Plains Rifes - MD and SA - 04/23/21
John:
Great article in the current SA, as usual. After reading it, if I didn't know any better, I'd almost think your preference runs to 9 pound rifles over the current lighter "mountain" weights. And I use the word "current" there because when I read about the necessity of sub-seven pound rifles for mountain game I can't help thinking about what I see in some of the older mountain hunting anthologies, particularly those dealing with sheep and goats. There are a lot of pictures and stories in Robert Anderson's "Wind, Dust, and Snow" volumes, as well as his "Great Rams" series, showing sheep and goat hunters using rifles that are at least in the 9+ pound range. As a matter of fact, the rifles that Elgin Gates was lugging up those Asian mountains - all Weatherbys from the looks of them - certainly weren't the sub-seven pound rifles that seem to be more and more common today. Either that's how far we've come in building lighter and lighter rigs - obviously some of the materials we have today weren't around when Gates was climbing up and down the Pamirs - or perhaps it's simply a matter of preference and experience. I know a couple of fellows whose preference runs to rifles weighing between 8 and 9 pounds regardless of where they're hunting, mountains or otherwise, and regardless of the fact that they can afford to hunt with just about anything their hearts desire. I suppose that the bottom line is: use what works for you and that you have confidence in.
But there is something that you've touched on a number of times in the past, and you even allude to it in the current article: fit and balance. Within reason, that seems to be far more important than weight ("reason" being that even a well-fitting, well-balanced rifle would be a pain to lug around if it weighed 13 pounds!). My own very limited experience has proven it to me. One of the best fitting, best balanced rifles I own is a 7x57 (duh) built on an Argentine action, unknown brand 24-inch barrel that was turned down by Tom Jackson out in Iowa, bedded into an old B&C Carbelite stock. At 8.2 pounds all up it's no fly-weight mountain rifle, nor is it a real heavyweight either, but it fits me well and is balanced so that it settles down better than just about any other rifle I own. Other than the fact that it offends my curmudgeonly blue steel and walnut sensibilities, it certainly fills the bill for my use.
Anyway, just a couple of thoughts that your article prompted. No offense to Mssrs. Hughes, Spomer, McIntyre, et al., but yours is always the first one I read.
RM
Great article in the current SA, as usual. After reading it, if I didn't know any better, I'd almost think your preference runs to 9 pound rifles over the current lighter "mountain" weights. And I use the word "current" there because when I read about the necessity of sub-seven pound rifles for mountain game I can't help thinking about what I see in some of the older mountain hunting anthologies, particularly those dealing with sheep and goats. There are a lot of pictures and stories in Robert Anderson's "Wind, Dust, and Snow" volumes, as well as his "Great Rams" series, showing sheep and goat hunters using rifles that are at least in the 9+ pound range. As a matter of fact, the rifles that Elgin Gates was lugging up those Asian mountains - all Weatherbys from the looks of them - certainly weren't the sub-seven pound rifles that seem to be more and more common today. Either that's how far we've come in building lighter and lighter rigs - obviously some of the materials we have today weren't around when Gates was climbing up and down the Pamirs - or perhaps it's simply a matter of preference and experience. I know a couple of fellows whose preference runs to rifles weighing between 8 and 9 pounds regardless of where they're hunting, mountains or otherwise, and regardless of the fact that they can afford to hunt with just about anything their hearts desire. I suppose that the bottom line is: use what works for you and that you have confidence in.
But there is something that you've touched on a number of times in the past, and you even allude to it in the current article: fit and balance. Within reason, that seems to be far more important than weight ("reason" being that even a well-fitting, well-balanced rifle would be a pain to lug around if it weighed 13 pounds!). My own very limited experience has proven it to me. One of the best fitting, best balanced rifles I own is a 7x57 (duh) built on an Argentine action, unknown brand 24-inch barrel that was turned down by Tom Jackson out in Iowa, bedded into an old B&C Carbelite stock. At 8.2 pounds all up it's no fly-weight mountain rifle, nor is it a real heavyweight either, but it fits me well and is balanced so that it settles down better than just about any other rifle I own. Other than the fact that it offends my curmudgeonly blue steel and walnut sensibilities, it certainly fills the bill for my use.
Anyway, just a couple of thoughts that your article prompted. No offense to Mssrs. Hughes, Spomer, McIntyre, et al., but yours is always the first one I read.
RM