. Total cholesterol 165, Triglycerides 47, Resting heart rate of 48. 6' 218 lbs puts me at a BMI of 30 which is listed as obese.
This morning was 12 rounds: DE bag 3 min, 2 min elliptical (1 minute forward, 1 minute backwards) Heavy bag 3 min, 2 min elliptical (1 minute forward, 1 minute backwards) ...then back to the DE bag.
BMI is a crock for men who train.
BMI is a number.
Is your mass fat or muscle? I had to get a weight waiver in the Corps once after 6 months on ship lifting. I was well under 10% body fat, and ran the 3 miles in 15 minutes and change.
Obviously there’s a lot of correlation but cardio and conditioning is more important than BMI in and of itself. I’ve never bought into the loose two pounds and don’t worry about the rifle argument. Nobody will ever notice hiking with an extra two pounds on their body but an extra two pounds slung over the shoulder or carried in the hand is something that you notice instantly and that you’ll notice more the further you carry it.
I find I shoot an 8-9 pound rifle better than the lightweights at longish ranges. So that is what I tend to hunt with. I'm a bit over average for height and weight so maybe that helps. I try to stay in respective shape year round.
I'd say most would be well served to train harder both via weights and cardio vs obsessing about gear weights. Makes no difference to me either way. After hunting for 40 years I know what I like.
Until you have a "healthy" BMI, body weight will be a factor. Usually a big one.
........
Had my wellness check at work yesterday. Total cholesterol 165, Triglycerides 47, Resting heart rate of 48. 6' 218 lbs puts me at a BMI of 30 which is listed as obese.
This morning was 12 rounds: DE bag 3 min, 2 min elliptical (1 minute forward, 1 minute backwards) Heavy bag 3 min, 2 min elliptical (1 minute forward, 1 minute backwards) ...then back to the DE bag.
BMI is a crock for men who train.
BMI is a number.
Is your mass fat or muscle? I had to get a weight waiver in the Corps once after 6 months on ship lifting. I was well under 10% body fat, and ran the 3 miles in 15 minutes and change.
I was 6' and 202lbs.
😉
Muscle. 2-3 days a week lifting in a circuit. 2-3 days a week bag work/elliptical in a circuit.
I’m often the fattest guy on the top of the hill but sometimes the first & dragging an almost 10lb 300 Weatherby along can be tiring - but the point is to kill something not look cool in you kuiu gear. That rifle & scope are good to 800 yards from field positions so 400 yards is a lay-up. Would I like to have my 40 years ago legs & wind - you bet. Will a 4 lb lighter rifle or 25 lb lighter body do that - no so I’ll use what works.
Once again, at least 50% of the answers here on the BACKPACKING HUNTING FORUM are not from actual backpackers... dayhiking with a rifle is not the same thing.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
How many of you have carried a M-1 all day every day, and a full load out of ammo and your ruck with all your Chitt in it, every where you went , up hill down hill in the snow, mud, rain, slept with your M-1, ate with your M-1, chitt with your M-1??? a naked empty M-1 weighs 12 # some of you guy's sound like Snowflake PUSSY'S. Rio7
How many of you have carried a M-1 all day every day, and a full load out of ammo and your ruck with all your Chitt in it, every where you went , up hill down hill in the snow, mud, rain, slept with your M-1, ate with your M-1, chitt with your M-1??? a naked empty M-1 weighs 12 # some of you guy's sound like Snowflake PUSSY'S. Rio7
Well yeah, but did you do it at 11,000 ft atitude, at 64 years of age...........?
Casey
Not being married to any particular political party sure makes it a lot easier to look at the world more objectively... Having said that, MAGA.
How many of you have carried a M-1 all day every day, and a full load out of ammo and your ruck with all your Chitt in it, every where you went , up hill down hill in the snow, mud, rain, slept with your M-1, ate with your M-1, chitt with your M-1??? a naked empty M-1 weighs 12 # some of you guy's sound like Snowflake PUSSY'S. Rio7
Classic campfire....
A post having nothing to do with the topic, but made solely to remind everyone else how much badasser they are than the folks who actually posted about the topic...
- Greg
Success is found at the intersection of planning, hard work, and stubbornness.
Once again, at least 50% of the answers here on the BACKPACKING HUNTING FORUM are not from actual backpackers... dayhiking with a rifle is not the same thing.
agreed. It’s not hard to resist commenting unless you have some experience in the area being discussed. It’s ok if backpacking isn’t your thing and other things are. Myself, I love packing up and spending weeks after game on their own turf, weather, suffering & all makes the whole hunting thing complete for me. Others have more experience otherwise and that’s cool too.
There is a LOT of emphasis on lowering rifle weights as much as possible for mountain hunting, but I seldom read anything on an equal emphasis on lowering body weight for the same benefits. Lets say you are not overweight: your bmi is right where it should be. And you can either reduce your rifle weight by even 1-2 lbs, or you can work on your body weight and lose say 4-5 lbs. Is the loss of body weight going to have the same benefits on your your ability to walk at a good pace in rough conditions as that 1-2 lbs. of less rifle weight to carry. I've never seen anything on this question.
Personally, I try to lower weight everywhere I can (without compromising safety of course). The more weight I can save the more food I can carry to stay out longer and the more weight I can pack out when successful. I also find this important as I am a solo hunter and can’t share the load. I don’t really have weight to spare off my body so gear is where I can save the most and a rifle is an easy place to start, though it’s far from the only place to cut weight. My heaviest rifle is a hair over 7lbs, I no longer carry a stove, fuel, utensils or pot. I’ve traded in my tent for an ultralight bivy… the list goes on. As I mentioned before, I don’t have much to spare when it comes to shedding body weight. With that being said I generally lose a pound a day on a trip while maintaining a 4000cal diet.
How many of you have carried a M-1 all day every day, and a full load out of ammo and your ruck with all your Chitt in it, every where you went , up hill down hill in the snow, mud, rain, slept with your M-1, ate with your M-1, chitt with your M-1??? a naked empty M-1 weighs 12 # some of you guy's sound like Snowflake PUSSY'S. Rio7
Not an M1, but a fully kitted M4….
I agree though. I wished it was a 6lb Kimber until I needed to use it
There is a LOT of emphasis on lowering rifle weights as much as possible for mountain hunting, but I seldom read anything on an equal emphasis on lowering body weight for the same benefits. Lets say you are not overweight: your bmi is right where it should be. And you can either reduce your rifle weight by even 1-2 lbs, or you can work on your body weight and lose say 4-5 lbs. Is the loss of body weight going to have the same benefits on your your ability to walk at a good pace in rough conditions as that 1-2 lbs. of less rifle weight to carry. I've never seen anything on this question.
Personally, I try to lower weight everywhere I can (without compromising safety of course). The more weight I can save the more food I can carry to stay out longer and the more weight I can pack out when successful. I also find this important as I am a solo hunter and can’t share the load. I don’t really have weight to spare off my body so gear is where I can save the most and a rifle is an easy place to start, though it’s far from the only place to cut weight. My heaviest rifle is a hair over 7lbs, I no longer carry a stove, fuel, utensils or pot. I’ve traded in my tent for an ultralight bivy… the list goes on. As I mentioned before, I don’t have much to spare when it comes to shedding body weight. With that being said I generally lose a pound a day on a trip while maintaining a 4000cal diet.
We were talking about ditching stoves and eating cold freeze dried the other day. That's a tough one for me... Not sure I could do it for long. A lot of morale in that coffee and one hot meal a day.
We were talking about ditching stoves and eating cold freeze dried the other day. That's a tough one for me... Not sure I could do it for long. A lot of morale in that coffee and one hot meal a day.
The thought of cold freeze dried makes my stomach hurt…..
Casey
Not being married to any particular political party sure makes it a lot easier to look at the world more objectively... Having said that, MAGA.
Never carried a back pack while hunting, but did have a Army Surplus, gas mask bag for all my stuff, it weighed maybe 10# loaded.never owned 60#s of hunting gear and never needed it. Rio7
Once again, at least 50% of the answers here on the BACKPACKING HUNTING FORUM are not from actual backpackers... dayhiking with a rifle is not the same thing.
We were talking about ditching stoves and eating cold freeze dried the other day. That's a tough one for me... Not sure I could do it for long. A lot of morale in that coffee and one hot meal a day.
I stay away from cold freeze dried. A good mix of bars for variety, home made trail mix, jerky/sausages, and a chocolate/coffee protein shake to start every day. The biggest morale killers are heavy rain and not seeing rams.
The biggest morale killers are heavy rain and not seeing rams.
Fog is the worst for me, especially after you've committed the time (and pain) to get up into the mountains and then can't even glass. But if I were living out of a bivy, rain would be more of a problem.
Glassed 22 different rams this year, and couldn't make a single one legal. Still worth it to be able to watch them, and there should be some good hunting there in a few years.
Sounds like you have a good spot. Seeing rams and just being in the mountains calms the soul.
Thankfully, fog is generally not a problem here. Wind on the other hand is a constant SOB and has ended hunts for me. I can’t complain too much I suppose as I was able to sneak in to 60-70 yards and get my ram this year. I was still scared to take that close of a shot in that kind of wind though.
Yup brown bear hunting is not the same as mountain hunting.
The 375 H&H is the perfect brown bear rifle (unless you're a guide most of whom prefer the 458s or 416 Rem) so weight is really a non issue.
You can stop reading now, but here are some pearls I've learned over the years of BB hunting:
1. You can't train for climbing through the alders. Nope. Nada. 2. You will have shed all the weight you need to in your tent before you even go out. Even if you decide to go hike for a glassing hill farther away. 3. The only weather worse than on Kodiak is on the peninsula. 4. Good thing you eat natural plant fiber- don't wear any on Kodiak. 5. Avoid Gore Tex it's a sponge. 6. Avoid the semi sponge Sitka/Kuiu rain shells. After a couple-three days they're done & you can't adequately dry them out until they've been in the tent for a couple-three days (and burned up too much propane to do so). H/H is the only gear that will repel water day, after day, after day. 7. Buy small dry bags for your lighter layered outers and the heavy coat that you'll keep in your pack. You will need both. 8. Contractor trash bags to put your pack in while it rains. 9. Rubber orange crabber gloves for glassin in the rain. (Liners are nice but not necessary). 10. The easiest way to shed weight on a BB hunt is to not bring a spotting scope.........but that requires someone else will need to have one.
Have fun. Brown bear hunting is a blast. I have a love/hate thing for Kodiak.
Just got back from 5 days of Colorado 1st season. Season is only 5 days long so you hunt 5 days....
An observation to consider: resilience and stamina, or endurance, whatever your parlance. It's not hard to drag a fat ass, 10 lb rifle, and a 40 lb daypack up a steep slope to 10,000+ feet - on day 1. The true test is day 3-4-5. Can you do 7-10 miles/day every day for multiple consecutive days? Alot of guys, myself included in the past, could go for a couple days then need a day off and 25 Advil to keep hunting.
I guarantee, not my opinion, a lighter body, less weight on your feet and back, equates to greater stamina/endurance over the long haul.
As to bodyweight and BMI, I tend to agree with jay - my BMI is "overweight" and in past years I've been borderline obese. No one has ever looked at me and said I could lose some weight. BMI is a basic measure that needs tempered with reason. But - how strong is strong enough to haul 60-70 lbs of elk off the mountain? For 3-5 trips up the hill? Over 1-3 days? This is the realm of stamina/endurance.
I learned this the hard way over the years. I actually am carrying less muscle than in past years for that very reason. I can still squat 250, bench 225, deadlift 300 for 4-8 reps depending on the exercise. The central question: does benching 300 lbs, deadlifting 400 lbs, squatting 300 lbs make me a better mountain hunter? Am I able to maintain an acceptable level of effort over multiple days? To me, once a certain level of strength is achieved, aerobic capacity, both aerobic and anaerobic, need maximized. You get resilience from being strong but you get aerobic and anaerobic capacity from training your muscles to do repeated heavy work over long periods of time. An example: stepups with 60-80lbs in your pack for 2-3-400 reps while keeping your heartrate below ~ 150 bpm. IOW at a rate of about 1 step every 3-5 secs and slow down when HR gets close to, or exceeds, 150 bpm. This type of training sucks. Sucks bad. But I've found it to be the best training I do.
As an aside, elk won this year. I mmm, mmmiss, mmmiissseeedd one..........their were intervening factors (unforeseen tree branches) which I didnt see in the last 10 mins of shooting light. Shooting over my pack at 125 yards is not much of a shot. Except when things are in the way.
A thought about balance and motivation… Lots of folks can’t effectively shoot a featherweight rifle but just as many won’t go the distance up the next hill to check for blood if they didn’t see a “solid hit” or a DRT. Chalking it up to a miss that was obviously the fault of some other influence that all to often results in scavenger bait.
Shoot a rifle that you can carry/fits you and have the stamina/balance to get yourself up the hill then over the next hill to verify your shot…
I personally am far more effective past 250 yards with my 7lb.30-06 than I am with my 5.5lb .308
I decided not to mention shootability in order to keep the conversation centered on the original post, but you make some good points. For me a 6.75lb "all up" (scoped w/ sling and rounds) rifle with a weight forward balance is ideal. I'd call that a "lightweight," not an "Ultra-lightweight." My Kimber 84M MT's are both going to get rebarelled with the modified Lilja 84M contour that finishes at .620" at the muzzle. For me that's the right compromise between packability and shootability. That's the sort of thing only time and experience can teach you, and others will find a different answer undoubtedly.
Brad; Good afternoon to you sir, it's been too long since we've said hello and I hope life's been treating you all well in the years in between.
We've tilled this soil a few times before I believe, but for sure I'm still with you in that about 7lb is as light as I can do good work with in a cartridge that develops much recoil.
Its interesting to read your comment about weight forward balance too, as that's more or less where I'm at as well. When I had my walking around rifle as a .270, it was 7lbs on the nose with 5 rounds in it. The barrel on it now as a 6.5x55 is 4oz heavier and of course puts all the weight there - but here's the thing, I definitely shoot it better off of improvised rests.
Photo of said rifle in the current color - it's going to change at the end of this season as the Krylon is gone in increasingly more spots.
You're still doing really well to do the 20 mile trip, I'm sure that'd be beyond what I'm able to do this year at 59. Somehow my feet are giving me issues this year after about 4 hours hiking.
Oh, I finally took your advice on boots and mostly have been running some Zamberlans which are about a pound lighter than my old Meindl boots and you're correct, I can feel that.
Lastly, to anyone who is getting close to Brad's and my age, I'll heartily endorse a telescoping walking stick or trekking pole I guess is what I've been using. I prefer the adjustability of them as I'll run it shorter going up and longer coming down if that makes sense? It's kept me from ending up on my back a few times, which is a nice thing as the mountains somehow got harder about 5 or perhaps it was even 10 years back now.
Since I live in the mountains, all my hunting is there, but admittedly there's days when I go much more up and down and sometimes do my level best to stay on the level of the elevation we start out at.
All the best to you and your family Brad, good luck on your remaining hunts and good luck to the OP on his hunt too.
mr. tony soprano: Great info you shared. I've been on kodiak twice so know exactly what you're talking about. I haven't used those gloves you mentioned but will look for some. And those guys who do 20 miles in the western mountains just don't know what climbing up thru alder patches is like. I'm with you on Kodiak: a love and a hate.
Fog is the worst for me, especially after you've committed the time (and pain) to get up into the mountains and then can't even glass.
Fog can be frustrating no doubt, but I have also used it to get across some open areas that I otherwise would have been belly crawling across, or taking a 2-3 mile, several thousand vertical feet detour. Just this past August in the Talkeetnas the fog nearly made me miss spotting my target ram. I barely saw a fuzzy sheep outline in the distance and the fog then immediately worsened before I could get a good look at it. I chanced a 2 mile hike to get closer and see if it was him but used the fog to cross some open slopes. This obviously required me to know the area, but it worked and I got the ram.
T Inman; Good morning my cyber friend, I hope the weather is behaving in your part of the world and all who matter in it are well.
It's funny you mention sneaking up on stuff using fog, as I've absolutely done that too, but in my case as well I knew the area well enough to do it.
When I did shoot one mulie buck in those conditions, the fog dropped down on me so badly that I ended up dragging the entire carcass out to below the fog level instead of back packing it as I was concerned I'd never find any parts left behind on the mountain...
I should clarify too that we'll sometimes sock in for days at a time here in the main Okanagan once the "rains of November" hit us and this was in the '80's so taking a GPS bearing on my phone app wasn't a thing we'd even dreamed would ever happen.
Funny in that I still use flagging tape - which I clean up on my last trip out - along with the phone GPS thingy when packing out game. I guess it's just an old guy thing not quite trusting the technology yet T?
Terrain and conditions can be variable for sure and I'm sure there's places which I've never hunted yet - sandy desert or Alaskan alders - which present their own unique set of problems for sure.
Personally I didn't prefer the blackberry tangles which the Blacktails seemed to ignore completely when chasing them on the Gulf Islands off of Vancouver Island and while I only did one hunt in it, I've got to say Devil's Club rates about at the top of plants I detest!!!
Was talking to a geologist from northern BC and the Yukon the other night and he had some Devil's Club stories too as you can imagine.
Anyways sir mostly I just wanted to say good morning, hope you're well and wish you success on your remaining hunts.
T Inman; Good morning my cyber friend, I hope the weather is behaving in your part of the world and all who matter in it are well.
It's funny you mention sneaking up on stuff using fog, as I've absolutely done that too, but in my case as well I knew the area well enough to do it.
When I did shoot one mulie buck in those conditions, the fog dropped down on me so badly that I ended up dragging the entire carcass out to below the fog level instead of back packing it as I was concerned I'd never find any parts left behind on the mountain...
I should clarify too that we'll sometimes sock in for days at a time here in the main Okanagan once the "rains of November" hit us and this was in the '80's so taking a GPS bearing on my phone app wasn't a thing we'd even dreamed would ever happen.
Funny in that I still use flagging tape - which I clean up on my last trip out - along with the phone GPS thingy when packing out game. I guess it's just an old guy thing not quite trusting the technology yet T?
Terrain and conditions can be variable for sure and I'm sure there's places which I've never hunted yet - sandy desert or Alaskan alders - which present their own unique set of problems for sure.
Personally I didn't prefer the blackberry tangles which the Blacktails seemed to ignore completely when chasing them on the Gulf Islands off of Vancouver Island and while I only did one hunt in it, I've got to say Devil's Club rates about at the top of plants I detest!!!
Was talking to a geologist from northern BC and the Yukon the other night and he had some Devil's Club stories too as you can imagine.
Anyways sir mostly I just wanted to say good morning, hope you're well and wish you success on your remaining hunts.
Dwayne
Thanks Dwayne! It's always good to hear from you. As far as flagging tape, I still use it too. I do often carry a GPS (not a phone app, as I haven't been able to figure out how to use those things yet) but only use it sparingly, such as when in unfamiliar terrain after dark and I am curious as to how I missed a road or specific ridge, etc. or to see how far I am from camp. When getting back to a downed animal for another trip if it is thick or for whatever reason I am unsure of the exact location, I always use flagging tape. I guess I am just old fashioned.
Devil's Club is appropriately named too. I won't argue with that. BTDT. Have a great week!
Once again, at least 50% of the answers here on the BACKPACKING HUNTING FORUM are not from actual backpackers... dayhiking with a rifle is not the same thing.
They are really different. Wife and I did the John Muir Trail in 2020; with hiking out to two resupplies (Red’s Meadow and Muir Trail Ranch) and a couple side jaunts it came in a bit over 230 miles. We did it in roughly 23 days so 10 miles/day average... this is over many mountain passes over 10k... 11k... 12k....13k... then Whitney at the end at over 14k elevation. That was BACKPACKING. Pack weight, and as you say boot weight, is at an absolute premium. I wore Solomon X-Ultra lows and felt sorry for the poor sods I saw in actual boots.
A backpack hunt has a whole bunch of other considerations, most of which blow any idea of running truly light out of the water. My last backpack hunt I carried a really heavy rifle with a big scope and my big 13x56 Minox in addition to my 8x Swaro’s and rangefinder and butchering gear and ammo and and.... it was my 2nd time doing this hunt, I knew the terrain and what to expect, and I wanted to be able to take one at long range. Got a nice buck at just over 600 yards. I know there’s folks who could make that shot 10/10 times with a 5-lb rifle but I’m not one of them.
To the OP’s point, if I were hunting brown bear in AK in thick stuff I’d take a big bore rifle that I shot well. And I wouldn’t sweat a pound or two of rifle weight. Body weight is an interesting one. Losing weight tends to go along with becoming fitter and it’s hard to separate the two. I got physically lighter on the JMT, and I got physically fitter as well. Was a very strong hiker by the end. I guess my take is I can carry an extra 5-10 lbs of fat spread over my body up the mountain without much problem, BTDT, but I’d sure hate to carry an extra 5 lbs of rifle weight in my arms all day.
If I’m going backpacking.... out comes the postal scale. I’m chasing ounces. We are planning on hiking the full south-north length of NM on the CDT this year, over 800 miles (!), and I’m sweating every gram.. forget rifle weight, I’m debating between my Glock 43X and my regular G43! A light pack makes an absolute world of difference.
For the backpackers... Zpacks is now making an extra long Duplex. Hallelujah! We’re gonna finish wearing out our old Duplex in NM, but are already debating colors for ordering an “extended” one here soon.
There is a LOT of emphasis on lowering rifle weights as much as possible for mountain hunting, but I seldom read anything on an equal emphasis on lowering body weight for the same benefits. Lets say you are not overweight: your bmi is right where it should be. And you can either reduce your rifle weight by even 1-2 lbs, or you can work on your body weight and lose say 4-5 lbs. Is the loss of body weight going to have the same benefits on your your ability to walk at a good pace in rough conditions as that 1-2 lbs. of less rifle weight to carry. I've never seen anything on this question.
A rifle's weight is NOT the same as your body's weight, and there is not much correlation between lowering one vs the other.
A rifle is a static thing that you carry. It's typically in your hands or on your shoulder, away from your center of gravity. Those pounds are, in the real world on a mountain, heavier pounds than what extra you may be packing on your body.
It stands the test of good sense to have a lean body mass, but as anyone that has spent a lifetime climbing and backpacking will tell you oz's make pounds quickly. And extra pounds on your back or in your hands conspire to deplete energy.
I'm a 60 yo, 5'10", 148 lbs man that eats a whole food, plant-based, low inflammation diet and works out hard. Last weekend I did a 20.3 mile day (actual miles - not fitbit bullchit) here in the Montana Rockies. I felt great, and can promise you there aren't a lot of guys that could have kept pace. But I will pare away ounces mercilessly to preserve energy. OUNCES MAKE POUNDS, POUNDS DEPLETE ENERGY. A rifle is just one place to lose weight, but it's an important one because it's away from your center of gravity through much of a hunting day.
Another important place to lose weight is your footwear...
I carry what I like I’m 60 and still carry a Model 70 300 H&H Mag with 3.5x10 40mm scope for Elk. No I’m not as hard as steel as when I left the Marines. But to me weight is weight around my waist or my rifle. Just FYI this year in Colorado I lost 20lbs in a week Elk hunting and felt a hell of a lot better on the last day than the first as It was getting easier. Also you can shoot better with a heavy rifle than a light rifle. Target shooter prove this every year shooting offhand.
Just got back from 5 days of Colorado 1st season. Season is only 5 days long so you hunt 5 days....
An observation to consider: resilience and stamina, or endurance, whatever your parlance. It's not hard to drag a fat ass, 10 lb rifle, and a 40 lb daypack up a steep slope to 10,000+ feet - on day 1. The true test is day 3-4-5. Can you do 7-10 miles/day every day for multiple consecutive days? Alot of guys, myself included in the past, could go for a couple days then need a day off and 25 Advil to keep hunting.
I guarantee, not my opinion, a lighter body, less weight on your feet and back, equates to greater stamina/endurance over the long haul.
As to bodyweight and BMI, I tend to agree with jay - my BMI is "overweight" and in past years I've been borderline obese. No one has ever looked at me and said I could lose some weight. BMI is a basic measure that needs tempered with reason. But - how strong is strong enough to haul 60-70 lbs of elk off the mountain? For 3-5 trips up the hill? Over 1-3 days? This is the realm of stamina/endurance.
I learned this the hard way over the years. I actually am carrying less muscle than in past years for that very reason. I can still squat 250, bench 225, deadlift 300 for 4-8 reps depending on the exercise. The central question: does benching 300 lbs, deadlifting 400 lbs, squatting 300 lbs make me a better mountain hunter? Am I able to maintain an acceptable level of effort over multiple days? To me, once a certain level of strength is achieved, aerobic capacity, both aerobic and anaerobic, need maximized. You get resilience from being strong but you get aerobic and anaerobic capacity from training your muscles to do repeated heavy work over long periods of time. An example: stepups with 60-80lbs in your pack for 2-3-400 reps while keeping your heartrate below ~ 150 bpm. IOW at a rate of about 1 step every 3-5 secs and slow down when HR gets close to, or exceeds, 150 bpm. This type of training sucks. Sucks bad. But I've found it to be the best training I do.
As an aside, elk won this year. I mmm, mmmiss, mmmiissseeedd one..........their were intervening factors (unforeseen tree branches) which I didnt see in the last 10 mins of shooting light. Shooting over my pack at 125 yards is not much of a shot. Except when things are in the way.
I believe that lifting heavy does indeed help your performance in the mountains. At least that's my expierance. In a typical day elk hunting I go about 8-12 miles at an average elevations of maybe 8000' hunting out of a base camp. This is different than living out of your pack FWIW. I'm 5'7" 160lbs and 45 years old. I have both a light weight rig that weighs 6.5 lbs and a standard weight that weighs a hair over 8lbs. I'll take the standard any day for what I do.
As a 62 year old relatively new Yukon Mountain-hunter that started at 300 pounds 5 years ago and am now 70 pounds lighter I have some thoughts on the subject. It's not an either or..you need to reduce body weight, increase strength and fitness and reduce your pack weight. It's all important. While I know really strong people that can carry a 9 pound rifle, a 7 pound spotter and tripod set up and a 7 pound tent I try for less as at 62 there is a limit to how strong I am going to be.
I think it's important to lighten up everything that you can up to the point of safety and efficiency. You can get too light. Having a bit of fat is ok at the beginning of the season as you'll burn away calories in the Mountains, however, too much extra fat weight on your body will hurt performance and risk injury. 10-20 pounds of fat can be carried pretty well (much better than the same weight in gear) and will be burnt off in a season of hike-hunting and pre- season scouting. It's important to be as strong and fit as possible. A super light tent will be fine in good conditions but when you live through a storm and have the pole whipping in your face and spindrift settling on your sleeping bag you will be wishing you had invested 2 more pounds in your tent. A 1 pound sleeping bag was great for my son until the temperature went down to -8C one August hunt and he couldn't sleep that night. He now carries a 2 pounder with an 8 OZ micro bivy.
This year I have been playing with a 4.9 pound rifle that comes in at 5.9 pounds scoped. I shoot my 6.9 pound rig quite a bit better. I have decided to take the extra pound. I also leave all the gadgets at home and have paired my gear to take only what I actually need. I got criticized over at Rockslide for telling back pack hunters to NOT take a chair, but the best way to lose weight off your pack is to replace low quality stuff with lighter high quality and leave ALL the GADGETS at home. If you are coming out heavy every pound counts! With a partner sharing critical equipment aiming for a pack weight before food and water of 21 or less pounds each is worth shooting for. With carrying optics and rifle you can only make this only with really light and high quality stuff.
It never ceased to amaze me, maybe just coincidence, that the infantry units that provided security for my engineer unit seemed to have machine gunners and assistant gunners that were small wiry guys, packing the heaviest loads. Guys packing mortar baseplates were not big either. ???
Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
As a 62 year old relatively new Yukon Mountain-hunter that started at 300 pounds 5 years ago and am now 70 pounds lighter I have some thoughts on the subject. It's not an either or..you need to reduce body weight, increase strength and fitness and reduce your pack weight. It's all important. While I know really strong people that can carry a 9 pound rifle, a 7 pound spotter and tripod set up and a 7 pound tent I try for less as at 62 there is a limit to how strong I am going to be.
I think it's important to lighten up everything that you can up to the point of safety and efficiency. You can get too light. Having a bit of fat is ok at the beginning of the season as you'll burn away calories in the Mountains, however, too much extra fat weight on your body will hurt performance and risk injury. 10-20 pounds of fat can be carried pretty well (much better than the same weight in gear) and will be burnt off in a season of hike-hunting and pre- season scouting. It's important to be as strong and fit as possible. A super light tent will be fine in good conditions but when you live through a storm and have the pole whipping in your face and spindrift settling on your sleeping bag you will be wishing you had invested 2 more pounds in your tent. A 1 pound sleeping bag was great for my son until the temperature went down to -8C one August hunt and he couldn't sleep that night. He now carries a 2 pounder with an 8 OZ micro bivy.
This year I have been playing with a 4.9 pound rifle that comes in at 5.9 pounds scoped. I shoot my 6.9 pound rig quite a bit better. I have decided to take the extra pound. I also leave all the gadgets at home and have paired my gear to take only what I actually need. I got criticized over at Rockslide for telling back pack hunters to NOT take a chair, but the best way to lose weight off your pack is to replace low quality stuff with lighter high quality and leave ALL the GADGETS at home. If you are coming out heavy every pound counts! With a partner sharing critical equipment aiming for a pack weight before food and water of 21 or less pounds each is worth shooting for. With carrying optics and rifle you can only make this only with really light and high quality stuff.
This is a really good assessment.
Tell me the odds of putting grease on the same pancake? I Know they are there, well ice and house slippers. -Kawi
As a 62 year old relatively new Yukon Mountain-hunter that started at 300 pounds 5 years ago and am now 70 pounds lighter I have some thoughts on the subject. It's not an either or..you need to reduce body weight, increase strength and fitness and reduce your pack weight. It's all important. While I know really strong people that can carry a 9 pound rifle, a 7 pound spotter and tripod set up and a 7 pound tent I try for less as at 62 there is a limit to how strong I am going to be.
I think it's important to lighten up everything that you can up to the point of safety and efficiency. You can get too light. Having a bit of fat is ok at the beginning of the season as you'll burn away calories in the Mountains, however, too much extra fat weight on your body will hurt performance and risk injury. 10-20 pounds of fat can be carried pretty well (much better than the same weight in gear) and will be burnt off in a season of hike-hunting and pre- season scouting. It's important to be as strong and fit as possible. A super light tent will be fine in good conditions but when you live through a storm and have the pole whipping in your face and spindrift settling on your sleeping bag you will be wishing you had invested 2 more pounds in your tent. A 1 pound sleeping bag was great for my son until the temperature went down to -8C one August hunt and he couldn't sleep that night. He now carries a 2 pounder with an 8 OZ micro bivy.
This year I have been playing with a 4.9 pound rifle that comes in at 5.9 pounds scoped. I shoot my 6.9 pound rig quite a bit better. I have decided to take the extra pound. I also leave all the gadgets at home and have paired my gear to take only what I actually need. I got criticized over at Rockslide for telling back pack hunters to NOT take a chair, but the best way to lose weight off your pack is to replace low quality stuff with lighter high quality and leave ALL the GADGETS at home. If you are coming out heavy every pound counts! With a partner sharing critical equipment aiming for a pack weight before food and water of 21 or less pounds each is worth shooting for. With carrying optics and rifle you can only make this only with really light and high quality stuff.
This is a really good assessment.
I agree. I’ve been mountain hunting for a long time and I've gone through stages where I’ve tried to make all my gear “ultralight”. But through experience I’ve learned that some things should not be measured by weight alone, especially shelter.
My backpacking experience is limited, but my rifle carrying isn't....Anyway, the first snow of the year was a couple inches of light powder....This one was 6 inches and heavy.
I finished the first up in maybe 30 minutes...This last one was 1.5hours...And for some reason my arms were more fatigued. Same with back and core. Wonder if weight had anything to do with it?
In addition, I've found out that on the vitals the size of Big Game, a light rifle works just as well as a heavy one. Haven't tested it beyond 350, however that is far enough for me.
It never ceased to amaze me, maybe just coincidence, that the infantry units that provided security for my engineer unit seemed to have machine gunners and assistant gunners that were small wiry guys, packing the heaviest loads. Guys packing mortar baseplates were not big either. ???
As a 62 year old relatively new Yukon Mountain-hunter that started at 300 pounds 5 years ago and am now 70 pounds lighter I have some thoughts on the subject. It's not an either or..you need to reduce body weight, increase strength and fitness and reduce your pack weight. It's all important. While I know really strong people that can carry a 9 pound rifle, a 7 pound spotter and tripod set up and a 7 pound tent I try for less as at 62 there is a limit to how strong I am going to be.
I think it's important to lighten up everything that you can up to the point of safety and efficiency. You can get too light. Having a bit of fat is ok at the beginning of the season as you'll burn away calories in the Mountains, however, too much extra fat weight on your body will hurt performance and risk injury. 10-20 pounds of fat can be carried pretty well (much better than the same weight in gear) and will be burnt off in a season of hike-hunting and pre- season scouting. It's important to be as strong and fit as possible. A super light tent will be fine in good conditions but when you live through a storm and have the pole whipping in your face and spindrift settling on your sleeping bag you will be wishing you had invested 2 more pounds in your tent. A 1 pound sleeping bag was great for my son until the temperature went down to -8C one August hunt and he couldn't sleep that night. He now carries a 2 pounder with an 8 OZ micro bivy.
This year I have been playing with a 4.9 pound rifle that comes in at 5.9 pounds scoped. I shoot my 6.9 pound rig quite a bit better. I have decided to take the extra pound. I also leave all the gadgets at home and have paired my gear to take only what I actually need. I got criticized over at Rockslide for telling back pack hunters to NOT take a chair, but the best way to lose weight off your pack is to replace low quality stuff with lighter high quality and leave ALL the GADGETS at home. If you are coming out heavy every pound counts! With a partner sharing critical equipment aiming for a pack weight before food and water of 21 or less pounds each is worth shooting for. With carrying optics and rifle you can only make this only with really light and high quality stuff.
There is a LOT of emphasis on lowering rifle weights as much as possible for mountain hunting, but I seldom read anything on an equal emphasis on lowering body weight for the same benefits. Lets say you are not overweight: your bmi is right where it should be. And you can either reduce your rifle weight by even 1-2 lbs, or you can work on your body weight and lose say 4-5 lbs. Is the loss of body weight going to have the same benefits on your your ability to walk at a good pace in rough conditions as that 1-2 lbs. of less rifle weight to carry. I've never seen anything on this question.
Sadly, most here will spend $Thousands to save a few ounces here and there on light weight gear.
And could easily lose 20 lbs. sprung weight... for free.
And that terrifies them.
A rifle heavier than an M1 rifle, is heavy.
Men carried them all over the planet for years, along with a pack.
Rifle weight is a personal preference. I prefer 8-9ish lbs. I find I shoot a rifle of that weight much better from field positions.
I would suggest everyone find their optimal body weight as well. Mine is around 210lbs. I'm a little over 6'1 and lift weights 5 times a week and perform cardiovascular training 5-6 days a week.
Military rucking studies have shown muscle strength and endurance matters more than cardiovascular training when rucking with heavy weight, which is why I have no issue carrying a bit more muscle mass.
I packed out three elk last year while carrying a 10lb rifle. I noticed the bone in rear qt, front qt, and neck meat on the heaviest load. I didn't notice the rifle.....
Conditioning is the missing potion 99% of the time and we all know that. Physics on carried weight are clear. I always carry too much. Writing this from the Colorado mountains where we have been day hiking, reminding myself I need to put in the training at home, put less in my pack and carry something to create a third balance point. Using a single tracking pole here, I use my homemade shooting sticks when hunting. You all have convinced me to get some lighter boots. I like my solid leather vibrams… but used my Oakley desert boots this trip and wow the difference in leg effort.
Military rucking studies have shown muscle strength and endurance matters more than cardiovascular training when rucking with heavy weight, which is why I have no issue carrying a bit more muscle mass.
Do you have any kind of a link to one of those studies? I’d be interested in reading one as I have noticed a somewhat different conclusion. The lighter a person is, the better off they generally have been hiking around, IME. The exception is having some muscle on your core, as it does help with carrying pack weight.
More muscle requires more oxygen and more muscle also is more weight that a person has to carry around with them. It it better positioned for center of gravity than a heavy pack, however.
I have seen some incredibly in shape college football players with serious muscle straight up get whooped by what I consider easy morning hikes.
Military rucking studies have shown muscle strength and endurance matters more than cardiovascular training when rucking with heavy weight, which is why I have no issue carrying a bit more muscle mass.
Do you have any kind of a link to one of those studies? I’d be interested in reading one as I have noticed a somewhat different conclusion. The lighter a person is, the better off they generally have been hiking around, IME. The exception is having some muscle on your core, as it does help with carrying pack weight.
More muscle requires more oxygen and more muscle also is more weight that a person has to carry around with them. It it better positioned for center of gravity than a heavy pack, however.
I have seen some incredibly in shape college football players with serious muscle straight up get whooped by what I consider easy morning hikes.
For clarification I said "a bit more muscle". I'm not a body builder. Also muscle strength does not always equal huge muscle mass. But let's be clear, the study showed the worst performing group in the study was the one that only trained aerobically.
Military rucking studies have shown muscle strength and endurance matters more than cardiovascular training when rucking with heavy weight, which is why I have no issue carrying a bit more muscle mass.
Do you have any kind of a link to one of those studies? I’d be interested in reading one as I have noticed a somewhat different conclusion. The lighter a person is, the better off they generally have been hiking around, IME. The exception is having some muscle on your core, as it does help with carrying pack weight.
More muscle requires more oxygen and more muscle also is more weight that a person has to carry around with them. It it better positioned for center of gravity than a heavy pack, however.
I have seen some incredibly in shape college football players with serious muscle straight up get whooped by what I consider easy morning hikes.
For clarification I said "a bit more muscle". I'm not a body builder. Also muscle strength does not always equal huge muscle mass. But let's be clear, the study showed the worst performing group in the study was the one that only trained aerobically.
There is a LOT of emphasis on lowering rifle weights as much as possible for mountain hunting, but I seldom read anything on an equal emphasis on lowering body weight for the same benefits. Lets say you are not overweight: your bmi is right where it should be. And you can either reduce your rifle weight by even 1-2 lbs, or you can work on your body weight and lose say 4-5 lbs. Is the loss of body weight going to have the same benefits on your your ability to walk at a good pace in rough conditions as that 1-2 lbs. of less rifle weight to carry. I've never seen anything on this question.
A rifle's weight is NOT the same as your body's weight, and there is not much correlation between lowering one vs the other.
A rifle is a static thing that you carry. It's typically in your hands or on your shoulder, away from your center of gravity. Those pounds are, in the real world on a mountain, heavier pounds than what extra you may be packing on your body.
It stands the test of good sense to have a lean body mass, but as anyone that has spent a lifetime climbing and backpacking will tell you oz's make pounds quickly. And extra pounds on your back or in your hands conspire to deplete energy.
I'm a 60 yo, 5'10", 148 lbs man that eats a whole food, plant-based, low inflammation diet and works out hard. Last weekend I did a 20.3 mile day (actual miles - not fitbit bullchit) here in the Montana Rockies. I felt great, and can promise you there aren't a lot of guys that could have kept pace. But I will pare away ounces mercilessly to preserve energy. OUNCES MAKE POUNDS, POUNDS DEPLETE ENERGY. A rifle is just one place to lose weight, but it's an important one because it's away from your center of gravity through much of a hunting day.
Another important place to lose weight is your footwear...
Well said Brad. Why can a smaller kid further out from the fulcrum of a teeter-totter balance with a bigger kid closer in on the other side? A rifle is on a lever away from the fulcrum — the body’s center of gravity — and thus that 10 lb rifle is going to feel a lot heavier than the 7.5 lb rifle at the end of the day. Much heavier than the 2.5 lb difference would suggest. The length of the lever will accentuate the felt weight.
Making an either-or issue of it with extra body weight is a red herring. Lose the extra body weight too if you are embarking on a true mountain hunt. That has nothing to do with rifle weight issue.
It’s an old thread. But, I see the trend for many new rifles tending heavier, at least the one I heft. And making an argument that army issue weapons were heavier..well, yeah, 18 to 20 y/o kids carry them. Still, would you rather hump a BAR all day or an M1 carbine if weight alone is the issue?
Rifle weight is a personal preference. I prefer 8-9ish lbs. I find I shoot a rifle of that weight much better from field positions.
I would suggest everyone find their optimal body weight as well. Mine is around 210lbs. I'm a little over 6'1 and lift weights 5 times a week and perform cardiovascular training 5-6 days a week.
Military rucking studies have shown muscle strength and endurance matters more than cardiovascular training when rucking with heavy weight, which is why I have no issue carrying a bit more muscle mass.
I packed out three elk last year while carrying a 10lb rifle. I noticed the bone in rear qt, front qt, and neck meat on the heaviest load. I didn't notice the rifle.....
And most have no idea what their optimal body weight is.
Including me.
Turned out to be a good 20 lbs. below what I considered "fightin' weight."
And that's with a 5-day/wk. run/lift/handball schedule.
And making an argument that army issue weapons were heavier..well, yeah, 18 to 20 y/o kids carry them.
The funny thing is that infantry guys aren't happy carrying more weight either. They're still shaving pounds and ounces off their gear where possible (i.e. field stripping MREs). Also the military isn't overly concerned if it blows out the knees of 18 to 20 year olds. The VA can deal with that problem down the road. Not quite the same situation as recreational backpacking/hunting.
Some very good points by all, with a lot of repetition from what might appear to be a single point of view. Yet some are of a somewhat contrarian stance, which is also needed to bring balance.
I rarely visit this forum for backpack hunters as I rarely carry a backpack on my back while tregging bogs or steep ridges in search of moose or other fauna. I do use them - and own several - but leave them at a spot that's handy. But I know what it is to spend days on end going through tough bogs and over rough and steep ridges. I've owned rifles of all sorts (levers, bolts, semis and single-shots) in multiple calibers and cartridges - all with handloads. Today, as in the past, I much prefer heavier rifles for offhand shooting - and most of it is from offhand - over light-'n- handy. I shoot them more accurately if that's called for without a rest. On the other hand, like others, I prefer the light-'n-handy rifles for toting long distances or in rough terrain.
However, of my four big game rifles, two are relatively light -'n - handy and two are 10 pounders: a .35 Whelen single-shot with a 3-9 x 40 scope at 7.5 lbs with a round in the chamber, and a 9.3 x 62 Tikka T3 Lite at 7.65 lbs with a 3 - 9 x 40 scope, plus 3 in a magazine clip. Both are capable of ~ 40 ft-lbs + recoil. The two brutes are a .375 H&H and a .458 Win Mag. My favorite rifle is the .458 Win Mag in a Ruger No.1 at 10.65 lbs with a Nikon 2-7 x 32 and one in the chamber plus 4 in a buttstock cartridge holder. For offhand shooting, I shoot the .458 as well as a .223.... maybe better. It has a Mag-na-Port brake that actually works. I sometimes wonder why I have the others for it's good for anything when loaded right for varmints to elephant. I do have some very lightweight .22LRs that also can kill most things when pointed right, including plenty of African game within range using solids to the brain - just ask my oldest son who spent years in Africa as a missionary and shot scores of game for protein with brain shots. He was a licensed big game hunter.
Oh, by the way, I'm 87 with a bear ticket in my pocket. Round 2 begins in a couple of weeks. My main rifle will be the .375 H&H.
And making an argument that army issue weapons were heavier..well, yeah, 18 to 20 y/o kids carry them.
The funny thing is that infantry guys aren't happy carrying more weight either. They're still shaving pounds and ounces off their gear where possible (i.e. field stripping MREs). Also the military isn't overly concerned if it blows out the knees of 18 to 20 year olds. The VA can deal with that problem down the road. Not quite the same situation as recreational backpacking/hunting.
I have (no shït) seen grunts cut the legend off a paper map to save weight. This was circa 2005, so GPS was a thing and dead reckoning wasn't a necessity, but it still blew my mind.
There usually isn't any complaints about carrying plenty of smokes of cope though....
There is a LOT of emphasis on lowering rifle weights as much as possible for mountain hunting, but I seldom read anything on an equal emphasis on lowering body weight for the same benefits. Lets say you are not overweight: your bmi is right where it should be. And you can either reduce your rifle weight by even 1-2 lbs, or you can work on your body weight and lose say 4-5 lbs. Is the loss of body weight going to have the same benefits on your your ability to walk at a good pace in rough conditions as that 1-2 lbs. of less rifle weight to carry. I've never seen anything on this question.
In short:
If you lose muscle and/or water and become weaker and are not focused on conditioning, then no. If you lose some excess fat (BMI is a bit out dated) while working on conditioning, then yes.
Being in shape trumps all. That means cardio, core, legs, shoulders, and core. And core.
Fretting about ounces on a rifle is fun but generally not where the most bang for buck/time will be found.
Originally Posted by Archerhunter
Quit giving in inch by inch then looking back to lament the mile behind ya and wonder how to preserve those few feet left in front of ya. They'll never stop until they're stopped. That's a fact.
Not surprisingly, I agree with Brad on physical stature and conditioning. I'm 58, 5 ft 8, 155 lbs and 11-12% body fat. I spend all year staying in elk condition. Pounds on the body means something different. 2-5 lbs of muscle is not the same as 2-5 of body fat which is simply dead weight. I've weighed as much as 182 lbs back when I was into being as big and strong as I could. Elk hunting at that weight plain sucked because I had little aerobic conditioning. Mitochondria and ATP is where it's at for mountain hunting. Deadlifting 400 lbs or squatting 300 lbs wont help you at all if you dont have the aerobic base/conditioning to capitalize on that strength. Suffice to say, I'll take 2-5 lbs on my frame over 1-1.5 lbs of rifle weight.
I'm taking my Kimber Montana 308 next week (CO 1st season). Weighs 6.7 lbs with a NF SHV on board. It will likely be rebarreled after season to the Lilja 84M modifed contour. I did my 338 Fed with that contour 2 years ago. It points better and is easier to shoot offhand that the standard Kimber 84m contour.
Another factoid in the same vein is boot weight. I forgot the exact equivalent but think its 1 lb on your feet equals 10 lbs on your back. I switched to shoes for hiking this summer (Brad may have told me that several years back....). Have done a bunch of 15-17 mile days with 22 lbs pack this summer. Did several over 20. Weight on your feet is a real thing. Salomon makes their X-Ultra with 200 gr Thinsulate and waterproof plus it has a better tread pattern than the Quest 4d. I'll know how they work after next week. I literally saved 2lbs by switching from my Crispi Guide to the Salomons. Still taking the Crispis in the event it doesnt work so well.....
Good post, bump for a reread.
Originally Posted by Archerhunter
Quit giving in inch by inch then looking back to lament the mile behind ya and wonder how to preserve those few feet left in front of ya. They'll never stop until they're stopped. That's a fact.
And again... the elephant in the room continues to be ignored.
E=MC2
A rifle dangling at arm's length being tossed around to acquire/maintain balance punches way above its weight class. Those "minor" bursts of speed require intense energy far beyond expectations.
Everyone carrying a rifle in hand while climbing a nasty incline instinctively knows it makes a difference. That rifle is live weight.
The formula points out energy equals mass times velocity squared, period.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
And again... the elephant in the room continues to be ignored.
E=MC2
A rifle dangling at arm's length being tossed around to acquire/maintain balance punches way above its weight class. Those "minor" bursts of speed require intense energy far beyond expectations.
Everyone carrying a rifle in hand while climbing a nasty incline instinctively knows it makes a difference. That rifle is live weight.
The formula points out energy equals mass times velocity squared, period.
And again... the elephant in the room continues to be ignored.
E=MC2
A rifle dangling at arm's length being tossed around to acquire/maintain balance punches way above its weight class. Those "minor" bursts of speed require intense energy far beyond expectations.
Everyone carrying a rifle in hand while climbing a nasty incline instinctively knows it makes a difference. That rifle is live weight.
The formula points out energy equals mass times velocity squared, period.
But C in that formula is the speed of light???
Yeah, that formula is describing mass/energy duality. Nothing to do with classical mechanics in terms of inertia or kinetic energy. A more relevant equation would be E_k = 0.5mv^2.
And again... the elephant in the room continues to be ignored.
E=MC2
A rifle dangling at arm's length being tossed around to acquire/maintain balance punches way above its weight class. Those "minor" bursts of speed require intense energy far beyond expectations.
Everyone carrying a rifle in hand while climbing a nasty incline instinctively knows it makes a difference. That rifle is live weight.
The formula points out energy equals mass times velocity squared, period.
But C in that formula is the speed of light???
Yeah, that formula is describing mass/energy duality. Nothing to do with classical mechanics in terms of inertia or kinetic energy. A more relevant equation would be E_k = 0.5mv^2.
I'm sure an 8 lb rifle feels heavier to a 140 lb. little scrawny fugger than to a 240 lb. heavily muscled brute.
And I'm sure that the guy who absolutely smoked my ass on a 12 day backpack hunt in the Chugach Mountains was a scrawny little 145-lb. fugger who packed out 2/3 of his body weight.
I'm sure an 8 lb rifle feels heavier to a 140 lb. little scrawny fugger than to a 240 lb. heavily muscled brute.
And I'm sure that the guy who absolutely smoked my ass on a 12 day backpack hunt in the Chugach Mountains was a scrawny little 145-lb. fugger who packed out 2/3 of his body weight.
And he would've smoked your ass too.
That's been my experience as well - especially when the hunt drags out for a whole week. There is zero advantage in the mountains with extra weight, even muscle if it isn't contributing to helping you carry out 60-100 lbs of dead weight.
Used to work with a pretty compact ex airborne ranger guy. Once commented something along the lines of "after 24 hours without food, the Delta guys were just like the rest of us." ...
I don't get the "either this, or that" false dichotomy. Go ahead and lose alll the weight you want, get in the best shape of your life; it is -still- easier to carry a significantly lighter rifle in the mountains, or anywhere else for that matter. Obviously there are a lot of other variables that go into what you decide to carry or how much you care either way, but lighter things are are easier to carry than heavier things.
I'm sure an 8 lb rifle feels heavier to a 140 lb. little scrawny fugger than to a 240 lb. heavily muscled brute.
And I'm sure that the guy who absolutely smoked my ass on a 12 day backpack hunt in the Chugach Mountains was a scrawny little 145-lb. fugger who packed out 2/3 of his body weight.
And he would've smoked your ass too.
You don't know me or my capabilities kuunt and you never will because I won't associate with hippie trash.
Do you feel all the work, hiking and conditioning that you have done lately was critical to your success, or in anyway more than just 'nice' to have been in such shape, both mentally and physically?
Do you feel all the work, hiking and conditioning that you have done lately was critical to your success, or in anyway more than just 'nice' to have been in such shape, both mentally and physically?
It definitely was critical imho; we had several tough hikes leading up to getting the ram; we ended siwashing up on the mountain- fortunately for only 4.5 hours till we had enough light to get down (my guides were jealous of what I brought for a bivy! it was pretty chilly); very tough pack out (started at 5:00 AM, done at 11:00 PM); we had three days where we were stuck on a gravel bar due to smoke- I'll admit I was getting a wee bit nervous, but tried to stay positive.
It was a tough hunt mentally and physically; I was still humbled even though I was in pretty good shape- it would not have been good at all if I wasn't
The biologist in Fairbanks told me that they have been checking in very few sheep this year.
Our camp did pretty good, they went five for five the first 10 day hunt- one guy got his on the evening of day 8, another on day 10! There were four more sheep hunters coming in when we left, I know one was successful as I got a text from the guide- not sure on the other three
Good deal. My one ram took me two trips of about 10 hours each to get out. Road based solo hunt. My record of being stuck in a tent/airstrip is 4 days, but that wasn’t on a sheep hunt.
Those dall hunts will definitely test a guy, mentally and physically.
Good deal. My one ram took me two trips of about 10 hours each to get out. Road based solo hunt. My record of being stuck in a tent/airstrip is 4 days, but that wasn’t on a sheep hunt.
Those dall hunts will definitely test a guy, mentally and physically.
Fully agree! (but well worth the pain and suffering! :D)
Sherpa porters. I bet they're carrying a tad more than your "240 lb. well muscled brutes" could, not to mention at 5x the altitude of the "dacks."..kind of doubt they hang out at the local Crossfit Box, even if there was such a thing in Nepal. Just humping loads for a living.
Last edited by SBTCO; 08/27/23.
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” ― G. Orwell
"Why can't men kill big game with the same cartridges women and kids use?" _Eileen Clarke
"Unjust authority confers no obligation of obedience." - Alexander Hamilton
Another critter to the lowly Kimber 308. What bullet did you use on this hunt?
165 gr Accubonds (Nosler factory loaded)- small hole behind the shoulder and bigger hole on the opposite shoulder; I've had good luck with that bullet on elk/deer (and a sheep now :))
Thanks. I used some well broken in Crispi Briksdal's; bottoms of feet were sore on the pack out, but the guides complained of the same thing that afternoon/evening- other than that no foot issues whatsoever.
The outfitter said he'll bring all the heads in to get plugged in September. He aged it at 9 years. Never put a tape a tape to it and while I'm definitely no sheep expert, looked pretty good to me
It is a great sheep! I personally wouldn't care what it scored - you had a great hunt and earned it. In my mind, it doesn't matter whether it was barely legal or a world record - a sheep is something alot of guys will never get to experience. Me included.
One other rifle looney question - any idea the velocity on the 165 Accubond from your 19" barrel? My 308 needs re-barreled and I'm trying to decide on leaving it a 308, shooting the 165 AB, or 7mm-08, likely shooting a 150 AB. I like the 165 AB alot......
If you are truly backpack hunting, and you start out with a few extra pounds on your frame, those pounds will be gone soon enough. The 9 pound rifle won't get any lighter. I have proven this over and over. Brad, Interestingly, I have been asked to re-barrel a Kimber just as you describe; a little heavier at the muzzle to put the weight forward. Not exactly my preference , but I do as I'm told! GD
any idea the velocity on the 165 Accubond from your 19" barrel?
Bill, I used a 19" barreled 308 for a number of years, and per usual, only shot 165's in it. My handloads were in the 2,650+ fps range. I can't say, however, what mtwarden's factory loads are doing.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Brad, Interestingly, I have been asked to re-barrel a Kimber just as you describe; a little heavier at the muzzle to put the weight forward. Not exactly my preference , but I do as I'm told! GD
LOL, a Smart Smith
Aside, any reason you don't prefer doing it?
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
any idea the velocity on the 165 Accubond from your 19" barrel?
Bill, I used a 19" barreled 308 for a number of years, and per usual, only shot 165's in it. My handloads were in the 2,650+ fps range. I can't say, however, what mtwarden's factory loads are doing.
The reason I was asking is that I was wondering how the 30 cal, 165 AB would work at ~ 420 yards when started at 'lower velocity'. According to my ballistic program, it would be moving ~ 1900 ft/sec and drop ~ 29 inches with a 220 yard zero ( I try to keep my bullets 3" or less high at max trajectory point). Obviously it worked well under those conditions. I find that a very useful data point when chewing on a 7-08 or 308, esp given I have everything in 308 already. I can't imagine a 7-08 offers anything "substantially" more at sane distances.
any idea the velocity on the 165 Accubond from your 19" barrel?
Bill, I used a 19" barreled 308 for a number of years, and per usual, only shot 165's in it. My handloads were in the 2,650+ fps range. I can't say, however, what mtwarden's factory loads are doing.
The reason I was asking is that I was wondering how the 30 cal, 165 AB would work at ~ 420 yards when started at 'lower velocity'. According to my ballistic program, it would be moving ~ 1900 ft/sec and drop ~ 29 inches with a 220 yard zero ( I try to keep my bullets 3" or less high at max trajectory point). Obviously it worked well under those conditions. I find that a very useful data point when chewing on a 7-08 or 308, esp given I have everything in 308 already. I can't imagine a 7-08 offers anything "substantially" more at sane distances.
You probably need both, just to let us know Bill
I have been monkeying with 162's in my Montana 7-08 at a shade over 2700 and couldn't be more thrilled. Plus, it might have a shade less recoil?
Brad, Interestingly, I have been asked to re-barrel a Kimber just as you describe; a little heavier at the muzzle to put the weight forward. Not exactly my preference , but I do as I'm told! GD
LOL, a Smart Smith
Aside, any reason you don't prefer doing it?
Only that I personally don't like too much weight forward, and prefer to concentrate the weight between my hands. It's a totally subjective, personal choice. Of course, the truth is, this isn't going to be a huge transfer of weight forward, but it should be noticeable. I think the weight forward does make a rifle easier to shoot well. That weight doesn't reduce the amplitude of your wobble but it does reduce the frequency. For anyone sticking a bipod on the rifle, then the balance doesn't matter much anyway because you've effed it up, and shooting from a bipod, who cares!? GD
I carry an 11+ pound rifle on sheep hunts. It gets old, no doubt but I manage.
Everytime I look into a lighter rifle for those hunts I start adding up options and realize that for what I want (longer range(ish) and solid scope, decent cartridge size since griz are always on the menu, etc.) it always ends up being not terribly lighter than what I currently have. I always just realize that I can deal with what I have.
I had made up my mind to get the Christensen Arms Summit in 7mm Mag that Sasha and Abby has for sale here, but after adding up the weight for a good Arken or similar scope and an Atlas bipod it honestly was only a pound or so lighter. I have grown to really like a bipod vs resting over my pack for longer range shots, though it does add weight and makes the rifle unbalanced—-but I make it work.
On the subject of body weight and strength…. I became a CrossFit addict summer 13 years ago at age 60. I was pretty good all things considered. I got to a CF total of 600# and I finished in the top 50 worldwide a couple of times. Weighed as much 187. I was in reasonably good shape I thought.
Since Jan of this year I have dropped 20#+ and now weigh about 165#. I eat a more plant based diet. Am doing much more running and rowing and Pickleball. Doing lots of yoga/stretching for mobility. Not quite as strong but much better at hauling myself around. Actually I think 155# will be even better.
On rifle weight, I find that a lighter rifle is better by far. I like it in my hands not in a pack. I prefer an all up weight of 6.75#. Mine is a Rem Ti with a custom barrel and stock. I can shoot it just as well as an 8-9# rifle provided that the LW has a really really excellent trigger. I really dislike hanging a bunch of stuff on a rifle.
Last edited by RinB; 08/29/23.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
On the subject of body weight and strength…. I became a CrossFit addict summer 13 years ago at age 60. I was pretty good all things considered. I got to a CF total of 600# and I finished in the top 50 worldwide a couple of times. Weighed as much 187. I was in reasonably good shape I thought.
Since Jan of this year I have dropped 20#+ and now weigh about 165#. I eat a more plant based diet. Am doing much more running and rowing and Pickleball. Doing lots of yoga/stretching for mobility. Not quite as strong but much better at hauling myself around. Actually I think 155# will be even better.
On rifle weight, I find that a lighter rifle is better by far. I like it in my hands not in a pack. I prefer an all up weight of 6.75#. Mine is a Rem Ti with a custom barrel and stock. I can shoot it just as well as an 8-9# rifle provided that the LW has a really really excellent trigger. I really dislike hanging a bunch of stuff on a rifle.
Are you saying at 73 you found the perfect rifle Rick? Just wondering?
I did my Kimber MT 338 fed barrel with the Lilja 84m mod contour at 23 inches. The barrel is not a pencil barrel and added 3-4 oz to the gun. I find that contour about perfect with a NF SHV riding on top. Rifle weighs 6.75 lbs as configured. The main thing I notice is how much less jumpy it is off the bench. In OEM 338 Fed Kimber barrel, it was pretty jumpy off the bags. Not so with the 23 inch Lilja 84m mod contour. When I get my 308 rebarreled it will wear the same length and contour. Now to decide if that becomes a 7-08 or stays a 308........
On the subject of body weight and strength…. I became a CrossFit addict summer 13 years ago at age 60. I was pretty good all things considered. I got to a CF total of 600# and I finished in the top 50 worldwide a couple of times. Weighed as much 187. I was in reasonably good shape I thought.
Since Jan of this year I have dropped 20#+ and now weigh about 165#. I eat a more plant based diet. Am doing much more running and rowing and Pickleball. Doing lots of yoga/stretching for mobility. Not quite as strong but much better at hauling myself around. Actually I think 155# will be even better.
On rifle weight, I find that a lighter rifle is better by far. I like it in my hands not in a pack. I prefer an all up weight of 6.75#. Mine is a Rem Ti with a custom barrel and stock. I can shoot it just as well as an 8-9# rifle provided that the LW has a really really excellent trigger. I really dislike hanging a bunch of stuff on a rifle.
Are you saying at 73 you found the perfect rifle Rick? Just wondering?
I have been monkeying with 162's in my Montana 7-08 at a shade over 2700 and couldn't be more thrilled. Plus, it might have a shade less recoil?
I've had a couple 7-08 Montana's - I found the 7mmm 160's recoil about like the 180's in the 308 Montana. The 165's in the 308 are about exactly on par with 150's in the 7-08.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Brad, Interestingly, I have been asked to re-barrel a Kimber just as you describe; a little heavier at the muzzle to put the weight forward. Not exactly my preference , but I do as I'm told! GD
LOL, a Smart Smith
Aside, any reason you don't prefer doing it?
Only that I personally don't like too much weight forward, and prefer to concentrate the weight between my hands. It's a totally subjective, personal choice. Of course, the truth is, this isn't going to be a huge transfer of weight forward, but it should be noticeable. I think the weight forward does make a rifle easier to shoot well. That weight doesn't reduce the amplitude of your wobble but it does reduce the frequency. For anyone sticking a bipod on the rifle, then the balance doesn't matter much anyway because you've effed it up, and shooting from a bipod, who cares!? GD
Ah - good to know. As Bill said, it only adds 3-4 oz's out front on the Montana, but I could see liking that to tame jump a bit and settle the rifle down offhand a bit.
Agreed on the bipod sentiment
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Scotty On perfection…actually I think there are many versions of “perfect”. For a general purpose hunting rifle I want a barrel 20-22” long that is no more than 7# with 3-4 cartridges and sling.
Any bore between .264-308” moving a bullet that weighs 130-165gr at least 2700 will work. My experience has been with the .277-284” bores. The 30’s increase recoil too much for me. Brad’s comments about recoil are very interesting.
I like to have a pair of “general purpose” rifles. I have some pretty unconventional and radical ideas about the perfect 375 H&H but that is another discussion!! Rick
Last edited by RinB; 08/29/23.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
Bill, Regarding perfect/ultimate, I have accepted that I like to fool around with rifles but it is a waste of time and money. That said, it is a pastime I enjoy. Rick
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
I have to add, each passing year adds several ounces to a rifle. The 8 1/2 pound rifle which seemed perfectly reasonable at 62, is brutal to carry today, at 74. Hands which did a lot of work, back in the day, now struggle to tie a boot. Legs that could run, have resorted to plodding. A rifle which actually feels GOOD is hard to find when it's hard to hold on to anything. Today, I am stacking rocks. When I'm finished, any rifle will feel better than that! GD
Chased PA and NY bucks for 39 years with a 700 Classic 270 Win. topped with a 4X M8, last couple years carried a Montana 84M 308 topped with a Leupold 2.5 X 8. Montana is a pleasure to carry but it just doesn’t have the juju of the 700. Haven’t seen a nice buck hunting with the Montana, going back to the Classic this year
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Hunter S. Thompson
If I so much as put on 5lbs my stamina/endurance suffers. It’s really not an either/or thing. Everyone not at the bottom can stand to loose weight. If you are not weekly in shape when you hit the mountains elk hunting, you are going to feel it. Like Brad says, ounces make pounds and pounds challenge your capability. The maturation of a backpack hunter never ends, your load out and goals change with your age, your wisdom can often defined by your gear and what you place as important.
My goldilocks rifle is my tikka t3x 6mm creed with a carbon stock. It's 8lbs 3oz. I'm also down to 217lbs (and dropping) since giving up booze. Never felt better in the mountains.
Sled drags, squats, deadlifts, and rucking help too.
I bumped into this discussion and wanted to add some thoughts. I have squandered too much time and money and have placed too much emphasis on the choice of a cartridge. I doubt there is nearly as much difference in cartridge effectiveness as there is in the choice of bullets and in the workability of the bullet delivery system.
Said another way, today I am more concerned with the physical characteristics of the rifle I use. Bore diameter between .264” and .284” is about right. The 30’s have too much recoil for me in a LW rifle. My primary goal is precise bullet placement coupled with reasonable terminal bullet performance. Today I am less concerned with perfect expansion/weight retention than with BC. Also, today I am much more focused on appropriate optics.
More important than any rifle is getting into and moving around in a great area! Put me in a great elk area and I can get the job done with a 6 GT.
Last edited by RinB; 09/30/23.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
I bumped into this discussion and wanted to add some thoughts. I have squandered too much time and money and have placed too much emphasis on the choice of a cartridge. I doubt there is nearly as much difference in cartridge effectiveness as there is in the choice of bullets and in the workability of the bullet delivery system.
Said another way, today I am more concerned with the physical characteristics of the rifle I use. Bore diameter between .264” and .284” is about right. The 30’s have too much recoil for me in a LW rifle. My primary goal is precise bullet placement coupled with reasonable terminal bullet performance. Today I am less concerned with perfect expansion/weight retention than with BC. Also, today I am much more focused on appropriate optics.
More important than any rifle is getting into and moving around in a great area! Put me in a great elk area and I can get the job done with a 6 GT.
Rick, you're a machine. I know there is still hope for me as a younger rifle nut with guys like you still picking nits from all the cool stuff we can get into!
I can't find much to disagree with here concerning extra weight on the waist vs extra weight in equipment being carried. The center of gravity argument has merit but it isn't the whole story. I think it is also important to mention that more body weight (specifically muscle, not necessarily fat I guess) requires more oxygen to maintain and more so to actually use. Oxygen gets thinner as you climb elevation.
Just one more piece to the puzzle.
Mental toughness also plays a huge part. As I've aged, I am no longer willing, tho I think still physically capable, of death-march, bust ass hunting - both in my physical and mental levels. I'm no longer willing to carry 100 lb back-packs any distance, unless I have to. Then I can. If I must. I guess. ("I'm a man" - RedGreen). My goal now is to keep it to 70 or less. Excepting moose hinds, of course.
I recently sent my son a birthday card that said something like, "As you age, it is important to adjust your goals.
Such as changing the "B" in your bucket list to an "F".
I love my 9# RU77 .338, which, after a 10 year abstinence , I carried on the ATV this fall, caribou hunting. I think it is going away, after scope removal. Walk-in moose hunting later, , I carried my .260, just over 7 lbs, and f*k the bears. They are nice guys anyway, if I don't do anything stupid and my luck holds. That 1.5 quart pile of high-bush cranberry poop that wasn't there the day before didn't even worry me.
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.
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.
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.
There is a LOT of emphasis on lowering rifle weights as much as possible for mountain hunting, but I seldom read anything on an equal emphasis on lowering body weight for the same benefits. Lets say you are not overweight: your bmi is right where it should be. And you can either reduce your rifle weight by even 1-2 lbs, or you can work on your body weight and lose say 4-5 lbs. Is the loss of body weight going to have the same benefits on your your ability to walk at a good pace in rough conditions as that 1-2 lbs. of less rifle weight to carry. I've never seen anything on this question.
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.
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.
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.
Regards,
Chuck
"There's a saying in prize fighting, everyone's got a plan until they get hit"
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.
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.
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".
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.
True Dat![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/kgBd4m9m/IMG-20211009-071517539.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/113539.jpg)
![[Linked Image from 3.bp.blogspot.com]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hrKq_tiyol0/VlDBmithlxI/AAAAAAABNdI/Mg1jJYdbuDw/s1600/chesty-puller-quotes.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imgur.com]](https://imgur.com/NAUxdxi.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imgur.com]](https://imgur.com/ZCqu9Jx.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imgur.com]](https://imgur.com/zlVQAN6.jpg)