Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Custom Rifles & Wildcats At what point is a rifle too light?

I would be willing to bet a dollar against a dime ninety percent of the folks who post on 24hour could not hit a moose off hand at 150 yards.

When I was in my early fifties I carried an eleven pound rifle despite being 5'7" and weighing 160 pounds. When I hit about 63 that rifle became a tank. I started my quest for a very light rifle; which I do just as well with as the heavy rifle.

When I was carrying the heavy rifle I could fire 100 yard 3 1/2" groups all day off hand. Now I can get 10" groups all day long with the same rifle. I have what I call "the old man quiver". The light rifle doesn't seem to help or hinder. I carry it a lot more than I shoot it.

If I could get a four pound rifle that produced the velocity I like and a scope that allowed me to see what I can see in my 5-25X or 4-24X I would go for it. I don't see how it can be done.

My lightest BG rifle is this pre 64 M70 30'06 FWT/ mcm edge. As it sits it weighs 7 1/4 lbs..... from there to 8 lbs. seems to be the sweet spot for my needs and style of hunting. I've tried the kimber 84 but it was just too light and petite for me.

I'll take the rifle shown above and hunt the whole Continent.

Bet i can hit Ringman's 150 yard moose off hand, too.

I've found light rifles will work quite well if you practice with them. There's also some virtue in having a heavier, longer barrel on a light rifle, but the balance and weight also depend on the shooter.

My wife has killed two deer offhand at 150 yards quite neatly with a NULA .270 weighing 6 pounds on the nose with scope, and remarked that the rifle didn't wobble nearly as much as heavier rifles that were harder for her to hold up. I've killed several animals at 350-450 yards with a NULA .30-06 weighing not much more, using field positions ranging from sitting with the rifle over sticks to prone with the rifle over a daypack. Haven't tried shooting anything beyond 450 with that rifle, but then I don't usually shoot beyond 450 at big game with any rifle.

In discussion like this somebody always comments on how shooters fixated on rifle weight would be better off losing some weight themselves. No doubt that's true, but at a certain point it's irrelevant. I've found that when hunting and packing out game on foot, less weight ANYWHERE is advantageous, especially as I get older, whether the weight comes off of me, my rifle, my boots or my pack.

I believe you're wrong. And I'd bet 99.9% of them wouldn't need a 25x scope to ring the bell either.

You have seen most of the posters on 24hour shoot? I don't know what bell there is to ring, but I will give it a try on 25X is you let me know where it is.

What Ive found with lighter rifles is that they take longer to "settle" down if you are even slightly winded, for that reason I would be inclined to go with a slightly longer barrel. My last custom came in all up, excluding sling at 73/4LB, for me, and the hunting I do, thats about right.

Past lightweights would would like a wand when really winded in altitude--things being different at sea level...

Added a contour with no shank to put a little more weight out at the end to mitigate some of the affliction.

6 pounds bare, 7 pounds scoped+slinged, is perfect for long actions.

4 to 6 ounces lighter for a nice short action with 20" barrel, is perfect.

Ringman,
I think that you are right. Check out a 2.5-25X March scope. I'm putting parts together for an ultra light 280 or 280 Ackley. I have a Pierce Titanium receiver, a light barrel ordered, and will probably use a Brown Pounder stock. Don't know what it will weigh, but light. Still thinking about the scope.

I've had two ULA'a (pre-NULA's). For me, a rifle that weighs in less than 6 1/2's lbs becomes difficult to shoot well. Off the bench or in the field. If anything 6 lbs 10 ozs or a bit heavier is about as light as I want to go. That's just seems to be my "threshold". For others though, they may shoot just fine with something lighter in weight.

Casey

Ringman, you CAN, get the XP100, in a 6BR, the extra short butt

I've shot blackbirds offhand at 100 yds w/22.....busted milk jugs at 150 with a 4" 629 using irons......

YET - yes I did miss a nice Tx Buck about 150 in a gusty as hell wind having to shoot offhand w/a M7.

Crazy, hit a I've hit a coke can first shot at about 130 yds with a 30/30 contender and 2x, guess sometimes you get lucky....made a lot of lucky hits in my day, missed a few as well. Thankfully wounded VERY few.

Minimum weight depends on many things, balance, trigger/locktime, scope power, etc. not to mention the shooter.

One thing is certain, there may not be any formula as no one size fits all, but weight, like fit and balance and other variables do affect shootability.

I have a 280 AI being built that should end up just under 7 lbs. Just agreed on this site to buy a standard wt. 1954 model 70 30-06. Was going to give the 30-06 as a gift but may be forced to see if it fits into my growing family of rifles. I will likely try some loads in my NULA. Screwing around with it might make me a better shooter. Whomever suggested a very light trigger for an ultralight is probably on to something. Not that trigger pull wt. and shooter trigger teqnique do not matter on all rifles, but I am guessing that both matter a great deal on an ultralight rifle. I did not buy the NULA for mountain hunting. I bought it because I thought it would be a fun whitetail carry rifle. As Melvin touts, it points like a bird gun. Also planned to give it to one of my sons. I have a couple of nice 22lr sporters and a CZ 17hmr. The CZ is pretty darn light and I can often keep it to under .6 or so inches for 5 shots at 100 with light or no wind. Can put the 22's in under .3 at 50 with good ammo on a regular basis. My problem with the NULA is likely the load or how I handle centerfire recoil at the bench,with a light rifle.

butchlambert1,

The rifle I picked up last Monday uses a Weatherby six lug action and a 26" Pac-Nor barrel. The muzzle is .550". The stock is a Lone Wolf about twenty-five ounces.

The one at the 'smith, like you, has a Peirce titanium action with a Christensen Arms carbon wrap 26" barrel. It is .925" at the muzzle. This one uses an MPI stock that may be slightly lighter than the other one.

What barrel did you order?

Both are 6.5mm. The top one holds 80 grains of water the second one holds 103 grains. The trigger in the second one was set at the Timney factory at twenty ounces. The 'smith wouldn't cooperate with me on the first one. He wouldn't go below thirty ounces. I will have to get someone else to adjust it for me.

Agreed. Last three bucks I killed with a rifle just exactly like Randy's posted above(weight 7 1/4 pounds) were at 340 yards from prone,at 80 yards off hand as he ran past,and at 170 yards as the buck stood broadside and I wrestled with a cramped and uncomfortable sitting position.I could have made the same shots with a Kimber Montana, or an 8 pound 7 mag.

If you are used to a rifle, within certain parameters, I doubt it matters much if you practice with it.

Ringman,
I will use a Douglas barrel this time as they were the only ones to agree with my contour and length. I am not a fan of carbon wrapped barrels.
Good luck with your rifle.

Bob,

Actually, I shouldn't have bothered posting, even though Eileen and I have killed close to 100 big game animals with no problems, using rifles considered too light by 95% of the posters on this thread.

A friend who occasionally posts here recently made the astute observation that he only reads the first page of any thread anymore, because 99% of the time everything meaningful has been said by that point.

I would add that if most threads go much longer than one page, it's because they're no longer an exchange of ideas but voting contests.

I think Ringman's issue may be that he believes everybody shoots as poorly as he does...?

I've not found a rifle too light yet, but the lightest I've killed game with is a sub 6-lbs (scoped, slung) Kimber Montana 308. It worked out to 505 yards, but I'm sure Ringman would be a dollar to my dime that 510 would've been too far....

Tanner

My lightest rifle is a 5 1/2 pound Blaser single shot in 300 Weatherby. I will hit what I aim at, for the most part.

I have trouble with the "too light" concern. I've never really noticed a difference in the field, but certainly do on the bench.

All a Window Licker can do,is lick windows and that no matter the page or the stage. It's one of Life's many constants.

I've yet to field a rifle that was "too light",though I'm admittedly still trying and my heart has been in it for many moons. Most folks are well beyond clueless,in all aspects of all things The Rifle and that from stem to stern,which is a rather curious "approach". I've long stated the fact, that a bore's interior dimensioning,is farrrrrrrrrrr more important than it's exterior dimensioning,yet few can connect such obvious dots.

Balance/handling are more important than hitting "X" weight. There's been some sound observations made in regards to triggers too and as rifle mass is reduced,trigger pull weight should diminish in at least lineal fashion. Though I prefer mine much lighter than that,because without control,you have no control.

The greatest hurdle I've seen folks butt up against in gunning lighter rifles,isn't so much the hold,but more so the actual release. Fending torque and sling stud bitch slap,will have a profound positive influence on POA/POI interactions. As recoil goes up,Precision tends to go down,especially via the faction that shoots the least.

There isn't anything "tricky" in regards to wringing the inherent goodness out of a light rifle and like anything else,those who put the most into it...will reliably get the most out of it.

I probably have more than one contour and more than one barrel length,wearing more than one stock style/fill,so it's probably easy for me to say. Given all those selections,a LW leaves the house before anything else,but I shoot daily and more than a whole fhuqking bunch.

Were naysayers privvy to watching a Flyweight 20" 6BR punish targets well beyond the 1000yd line,their pointy heads would spin like a top and jaws drop to the deck.

It's never not funny to hear what others deem as being "impossible",that which is done on a daily basis and with boring regularity. That less a Hubble,a concrete bench or a fhuqking Cough Silencer. Laughing!

Rifles are amazingly simplistic tools and I find it fascinating,that they stump sooooooooooooooooo many people?!? While I'll never understand,I do enjoy the humor.

If folks wish to set on their couch in chest waders,catch trout on a stand up rod and wear a Filson double mackinaw in July...I'll assuredly watch the fhuqking Show,while they extoll all their "experience","knowledge" and "results".

Bless their hearts.....................