Am I the only one who doesn't care for them? If I want something light, I'll grab a lever gun with irons. If I'm using a bolt action, I want something with a med-heavy sporter barrel and a substantial walnut stock....am I the only one?

I read you guys writing about shaving a couple of ounces here and there and I kinda scratch my head most of the time...

Depends on what I'm doing. If I'm walking a few hundred yards to a deer stand in the Midwest, I don't care about weight. If I'm hiking in the mountains for a week, I'll take the light weight stick every time. In the latter scenario, I don't really want a lever gun with irons when I can have a scoped up bolt action.

Most lever guns with irons would suck trying to sheep hunt in steep country at longish ranges.

The right tool for the job. Lightweight bolt-action rifles are great for people that actually carry them long-distances. I don't think most people buy them for prairie dog shooting from a bench.....

YMMV.

I kinda felt the same way until I actually used a true LW bolt rifle.
Since then 8#+ rifle lost just about all their appeal to me.
My lightest is 6# 1.7oz scoped and it is easily my favorite rifle.

I never cared much about weight until I bought my first lightweight. It was a tikka t3 lite with a little 3-9 wrapped in talleys. Since then, anything over 7.5-8# is just too heavy. And I don't like hunting much with lever guns. Personal preference

I never really gave much thought about an 8.5-9 lb ready rifle either, hunted a lot in Northern, MN and than down along the SD Eastern Boarder.

Busted through the woods and would put on a couple miles around this part of the country, but a few pounds never really mattered.

Started to hunt with a Model 7 and while a little whippy it sure was nice to carry. Not a fly weight by anymeans, but a nice compact decent weight rifle to shoulder. Few years ago I used that same rifle a couple years in a row up in Northern, MN and it was perfect for still hunting and just getting from point A/B going through the woods.

Jump forward to a couple years ago I picked up a Remington Mountain Guide. Think my 7mm-08 goes about 6.9 lbs all ready. Balances so nice, comfortable out to mid ranges and you barely know you're carrying anything.

Never been mountain goat hunting have ya...


If you don't know, you don't know and you don't know.

You're trying to lump a whole lotta hunters who do a whole lotta different hunting into one big pot. There is a real big difference between walking a few hundreds yards to your blind, or even a few miles to a stand in low altitude or flat land, vs climbing to 2-3 miles above sea level on extremely steep terrain. For the majority of my hunting, which is for elk in the rockies, give me plastic stocks, stainless metal, and make it light as reasonably possible.

Light weight bolt action rifles stink:

Kimber 84M in .257 Roberts

I'm stong as hell so rifle weight means nothing to me...


Balance is what I'm after, and that is personal to each rifleman.

I have a Savage LWH in 7mm-08 with a Nikon 3-9x40 and it is just under 7lbs loaded and a JOY to carry, even if it is just a few hills to walk. Very accurate and it does kill stuff.

I have to agree with the lightweight fans. I hunt rough country and have come to place high value on light, well balanced and durable rifles. I bought a custom that was built for sheep hunting and it has spoiled me. I took my deer Monday at about 175 yards on a heck of a slope. Never had to think twice about accuracy, distance, etc. The rifle is 7 pounds scoped and drives tacks.

Ever been elk hunting in the rockies cowboy??

No, but I hope to within the next 2-3 years...

When the topo lines start stacking up, you'll see what the fuss is all about.

Hmmm. You have sense enough to realize you don't understand something. Not sense enough to realize that maybe it's YOU that's "wrong" and out of step. Don't know what to say to you about that.

I like light bolt actions and synthetic stocks for hunting. I did not always, but after trying one, it didn't take me very long to come to my senses. They are definitely a better mousetrap. Today I have no wood stocked bolt actions. I can't trust them not to shift as the humidity changes.

Whilst you are toting your 9 pound rifle I suggest you make sure you get 6 pound pair of boots.

You'll legs will understand the fuss of shaving a few pounds, both in rifle weight and boot weight.

Handgun, shotgun or rifle I see no need to carry anything more than the minimum necessary by design. My primary elk rifle, a 338-06, put together many years ago is easy to carry and easy to shoot. The elk all taken above 11,000 feet. Works on other critters too.













[img]http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa437/boxhead61/BCBearHunt023.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa437/boxhead61/BCBearHunt015.jpg[/img]

Exactly!

Light done right is king IMO.

Oh, then you'll see....you'll see lol.

Seriously though I have hunted with a few guys on their 1st elk hunts and they had the same thoughts you did going into it. A heavier rifle is a stable rifle, if I want light I'll use something else. And those points are valid and do make sense. But by going with something else, like you said a lever action with open sights, well you just extremely limited your shooting capabilities. You'll either have to stick to hunting thick timber, which doesn't always work especially if its dry and crunch (or crunchy frozen snow) or hell even if its snowy because you will slip and fall on down timber a lot, OR, you might end up passing up a lot of shots that are too far away.

If you were set up right to just sit and glass an active meadow or something, the heavier rifle will give you a more stable platform to make the shot. But if you have to go more then a few miles, especially UP hill, you'll spend the rest of the hunt wondering which lightweight rifle you'll be buying for next time haha.

I'm young and in shape, I still hate carrying something over 8.5-9lbs total and even then I was not real happy about carrying a 9lbs 308 this year. Sold the gun, just too dang heavy. Slippery slope though, you sure get to a point of craziness as the calibers go up while the weight goes down

I didn't care until I reached 60. Now, at 68, there is one light weight rifle in my collection and it is the one that gets used the most. Its 7# scoped and loaded.

There's been a lot of good REASONS we like LIGHT!

Have you ever HUNTED a light rifle?

My FAVORITE HUNTING rifle is a Tikka T3 Lite SS 270 W. Gun, 4-12X40 AO scope, loaded + sling = 7 1/4 lbs.

I'm NOT talking a few ozs here & there; but 1 1/2 - 3 POUNDS lighter.

Don't go light IF you like heavy!

Tikka t3 rifles are REALLY tough to beat on so many fronts. Just a hair over 7# with scope....super accurate, short throw super smooth bolts, crisp triggers. A virtual semi custom rifle for $600!

I thought the same thing until I bought my 700Ti, it's hard to get anything else out of the safe and my hunting terrain is mild compared to a lot of the people on here.

Since the Remington Mountain Rifles appeared in the mid 80's, I haven't looked back. The first and most used is the 7-08. Have spares in 270, 280, and a 7x57 that is still nestled in it's box. The 700 KS in 280 and 30-06 is 7 lb scoped and the 700 Ti in an Edge Compact is super light but I keep reaching for the old 700 Mtn Rifle in 7-08.

Nice photos EdM. Thanks for taking the time to post those.

Light done right - my version. ULA 7RM w/ Z5 3.5-18 (scope is 15.9 oz)

Yep, I hunted with a Ruger M77 Mark II 338 WM for years until I started hitting the mountains more seriously. On my first goat hunt I hauled that 8.5 pound rifle up the hill with its 26" barrel (if you count the brake on it) and it was a royal PITA in the alders and heavy as sin on the mountain.

Realizing I am a pansy, I opted to now have a rifle that is a full 3 pounds lighter than that (5.5 with scope and rings) and only a 20" barrel. Much more enjoyable to carry and still kill stuff with it just fine. To each their own.

This thread has inspired me and helped me decide which rifles to keep and which ones to sell. I have been needing to thin the herd for a while now since me and the little wifey are talking about simplifying our lives as we transition into the twilight of our years together. I can keep all of my Mod 84s (.30-06, 7mm-08, and .260) and my light weight Ruger 77 (.257 Roberts).

My iron sighted lever actions weigh more than most of my bolt guns do with optics.

A typical Marlin 30-30 will vary between 7-7 1/2 lbs depending on the stock. For less money there are several bolt guns that will weigh just over 6 lbs and can be kept under 7 lbs with carefully chosen scopes and mounts.

You don't have to spend a fortune for a lightweight rifle, but my Kimber sure is easy to carry.

An 8.5 lb rifle.



A 6 lb rifle with a brick taped to the barrel would weigh less. Would you carry around a rifle with a brick taped to the barrel?

............I`m sure you are not the only one who favors what you do where the bolt action rifles are concerned.

However!......What happens if one wants to hunt with a light weight/all day carrying bolt rifle for use in wide open flatter and hilly country where shots can easily be @ 300 yards?,,,@ 400 yards?,,,maybe @ 500 yards?

Are you then going to grab your light weight "lever gun with irons" (no scope) under those particular circumstances? Imo, if someone prefers a lever for longer ranged open country, then I hope that they would be at very least use a scoped Marlin 308 Express.

Depending on the lever barrel length, some very light weight bolt action rifles along with using light weight scopes and rings, might actually weigh the same and maybe a little less than do the levers with iron sites only.

As for me personally, a light weight bolt action rifle will cover all the basis, whereas an un-scoped lever will not.

I prefer a bolt rifle even for those days when I want a close-range iron-sighted rifle. Not a fan of levers much.

Yes, you're the only one.

DMc

My Marlin 336Y with 16.25" barrel and synthetic youth stock, and no scope, I would like to think its one of the lighter lever guns with irons:


A lightweight bolt action with a scope:



Yep I'll take one of those lightweight irons if I wanted something lightweight.

Hunted with heavy's all my life with zero problems. And now I still run a 11# slug gun. Now if you want my 7# 300 WSM or my 6# 243. Good luck. I still carry my heavy Rem 760 but now days it only wears a peep.

I carried a Sako 75 in 300 RUM topped with optilocks and a Leupold 4.5x14x40 for ten years. The rifle and scope weigh 9lbs 9ozs. I packed from 11k feet in Wyoming to here in Missouri. The rifle weight never really bothered me but what I did notice was I rarely missed with that rifle. I shot everything with it from prairie dogs to running antelope to deer to varmints. I have made almost all my "bragging" shots with that rifle.

Then I began reading about light rifles so I bought some finnlights. All up they weigh between 7 and 7.5 pounds. On paper they are every bit as accurate as my heavier Sako's. They are great to carry but I don't shoot them as well on game. I can't say I have ever let anything get away but some shots did not turn out as they think they would have with a heavier rifle.

My opinion only but I think a lot of guys own light rifles they don't shoot as well as a standard weight rifle. The question is how much does matter on big game?

Dink

Probably doesn't matter much on those haystack forkys you like to shoot.

Matters about as much as the whitetails you shoot out of the truck window with your Ar.

You forget some of us are allowed to own multiple rifles at that same time and get to compare them side by side. Hard to do that when you have to sell one to buy one.

Dink

Ouch.

I hunt moose on the Kenai Penisula (my permanent home)5 miles hike-in back in with a .338 RU 77- total tricked out weight about 10 lbs - average range of kills for 20 bulls (off hand, usually) about 70 yards.

Just killed two caribou off the ATV a couple weeks ago here on the Baldwin Penisula (in the Arctic where I am currently living)somewhat in excess of 300 yards with a Rem 725 SA, rebarreled to .260 with a 700TI (featherweight) barrel.

Needs a good solid rest - and good rangeing...see my post on the Alaska forum.

But then there are those big hairy buggers down there on the Kenai - and much smaller chances of encounters here of same on the Baldwin- at least this time of year. Not that I haven't carried it for moose on the Kenai (unsuccesfully). Killed a Colorado elk with it a few years back..

BUT, the lighter the rifle, the better your rest better be....

Both .338 and .260 shoot around MOA with the right loads. Guess which one would go on a sheep hunt? As for hunting off an ATV, snowmachine, or a couple miles back in to base camp- it just doesn't make a difference - I just now want to kill a bunch of stuff more with the .260..... I could easily be doing the same job with the .338, or one of my 7-8.5 lb '06s.

Optimum rifle weight depends on details. A big detail is how big and strong you are.

When I was a kid the heavy rifles were a burden for me. Then as I got stronger and in my 20's a Featherweight was just right for big game hunting on the hills.

These days as a senior I have the new lightweights for walking. However I still use the heavier rifles when close to the car.

Third from the top is my first Featherweight. A M99!

I'm accurate as a SOB with a 7.5 on up rifle, I still hunt.

If you stand hunt maybe its different, but I don't care for lighter than 7 rifles.

Just wondering, what is the weight difference between, say, a McWoody and a walnut stock of the same shape and size?

Hard to say since walnut varies so widely in density and hence weight.

Once you get below a certain weight, you have some diminishing returns. 6.5-7lb all up is about right for me. 7.5-8 wouldn't slow me down much at all.


Chasing ounces gets expensive and doesn't matter as much as other things. If a guy thinks he can climb a big hill and kill a big critter because he has bought all the newest, latest and greatest lightweight gear, then he'll be in for a nice surprise.

As said it is pretty hard to nail down. Most of the wood stocks I've weighed off common bolt rifles ran between 32-36 oz. One standard fill McMillan I have (Win FWT) is 30 oz. They advertise 32 oz on averge. My Edge stocks run 22-23 oz. There are other after market stocks weighing as little as 16 oz.

Just for reference the plastic tupperware stocks I've weighed tend to be the same as walnut and are often slighly heavier. Most of the cheaper synthetics such as B&C and Hogue are much heavier than wood,some weighing 40-48 oz.

Yup. It�s not so much that toting a heavier rifle is bad, it is just that a lighter rifle IS nicer in some situations. I have back packed with a 9.5 lbs CZ, next trip an 8 lb Win. �featherweight�, then I pieced together a 7 lb 700. This was a natural progression and learning curve�I do think when you get to about 6.5 lbs things start to lean to the negative. There can be too much of a good thing�.

I was not miserable backpacking my 9.5 lb rifle, but the 7 lb rifle is just nicer on a mountain. Use the tool appropriate for the task. It makes the job more enjoyable.

I've been using a Weatherby Ultralight in 30-06 a lot these days, much better than the Accumark I was carrying!

My go-to rifle these days is a Kimber Montana .308. With a Leupold 2.5-8X aboard in Talley mounts, it's 6 pounds, just add ammo.

Sometimes I get a little frustrated with it since it doesn't shoot with some of my heavier bolt actions but keeping things in perspective, it's a pound lighter than a lever action .30-30 before optics and it sure as [bleep] shoot circles around those.

Cost, on the Kimber, is on par with some of the higher end Remington factory rifles. It's no loss-leader, but its no bank-breaker either.

Tom

I like ultralight no matter what kind of hunting I'm doing. The 1st shot is the one that counts......right?

Once you learn how to shoot a lightweight rifle and then use them a season or two, you will know what the fuss is about. I was a lever fan for many years but converted after using a 338-06 ULW Weatherby, ever since none of my rifles go over 7 lbs all up. I don't hunt high mountains like the guys out west but still hunt and like the gun in my hands instead of on my shoulder especially after going over ridge after ridge or through cedar swamps

I walk a minimum of 6 miles every day of elk season. It's downhill into my elk area, and uphill out. Studly guys don't have to worry about saving weight. Me, not so much. I subscribe to the saying, "Ounces make pounds and pounds make pain."

I love packing a Kimber Montana or a Rem 700 Mtn Guide gun.

I used to hunt with an Accumark in .300 WBY Mag.



Then I figured out I didn't need the velocity or the weight and I switched to this:



Ultra Lightweight in .30-06. Same bullet, 300 ft/sec slower.
Three bulls and a bunch of bucks later I'm glad I made the change.


P

I use 9 pound rifles but find myself hunting more often with a sub 7pounder any more.

I made a heck of a buy on a BAR Grade IV in 7mm magnum on behalf of a family member back in the 70s. The original buyer had bought it for a high country elk hunt. After toting it up and down hill and dale for a week, the almost 10 pounder, all up, went that away. Cousin wanted it for the art work. jack

Yep, a whole lot of different hunting done in WI vs. Western US. I might only cover 10-15+ linear miles round trip in one day hunting elk but it is a lot of up and down just to get there. Take a 9lb rifle, add .5 gal of water, your favorite hunting boots, bino's, rangefinder, compass/gps, maps, some food, knives, sharpening stone, folding bone/tree saw, bivy sack, rain gear, small survival kit, game bags, extra socks, para cord, and dress in layers and I'll bet you are adding close to 30 lbs on your body if not more.

Add in 7000+ feet of elevation and you'll understand the light rifle concept real quick. It doesn't matter how good of shape you are in it will wear on you eventually, especially if you are hunting remotely for a week or longer. When I leave camp I go out expecting to be back but prepared to stay out for 24-48 hours if not longer, weather can come in quick on the mountains so you had better be prepared.

Do it enough, and the body adapts rather remarkably to weight being carried. If the only time you pack weight is hunting season, and don't spend a good deal of time on physical fitness, then yes, you might notice a few extra pounds. But, I seriously doubt that 2lbs is going to be the difference between making it up the mountain or not. If you are that out of shape, then you are going to hurt regardless.

BTW, the "light done right" rifle (Kimber Montana 7wsm) comes in at over 7.5lbs with scope and sling.

But the reality of it is that if you hike a bunch, with weight, then 2 pounds ain't much even if motoring up and down a bunch of hills. It's tossing that 80-120lbs on your back for the hump out that give you strain. If you can't handle a 8lb rifle, then you are really going to struggle with 100lb on your back for the pack out. And, I can't tell the difference between 100lb or 102lbs on my back.

My point being that light rifles are nice... if you can shoot them without needing a special rest or flinching. World of difference for me between shooting my 6.5lb 30-06ti with 155gr Scenar and 7.5lb Custom M7 7Saum and 162 amax. I am much more accurate with the 7.5lb rifle from all positions.

Cowboy,

No your not the only one!

A wise rifleman told me once that,

"He preferred to carry a light rifle but much preferred to shoot a heavier one"!

So...., Is it more important to carry or to shoot the rifle?

...and combined with a lack of oxygen.

It's not a case of "can't" hunt with heavier rifles, it just becomes immediately apparent that they are a better tool for the job. And they shoot just fine.

My hunting is generally either rolling wood hills, grasslands, or mountains. Critters of interest are deer, wolves, black bear, elk, moose, goats, and sheep.

To date my rifles are 8 to 9 lbs. My goto is a 9lb Model 70 in 338wm. So far I have not given it much thought, and yes that is up and down real mountains like the Northern Rocky trench. Last year I made four trips up a mountain with my 338 in a safari sling across my shoulders packing meat all day.

And this is why I pack it everywhere. This was this fall on the same lake I hunt off. He is related to a coworker.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09/24/bc-grizzly-attack-fort-nelson.html

Having said this it doesn't matter what you use it is about getting out there. I personally don't care for levers and short rifles as I find them too short and awkward. And it's not about being a tough guy, one of the guys I hunt with up there is 63, packs an old walnut Parker Hale in 7mmrm and he can out walk me and out pack me - and I'm not a slouch.

If and when I start to notice the weight I'll buy a Kimber Montana in 338 or a NULA 24B in 3006. Shoot what you like and shoot it well.

All true, unless you are a pansy like me, then I still want the lightest rifle I can get, since I can't shoot worth crap with a heavy or light rifle, might as well take it easy on my out of shape legs and hope I hit what I'm shooting at.

Truth is I can't feel the difference between 100-102 pounds either so I could get by with a 2 pound heavier rifle, and then I could get by with a 2 pound heavier sleeping bag, tent, 1 pound heavier sleeping pad, 2 pound heavier spotting scope, 2 pound heavier backpack, and before you know it you are 10+ pounds heavier than I started I can I feel a difference between a 90-100 pound pack and for sure prefer starting a week long trip with a 40 pound pack over a 50 pound pack. I'm of the mind if I can cut weight and still get it done just fine in all facets of the gear I put on my back I'll certainly take the weight savings regardless of the item put in my pack, rifle included.

I can't tell the difference between a 100 and 102 lb pack either. However, I can tell a noticable difference when carring an 8.5 vs 6.5 lb rifle in my hand all day.

HAHA, yeah that too. There is a reason I own 3 rifles all 6 pounds all up or less for 90% of my big game hunting.

Balance is important and I'm not a fan of all-up rifle weights under 6.5 lbs.

For me, 6.5 - 7lbs all-up is about ideal. Again, provided balance is right and in a "reasonable" chambering (308/30-06 based stuff).

But I find an extra 1lb sure makes stuff settle down better when it's crunch time. I prefer packing a 6.5lb rifle, I prefer shooting a 7.5lb rifle. I notice the difference.

Light can be taken too far and I found the lightest weight I'm comfortable with through trial and error... everyone will likely draw their own line differently.

Would add, I spent quite a few pleasant hours in Dave Gentry's shop before he passed... bear in mind he was one of the pioneers of lightweight. He told me he took one of his lightweights on a sheep hunt in AK and found it was too light to settle down for him when he took his shot. He changed his mind and began packing a 7.75lb all-up rig after that first hunt. That was his line and it makes a heap of sense to me.

I wonder if we're under the need a new light rifle syndrone?
Gun writers praise'em and firearm manufactures love to sell'em and we listen.

My simple analogy:
I've watched my wife carry-around a 10 Lb sack of potatoes in the grocery store for over an hour w/o any though of THAT HEAVY WEIGHT! Offered to carry it for her and she said its OK its not that heavy.

While we're convinced that a similar weight (MINUS a potatoe or 2) just "kills us" on a similar hike!

Simple, your wife is tougher than me, I'd have gotten a cart.

There is a point to be said about balance also. All my bolt guns currently go 6lb-9oz to 7lb-4oz overall in weight. But will say the 280 and 338-06 balance better("feeling" lighter) then the shorter 7mm-08 and 308 though they are on the light side of the weight range. I feel a large part of that is that the 280 and 338-06 barrels are longer.

With that said, I will stick with the light weights as I do believe they help my hunting and keeps the gun in my hands all day.

JCMCUBIC, that is a great point and agree. 2 lbs on the back is much different then 2 lbs in the hands.

I think the industry went the lightweight route as another avenue to catch the consumer. Better machine techniques and new stock material all lent itself well to making rifles 2+ pounds lighter.
I remember a writer, I think Ron Spomer, wrote a Mt. goat article in one of the NRA magazines at least 7-8 years ago.
He had a little "wand" with half a kevlar stock and a bunch of holes drilled in the magazine box, bolt, etc.. I don't think it went 5 pounds all up. I know I saved the article.
Like all things, too much of something is not optimal. I believe a lot of grousing about the Kimber 84M's was due to people not familiar with such a lightweight and how to hold it, etc..
The pendulum always swings back to the middle, be it weight or cartridge.

LOL - Well we were not suspose to be there that long and no she's not that tough!. But she wanted some food from the deli and they offered to cook up some more so she waited. Then she decided to get them to slice some cheese and we waited for this, too.

Tell me about your rifle Ed. B&C stock? I tried cyber-stalking you, but I didn't see any other mentions of this particular gun recently. It does have me interested.

I've never carried a rifle in my hand all day, but that's just me. It rides nicely slung on my back.

And that's the reality I've found. Really thin barrels can be really tough to get to shoot accurately off a pack, unless some special "hold" is done, and a lot of pack adjustment is done... A bit of a heavier barreled rifle settles down "just right" when shooting off a pack, and you aren't left squirming around trying to get that rifle adjusted perfect for a shot.

Just my experience.

I've come full circle. I went from very LWT, in the form of custom Rem Ti's etc, to now desiring a bit more weight up front. Screw balance, I shoot off a pack. Just my experience from hunting the mountains a bunch of days a year with a pocket full of tags here in SE AK.

What barrel contour do you like these days Calvin?

My 1949 Brno mod 21 weighs 7 lbs 10 1/4 oz with Alaska Arms mounts and Leupold 1.5-5.
It works for me, and besides...it is easier to carry than that bloody SLR a previous employer insisted I carry in my hot little hands when I was in my late teens.

I like the weight that you get with a Kimber WSM or an Edge stocked M7 Saum. Roughly about 7.5lbs. It's only 1lb heavier than a LA Edge Stocked Ti w/same scope.

I still have some really nice Edge stocked Ti's with MR barrels in the safe and I doubt they are going anywhere any time soon though.

The only lightweight rifle in my safe is my iron-sighted Browning B92 in .44 Mag which comes in under 6 pounds. Great rifle for some things and lots of fun, but generally not what I want for hunting elk or deer when the ranges can get long.

This year's cow elk was taken at 399 yards with a Ruger "boat paddle" .300WM, a shot I would have had to pass on with any of my traditional lever guns and anything with iron sights. Not sure what the total weight is but it's lighter than if it had a walnut or laminate stock. I like that rifle so much I bought a stainless .30-06 with the same stock and built a stainless .338WM with one as well. One of the advantages of synthetic stocks is I don't care if they get banged up on the rocks or drenched in the rain.

Hauling extra weight up and down the mountains isn't on my list of things I want to do. As others have stated, I don't notice a couple extra pounds in my pack nearly as much as I do extra weight on my rifle. The older I get the more I appreciate lighter rifles. Best deal I've found yet is the "zero pound rifle", which is realized by going hunting with young nephews who borrow my rifles for the hunt, then temporarily "borrowing" one back when it is time to take my shot. Unfortunately, that has been a one-time thing so far.

2010, "boat paddle"/stainless Ruger in .30-06, 22" barrel (came with a laminate stock):


2011, semi-custom "boat paddle"/stainless/fluted Ruger in .338WM, 22" barrel:


2012, "boat paddle" Ruger in .300WM, 24" barrel:


Tell me again why I need a heavier rifle?

Did you ever run an edge-stocked KS to compare with those rigs?

Maybe 'tougher' ?

Uhhh 'smarter'?

That's why they have carts!

I agree that a couple of pounds doesn't make a lot of difference but as JCMCUBIC pointed out the rifle is carried in your hand and not close to the body most of the time. Back in my 20's carying an extra 75-80 lbs in my ruck along with my weapon didn't bother me nearly as much as it does today. I was light infantry then and I did a lot more hiking the woods back then.

I'm not a fan of super light weight rifles, but for an all up righ a sub 6.5 lbs walking varmint, 6.5-7.5 lbs standard cartriges, and 7.5-8 lbs for magnums sure is a lot nicer than some of those 9+ lbs rifles that I've carried through the years. I'm not knocking Cowboy Tim for his opinion but he just doesn't get that he hunts a totally different style than people who want a light rifle.

Next years hunting rifle is a M70 FWT in an Hunters Edge ADL style stock with Leupold 2.5-8X36 in Talley LWT mounts. I don't know exactly what it weighs but it points nice and the balance is slightly muzzle forward so it settles real nice. I just got to get the scope mounted up and take it to the range to see how she shoots.

Guys, I was a 'hungry' fish in the 80s. I was more than ready for a light rifle. I bought the first Ruger U L in 308 that I could find.

I've never regretted it HOWEVER, after getting a light rifle all up, I find 7-7 1/2 lbs fits me perfectly.

That said, you can't start with 7-7 1/2 lbs and ADD anything to it and wind up at the same weight.

Folks are gonna hunt with what they have. What they have is a matter of disposable income first, and experience second. If they stick with it there will likely be some shufflin' if the deck now and then.

Well I'll tell you what guys, I just spent $4 on a Powerball ticket and at 400 Million plus...after I win I'll pick up a Finnlight in .300 Win Mag just to try it....

Your're not only missing the boat...

you just SUNK $4.00

Better $4 than $40...

Interesting thread.

Today I hunted for the first time with a Remington 600 Mohawk. While not exactly a lightweight it did get me thinking about lighter rifles since we walk a few miles to our hunting spot. Looking into a Kimber Montana.........the reason for my thread in the Hunting Rifles forum !!!

I got a used stainless Tikka T3 in .308. Took off the rings and scope that were on it and replaced them with a DNZ Game Reaper and Zeiss 3-9x40.

I may be wrong, but I really think the guys talking about 7-7.5 pounds "all up" being a good weight for a rifle are on to something.

It balances and shoulders really nicely.

A 7.5 lb rifle chambered in a standard cartridge and a magnum weighing .5-.75 more is like peas and carrots.
I want a critter hitter and not a sprayer and prayer. With that said I haven't ever been able to shoot a ultra lightweight rifle as good as one of moderate weight and honestly a 8lb gun has never bothered me while hunting in the mountains.
I am sure guys will chime in saying they can shoot 6lbs guns very well, and maybe they can. I can not and a guy has to know his limitations.

BW had shot this little 7-08 just a few times from the bench to sight it in and get used to it. His shot was ranged at 346 yards and the sheep moved beyond that by a bit before he shot. He had no problem hitting the sheep on the first and only shot.


For some reason he said nothing about wanting a heavier rifle, yet it weighs a bit less than seven pounds, loaded, scoped (6x42 Leupold), and wearing a sling... If someone cannot hit a big game animal size target at hunting distances with a light rifle they need to look a lot closer at what they are trying to do.

In general, obviouly, the longer the shot, the more time you will have to find or build a decent rest.

The 375AI moves around enough in recoil it needs a bit of weight to tame it... While it will get used (carried) in steep stuff it will only get a trip or two up the mountainside on a typical Kodiak hunt and will not be carried all day, every day like a mountain hunt requires. A little extra weight is rational.

I typically hunt with heavier rifles, but I do enjoy a stroll now and then with my Montana.

Art, I qualified my statement with "I".
I took a Dall my freshman year of HS with a wood stocked 7mm Weatherby, which I am guessing went 9.5lbs all up. I never noticed the weight of the rifle. However the Brooks are not really high elevation where we hunted.

Eighteen months ago I went looking for a medium bore bolt action rifle that could be used for any big game that I hunt under any conditions.

Really, I was looking for another .35 Whelen but could not find what I was looking for at a particular price point and within a certain time frame.

In checking a large dealer's website here in Ontario, with whom I'd done significant business, I noted 2 rifles that appeared to qualify: One was a .338 RUM in a Remington 700 with gray-laminate stock, stainless action and barrel. The barrel was 26", and the rifle was slightly used but with perhaps only a box of ammo through its bore. And the price was right.

The other was a T3 Lite with 22.4" tube in 9.3 X 62. The stock was synthetic and the action blued. It also had a magazine clip holding 3. I'd never owned a 9.3 X 62 before but I figured it was at least as good as a .35 Whelen and perhaps a bit better ballistically.

The .338 RUM would certainly be tough enough to withstand the rigors of all-weather hunting and tramping around in rough brush country here in Ontario. It's ballistics would be similar to my former .340 Wby with its 26" tube, and perhaps slightly better.

The prices of the two rifles were close enough that I couldn't chose one over the other based solely on that! What to do? I went to their shop and asked to look at and handle each. I also found that they had handloading components for each including dies.

I handled each separately, working the action on each, shouldering them, looking them over carefully. Ballistics were considered but I judged that what one could do so could the other. The RUM would be faster with a flatter trajectory, but the 9.3 with the right load could reach out to 400 yards without much difficulty in moose hunting if it came down to that. But truthfully, I'd never fired at a big game animal at 400 yards in over 50 years of hunting!

But the decision wasn't made until I handled both rifles, side by side, in each hand... then it was no contest! I chose the T3 Lite in 9.3 X 62 because the distinct differences in weight and handling made the immediate choice for me, and it was really no contest!

My T3 Lite weighs 7.4 lbs ready to hunt with 3 in the magazine, a 2-7 X 35mm Burris Fullfield II scope and a 1" nylon sling. I've now carried it, mostly in hand carry, for 5 seasons of hunting and I have absolutely NO regrets! Yes, it recoils smartly shooting the 286s at 2500 fps +, but it's not something I'm unaccustomed to. The RUM would have 22% more recoil burning 50% more powder, while weighing, yes, about 2 lbs more and 4-inches longer.

I now think that a 7 - 7.5 lb big game rifle with 22 - 23" barrel, all up ready to hunt, in synthetic and perhaps stainless, is about the perfect rig for anything I hunt from wolf to moose. And in 9.3 X 62 of course.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

For you guys who have done the research and pulled the trigger on a lightweight rifle, thoughts on the Finnlight versus the Montana? The Finnlight is heavier, but aside from that, other thoughts/concerns between the two options?

Rifle weight never mattered much to me. I never had to walk terribly far, and the terrain was flat at sea level.

Then two things happened.

I started getting old (55 now) and went to Montana on an elk hunt.

Now the only thing I'll buy is lightweight rifles. Couple that with the fact that for 99.5% of your hunt, all you do is carry that rifle around and only really use it very briefly.

Age and real mountains teach a man fast.

Yep.

I've never owned a Finnlight, but I handled many at my local shop. I've owned several Montana's. I chose the Montana because of barrel length and the blind mag. The Finnlights (243 and 7-08) that have tempted me both had shorter barrels (20" vs 22" on the Montana).

I'd almost make a bet that the Finnlights would shoot better out of the box. If they had 2" more barrel length, I'd probably already own one.....and I may still in the future.

I have gotten where I carry my 84M even when I hunt from a stand. Several counties require the hunter to be 8' off of the ground to use a rifle so you can't get down and do much walking but it's nice to save a couple of pounds when you are carring a 40 lb climbing stand.

That sounds like a sweet rig. And I agree, synthetic stainless, 7.5lbs-ish, and a 2-7 or straight six is my idea of perfection.


Travis

Screw that, if I win I'm going to buy Winchester and run it right until I go broke. Or Dakota, or D'Arcy Echols. Maybe all of 'em.

The funny thing about all this "light but not too light" talk is that guys like Jack O' Connor had this same thing figured out over 50 years ago. I have an old article around somewhere where he talks about the perfect mountain rifle - around 7.5 lbs all up. I agree.

I can only add that I love to carry my Rem Ti 30-06, but I hate shooting it at the range! I think 7-lbs is about the right combo.

Oh! What could he know back then?

I have a kimber 84L 06 that goes 6lbs 9ozs with the Zeiss 3x9. It doesn't feel to light and recoil isn't bad either. It has killed every animal it was pointed at. I hope to chase Elk with it next fall where in sure the lack of weight will be appreciated.

Oh yeah I've had a blr and marlin 1895 guide gun trying to rekindle my love for levers that I had in my youth. They were the only guns I ever missed deer with as an adult......I much prefer a bolt gun!

7.5lbs of pure sweetness(minus the pod and a little mud).



I should go clean that [bleep] off, still laying in the garage on a lawn chair. Nah.....maybe next week...grin

So what is that thing? A Tikka? A Sako?


Travis

Sako A7/Edge.

Is that like a Finnlight?


Travis

Negative, it's a poor man's Finnlight.

Basically a cross between a Sako and a Tikka.


Pretty the A7 weighs less than a Finnligh. Same barrels, slighty different action, plastic mag/bottom 'metal'.

I have a standard 85 that never gets used just because the A7 is so much nicer to carry. Rifle is right around 6lbs bare. No pencil barrel either.

Hmmmm.... interesting.

Thanks buddy. GFY.


Travis

That's a good point. And there are ways to save weight without carrying a lighter rifle. Gear, pack and what's in it matter too. Besides, I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one that could shed some weight off my middle and save WAY more than a few ounces.

I'll take that bet. YOU are the only one overweight. NOT

An honest-to-goodness lightweight is 2nd on my need/want list after another AR lower. It will get used for antelope, mule deer and elk. While I'll practice to 600 yards (the limits of my range), the longest shots I've taken in 31 years of big game hunting were 399 yards for my elk three weeks ago and 350 yards for an elk some years ago. All others have been under 300 yards. The lightweight rifle, therefore, should be completely adequate at 400 yards and provide acceptable performance at 600 given a broadside opportunity.

Lower recoil is more pleasurable for long range sessions and whatever rifle I get can expect significantly more range than field use. Also, I don't particularly want a cartridge I already load for, with the possible exception of the .280 Rem. That limits the available cartridges somewhat. Short magnums are not ruled out completely but the only one I'm seriously interested in is the .300RCM.

For barrel length I like the 20" of the Ruger RCMs but final length may be shorter or up to 22" depending on action and other factors. A full custom is unlikely although some mods, like shortening the barrel and restocking are acceptable.

Short Action:
.260 Rem
7mm-08
.308 Win
.300RCM

Long Action:
6.5-06
.270 Win
.280 Rem

Long action cartridges don't excite me that much although I haven't completely ruled them out. The .270 Win would be a good choice in a long action but no better than the 6.5-06 or .280 Rem. Moreover I don't currently load any .277" bullets and don't need another pile of bullet boxes in my reloading area. For all the others, short action or long, I already keep a good selection of bullets on hand. Since I already have a 7mm RM, .280 Rem and 6.5-06AI, a standard 6.5-06 with a 22" barrel would be a good long-action choice for what I want.

If my .280 Rem was a bolt gun I'd probably just chop the barrel, put a lightweight synthetic on it and call it good. More likely is a used Remington SA in a McMillan Edge or a Ruger Compact (20" barrel, 6.75 pounds) in .308 Win or .300RCM.

Like many here, yes, I could lose more weight by shedding my love handles. Working on that too, down 22 pounds since mid-September, another 22 to go.

Do you carry your belly in your hands? How about the stuff in your pack?
Your rifle is the only item which you carry in your hands while hunting and stuff carried in your hands is supported by your muscles. 8oz in your hands is likely the equivalent of 15lbs in your pack.

I agree. Light rig has nothing to with gut size.


Travis

I'm wondering why the heck someone would carry the rifle in their hands when they have slings and gun bearers. I don't know anybody who hikes around all day carrying the rifle. Rifle on your back, hands free to glass.

When still hunting I prefer the rifle in my hands. Of course, the mt sides I hunt generally have a max range of 100 through "holes" and most shots are ~75 yards, so things are kinda tight. It could be done with a slung rifle, but I prefer to carry it. I usually carry it in my left arm, arm bent at 90 degrees, rifle sitting sideways.....my right hand holds bino's with the right elbow resting on the stock for support, right index finger holds edge of cap bill to steady. A 6.5lb rifle is nice when doing this.

My lightest rifle has no sling nor the swivel studs for one. In the thick Alder brush and in the overgrown swamps of NE MN the rifle better be in your hands or you'll not get a shot off.
And the binos stay in the shack whilst traversing this vegetation choked terrain as they'd be nothing more than an encumbrance.

Belly .........bloody slows me down a bit...........must be the good wife's cooking........
Gus

Still hunting for the most part it best be in your hands, although there are exceptions when you catch them off guard. I like light rifles, but around 7lbs 8ounces may be the best compromise for me most time in Pa.

Agree with battue and nsaqam. When still hunting the rifle is in my hands.

I've got the itch to lighten up my M7 .358 some. Thinking I'll pull off the barrel and re-profile it on my new big lathe. It's got the infamous Pac-Nor long shank which, if nothing else, makes re-stocking it a pain.

Agree with battue and nsaqam. When still hunting the rifle is in my hands.

I've got the itch to lighten up my M7 .358 some. Thinking I'll pull off the barrel and re-profile it on my new big lathe. It's got the infamous Pac-Nor long shank which, if nothing else, makes re-stocking it a pain.

Neither is carried in my hands. But at the end of a long day of hiking around northern NH mountains which I do every deer season (no, they aren't 10k footers but none the less) I can tell you, I'd do better shedding 10 or 15 lbs of body mass then carrying around 8oz less rifle.

It's not to say that a light rifle isn't better for some. But I'm not opposed to carrying around my 8+ lb Winchester if that's what I want to do. And I've carried it all day, from before sunrise to after sunset (many many times), in my hands.

And what's tired at the end of the day? I'll tell you what, it isn't my hands or my arms from carrying an 8lb rifle. It's my legs. Your legs are what tote you up and down mountains, not your arms and your legs have to carry ALL your weight no matter where it is.

Same here. The only time the rifle is ever slung over my shoulder is for glassing. At all other times, in one hand or the other.

HA!

To quote deflave, "GFY"

Funny, I seem to lose and find the same 20 lbs over and over again. I gotta do something about that.

It does, if you're talking energy expenditure for a day of hunting. Absolutely. A lighter me gets around the hills, trails and mountains way easier and with less effort than a heavier me.

Toting around 8oz less rifle helps too, if that's what you want to do, but add another 20lbs to your pack and walk all day then tell me which makes you more tired. 8oz more rifle or 20lbs more in your pack.

To be honest, I've searched for lighter boots because it takes energy to move those boots all day. Up, down, around, over. Think about it, it takes more energy to move something all day (your feet and legs) then to carry something which is static most of the time.

Why would I put 20lbs of extra schit in my pack? I'm not following your logic.

Buy some Keens. They're plenty light.

A lighter rifle, is a lighter rifle. In shape or not.


Travis

2 lbs of rifle makes a huge difference. I'll carry an 8 lb sporter all day, but I don't want to carry my 10 lb 700p more than about 200 yds or so.

+1 also as nsagam points out. If the gun is on your shoulder the deer is saying GFY as it takes off Even when the gun is in your hands you may not get a shot off in some of the cedar swamps and laurel thickets

Please note the NOT and 2 grins.

Yep but I gain it in Winter & lose it in Summer.

It isn't that hard to follow Travis. If I am 20 lbs lighter in the future, it's 20 lbs my body isn't carrying around anymore. So I am equating it to you putting an extra 20 lbs of chit in your bag now and walking around all day. Then tell me if you are more or less tired than if you hadn't hiked around with that 20 extra lbs.

yeah, I know you were busting my chops...thus the wink. No worries.

This bring me back to memories of tired hands.


My bad... I assumed we were talking backpack hunting when the subject of "light rifles" came up.

tired hands..

another jeffyO classic.

One thing people tend to not touch on when bringing up the just lose weight, or use less chit in your pack....your body is going to carry that weight no matter what. Your pack, is distributed between BOTH shoulders and your back, probably evenly. Your rifle, on the other hand, is strung on one shoulder, or in your hand. The reason light rifles feel a LOT better to hunt with at the end of the day is because it is an uneven weight carried on ONE side at a time and it will increase fatigue at a much faster pace then even 10lbs extra in your pack. It is a focus point for fatigue, wear and pain on your body when something is not symmetrical

I tried going down to what I thought was bare minimum essential gear in my pack this year elk hunting at 10k ft. Didn't notice much difference. When I switched from carrying my 9+lbs rifle to my just under 8lbs rifle, I noticed a MUCH bigger difference.

Ok. I'll try and keep up.

Sorry.


Travis

Wife and I moved from Oklahoma to San Luis Valley, Colorado, (6500') in 1960 so that fall/ winter was my first elk hunt. Hunting rifles then were either model 70 Winchesters, whatever Remington had to offer or a "sporterized" (usually butcherized) Mauser or Springfield and they were all heavyweights, compared to what we have to choose from nowadays. 30-06, of course, was the caliber of choice but some of my gang shot .270s which, back then, worked just as well as the .06. Or at least we thought so. 130 grain Silvertips in the .270s and 150 grain Remington Core-Lokts in the .06s. I think everybody I hunted with used Weaver 4X scopes and backpacks hadn't been invented yet, at least nobody I knew had one. .300 Winchester magnums hadn't made the scene yet either but when they did in 1963, nobody I hunted with got all het up to own one. What we had was plenty good. And once in a while, somebody would show up with a .300 Savage but they came up a little short in the range department so they never became real popular around there. None of us made a game out of seeing how far away from an elk we could get before opening fire but instead we did our best to get as close as possible. Pretty sorry shooters back then.

Our favorite camp site was a dry camp well above timberline and our tent or tents were canvas wall tents and one of them, a 14 X 16 had an oil heater that we used to warm the place up and to warm up some of the food our wives cooked ahead of time.

When we left camp to go hunt, we always went down hill so all of our plunder had to be carried uphill, by hand and back. A hind quarter off a big bull elk or even a small cow got pretty heavy by the time we made it back to headquarters. And we thought it was fun! Back then, a cow tag was coveted and had to be applied for. Bull license was purchased "over the counter."

Leave out from camp in the morning with a peanut butter sandwich in one pocket and an old army canteen of water strapped on which might have turned to hard water by the time you wanted a drink. Not a problem if we had snow but once in a while that didn't happen. Made for hard hunting.

Ahh, them were the days!

Sounds a little too rustic.


Travis

No, it sounds pretty awesome to me.

What about when it's really cold outside?


Travis

I.don't hunt on really cold days. My hands get too tired.

that's nice..

say slm9s..what does that set up weigh?

You don't see many 7 Mags in a lightweight configuration but I think it's a good way to go. Although, my 7 Mag goes 8lbs even scoped.

Well then my feet don't sweat as much...

"Sounds a little too rustic," sez Travis.

Well, us old goats is kinda rustic but we didn't thaink nobody would notice. Some things you just kinda sweep under the rug.

"What about when it's really cold outside?" sez Travis again.

That was the good thing about hunting the high country in Colorado. Very seldom got any colder than about thirty degrees. Below zero, that is.

So along with being a little rustic, we wuz also pretty tuff, even though I never was as tuff as I used to be. Modern day guys is lots tuffer.

O, and we didn't have any of these modern day camouflage duds, either.

Well you guys did have a coffee pot in camp didn't ya?, I don't claim to be that tough, but I am stupid enough to think that going hunting out of a camp like that would be a hell of a lot of fun.

"Well you guys did have a coffee pot in camp didn't ya?, I don't claim to be that tough, but I am stupid enough to think that going hunting out of a camp like that would be a hell of a lot of fun."

Oh yes, we had coffee galore! Made the right way which was bringing the water to a boil and then toss in a handful or so of coffee grounds. Let it boil a little longer as the temp of boiling water isn't real high at 10,500' or so. After it boiled a while, you would throw in a cupful of cold water to settle the grounds and then get to drinkin.'

I look back and wonder what made us think it was so much fun but guess it was as we kept doing it for quite a few years.

One of the crew had an old ex-army 4 X 4 1 1/2 ton truck that hauled all our gear up there. 216 CID Chevrolet engine but lots of gears so it did the job very well.

A good stock, roomy barrel free float, great trigger and bedding job make light rifles a lot less finicky to hold/off the pack shooting.
IMO, balance matters. Not that it can't be compensated for.
This is my favorite rifle as to how it carries. Light without a flimsy barrel.
Balances off hand great.
Not sure of the weight but Classic stock in Edge and a #2 Krieger @ 22".

Just got back from deer hunting for a few days .
I too do not want a rifle that weighs a ton BUT ,
Well heres the story I had a Remington 7600 Synthetic 243 with barnes 80 Gr TTSX with a 4x M-8 Leupold mounted in Weaver rings Slung across my left shoulder.The rest of the story is I had a CZ 527 223 with a leupold 4x M-8 in my right hand !
Thing is I really wanted to kill a deer with the 223 but thought I might get a shot 3 or 400 yards off and wouldn,t have felt comfortable taking a shot with the 223 but would have with the 243.We dont have that many deer and in fact I didn,t see one at all on the hunt.
The end comment about all of this is that even though I am 53 and not in the best of shape I really had no problem carrying both rifles.granted I probably didn,t walk over a mile or so each day .I suspect if I was hunting where I walked 5 miles or so in the mountains that the story would be completely different but for the type of Deer hunting I do(the flatlands of Arkansas using stands overlooking agri fields)I am begining to think it doesn,t really matter.I dont backpack in or out and if I do get lucky and get one I am either going to drive the truck up to it (if it is dry enough) or use a 4 wheeler or tractor to get it out,so carrying a lightweight rifle is not a big priority.
Just talked myself out of the Kimber I was looking for !
Craig

FVA - what's the chambering?

Guys - W/O rehashing all the discussion pertaining to xtra weight being overweight, xtra wt in packs, being out of shape, etc. I just did an experiment.

I've been hunting a lot recently including today. I ALWAYS carry my backpack. So I just weighed myself THEN weighed myself holding my pack.

The pack weighed 11 POUNDS 3.3 ozs.

Yes I could reduce the wt. in the pack, but I carry (keep) things in it that I do and have used, even today, but DO NOT use every time.

Point being - that weight DOES NOT bother me. For example....

Monday, I killed a 6 pt buck, went and checked him out, went back to the spot and ranged it, went back to the deer and took several pics. I DID NOT notice that I was still wearing the pack.

Yes, I could reduce the weight in the pack BUT I keep things in it that I use OCCASIONALLY but not every hunt. That weight does NOT bother me.

I can tell you for a fact -- I will NOT carry a rifle that weighs 11 lbs.

YMMV but that's where I am.


FOOD FOR THOT !

When I was a young limber back I could do the same thing!

Hey man!! I turned 63 yrs OLD this month. Ain't no spring chicken.

So true!