Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Why are light rifles harder to shoot accurately?

+1

I have a 8 1/2 lb BDL in 270, a 7 1/2 lb XCR II in 375 Weatherby and an 11.25 500 Jeffery (all weights are with scope unloaded). When I'm shooting well, I shoot them all well, when I'm not (if I haven't been out in awhile) I suck with all of them. Don't see a difference, when you're out of breath at 11,500 feet it's hard to shoot anything ... so the better shape you're in the better you'll shoot, or wait a few seconds to let your heart rate slow down.

The one problem I've had with featherweight rifles is that pencil thin barrel heats up fairly rapidly while trying to work up loads. If you don't wait a bit between 3-5 shot strings you can look for stringing of your shots. Is there a witness in the house today?

Taking into consideration a barrel heating up effecting groups, and that lighter rifles do transfer any body movement more easily, I was just exploring the idea that our anticipation of recoil and how well we can deal with it, may be the greatest factor in shooting light rifles well. It would therefore be reasonable to assume that the less recoil the better we may be able to shoot. I was just wondering who believes or would admit that more felt recoil from light rifles is a huge factor in accuracy.

I found my accuracy with a kimber 7mm08 shooting 120 much better at 200 yards than a 30-06 Montana shooting 180's. I guess I'm admitting something there.

It's just easier for me not having to set up to manage recoil on top of concentrating on sight picture and trigger squeeze.

A little while back I was shooting a standard weight 30-06 with a hard butt plate. It didn't beat me up at all since I held it firmly, it couldn't hit me, but only shove me. But it was still fatiguing to shoot twenty because of the additional concentration required.

In contrast, my "baby chunk" 20" barrel 308 Win., which goes nine pounds or a bit more depending on scope and mounts, is a pleasure to shoot all afternoon.

To me, it seems like it's all about balance. A neutral balance is easiest to shoot offhand for me, and many light rifles aren't balanced.

If they are, I've had no trouble shooting them.

I have never had problems with packing a 8lb gun in the mountains. And it sure is nice to have a steady rifle when you actually need it.
I actually have a Rem 700 in 300 win mag in a Edge with a 23" tube and its around 7.5 all up. I would certainly not go much lower.

My favorite hunting rigs are 6-3/4 to 7 lbs scoped. Balance is where it is at for me. An ass-heavy lightweight rifle sucks.
Burning powder and spending time with a gun means a lot. Light rifles aren't for everyone either. Its like turkey hunting Takes a little more patience and work.

Absolutely!! If it aint balanced right and aint comfortable to the shoulder you wont shoot it good.

In practice I think it takes a bit more muscle tension to settle down a lightweight rifle(lets use a Kimber Montana as a standard). I can use a looser hold without muscling the rifle so much with a M70 or 700 weighing 7.5 or so.

But mostly I think that shooting the lighter rifles is a question of practicing with them. I'd also draw the line in chamberings at standard cases, either long or short action,and for anything in the 6 pound range I'd draw the line at the 270 or 280,280AI,30/06 etc.

I'd like something a bit heavier as a varmint rifle but assume we are talking BG animals here...see no reason a 6.5 pound rifle should not be field worth on anything out to 400 yards or so....maybe further but the furthest I have shot a Rem 700 ti was 400 yards and it worked great.

This

On a general purpose hunting rifle I think of heavy rifles like training wheels on a bicycle. Both help hold things steady for inexperienced shooters/riders. Shooting a lighter rifle does require more skill, but once mastered no one wants to go back to a heavy rifle anymore than they want to put the training wheels back on their bicycle.

At least for general shooting. I understand the need for heavy rifles for extreme precision or extreme long range shooting. But in all honesty the difference between a 6 lb rifle and a 12 lb rifle is going to be about .1-.2MOA with me pulling the trigger. That might matter to a 1000 yard target shooter, not a deer hunter.

The balance and fit are more important.

Yup.
I found this, as well as a bit tighter grip on things, to be very true when shooting the .308 Rem Ti. (5.25 lb. bare)

Holding groups from "inchish" to "half inchish" took some work & quite a bit more concentration than other rifles that are just a pound or two heavier. Of course the practice with the lightweight helped with shooting other heavier rifles, too. Just not quite as much.

A lighter trigger helped more on a lightweight rifle too, IMO.

What? I consider that pretty good.

I don't think that my eyes can see better than that at 100 yards. Nice shooting Scott...

Dead deer out to 200 yards.

Imagine what it could do with a scope and from a bench.

Kitch,

If your only experience with lightweight rifles is "pencil thin barrels" then you've been somewhere else during the past 25 years. The trend has been to lighter actions and stocks, so standard-weight barrels can be used.

That said, I went through a phase of superlight rifles myself, the lightest a 7x57 that went 6 pounds with scope, loaded magazine and sling. I still hunt with several light rifles, but the lightest is around 6-1/2 all up. Any can be shot repeatedly until the barrel is too hot to touch comfortably and the bullets keep landing in the same place.

I would love to hear the details, action, barrel, stock, etc.

Every New Ultra Light Arms rifle I've fired has been able to do it.