It's been a long, hot summer here in the South, and I've spent the last five or so months reading about sheep and sheep hunting - sort of a vicarious escape. That reading has caused me to reflect a bit on how ideas of a proper mountain rifle have changed over the past fifty or so years. Over on the .270 thread, one of the posts goes like this:



JOC thought an 8 pound rifle with a 22 inch barrel was about ideal. Elgin Gates and Herb Klein, contemporaries of JOC, hunted the mountains of Asia with .300 Weatherby's, most likely in the 9.5 or 10 pound range when factoring in walnut stocks, 26 inch barrels, and steel scopes/mounts. A couple of decades later, Richard Sands hunted the same area with a .300-378 Weatherby, again probably in the same weight range, if not a shade lighter due to the synthetic stock. Robert Anderson's "Wind, Dust, and Snow II" is filled with great pictures and stories of many of Sands', as well as others', hunts - all with rifles that a lot of folks wouldn't even consider hauling up a 15,000 foot mountain range today. And some of these hunters continued to carry them even when light weight and synthetic were becoming more prevalent.

Today, however, we have rifle companies turning out "mountain rifles" with pencil thin or carbon wrapped barrels, all mounted in carbon fiber stocks that result rifles coming in at sub 5.5 - or even sub 5 - pounds. Even with a somewhat heavier scope it still puts the rifle in the sub 7 pound category. I wonder if guys like Gates and Klein would have actually used any of these truly featherwight rigs or just gone ahead and used what they always did. Whichever way they went, the certainly would have had their reasons.

Now obviously they aren't here to ask, so any answer is pure speclation; but y'all are. For those of you who, like Comerade, are sheep/goat hunters through and through, what is your preference - total weight all up, barrel length, etc. - and why? I'm just curious.

Thanks.

RM

I took a 7lb Blaser K95 to the Alps on an expensive hunt (for me) for chamois and mouflon.

I cursed it when I was in the aim on both trophies. Even with a good rest and with normal breathing the cross hairs jumped with every heart beat.

I'd rather a bit more weight than less. I came back and built up a 8.5lb sako bolt gun which I much prefer. Alpine hunting is not really tough though.

I guess that my hunt’n rifle weight is near perfect. When carrying , I wish it were a pound or two less, when shooting (from the bench) a pound or two more! memtb

Wise words..... I feel exactly the same about my .280.

Dave

Elgin Gates= Don Jr. Many of those guys have custom gunwerks or proof research rifles. I have seen some very, very rich people with Griffin and Howe Springfield sporters with SB 6X. These were those who had old money and used daddy's rifle.

I think that its hard to beat a Fieldcraft or a Nula with a good set of mounts and a bombproof scope. It may not be pretty but it is dependable and extremely accurate.

Speaking of Don Jr., check out his mtn rifle. I'm guessing 12-15#'s.

DF

My “mountain rifle”, for the sake of the discussion, weighs in at under 7 lbs. In the end the lightweight does not really bother me. I bought it from another member some years back. I have nothing against the gun at all. But, I would not have set out to build such a lightweight rig. I do really like it.

For the majority of my hunting I have used an array of 280’s that have ranged between 6 lb 10 oz to 8.5 lbs. I never considered the heaviest to be heavy nor the lightest to be light. I just never thought about the weight.

Since we are all testosterone laden men, who’s to say what’s heavy?

I've been carrying a sub-7 lb MR for so long the thought of packing an 8 lb+ rifle makes my knees hurt..........

To save weight, I just knock off the beer and fried spuds for a month before. Rifle is 7 #...I lose eight or ten...rifle don't weigh nothin'.

For me right around 7# is just right. Not too heavy and enough weight to hold steady. It's getting harder to do tho because my optics keep getting heavier.

I like the MR "mainly" for a "stalking rifle". Fast to get on target in the woods, easy to hit with "off hand" or "standing on your hind legs", ha. I like a sporter weight for "all around", and if I'm in the prairie, the heavier the better as that wind 'blew me and my MR 280AI" all over the place. I missed 5 pronghorn bucks that AM, and finally got a nice one that was chasing a doe 100yds the "other side" of a snow fence! I was able to sneak up and "crawl in, wrapping up in the boards" to get still. I missed him running at 100, he curved away and I was able to hold on his front and he ran into the bullet, and thread one up his left flank into the goodies. Around 200 yds, they are fast! ha He was 15 1/2" deep hooks. Stolen, along with 20ys worth of assorted trophies a few years back. The MR was perfect for my early/late muley hunt up in the hills behind the antelope ( Laramie area). I passed on a huge body/small antlered buck right at dark that evening. He was about 50yds away, "perfect" stalking range...for me, ha.

Honestly, my T3 with a 3x9 Elite 3200 is too light for me.
Most field shooting is offhand and right now, a tree to lean on
is a luxury. And I wobble, a lot, any lighter and it wouldn't work.

I have been thinking of epoxying a few wheelweights in the forearm,
then whatever the butt needs to balance.

Same here. Most of my shots are offhand, kneeling or resting against a tree from offhand or kneeling while still hunting or tracking in the woods. Too light of a rifle sucks for this, as well as one that is poorly balanced/too light in the muzzle.

We've had these conversations time and time again. Opinions based on experience vary widely. But I've noticed that, as Stika Deer says, "nobody goes on a mountain hunt and then decides they need a heavier rifle."
Me, I've gotten away from the light(er) rifles. I must have a rifle that settles down in a hurry for a running shot, or I loose any opportunity to take the shot. E

I hate that, and it's nothing the shooter can control.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^ memtb

7# for my 2.5-10x42 scoped 7mm RM with a 24" #1 taper is just about where it needs to be. All over again it would probably be a #2 taper, but I don't shoot that far and glad that it isn't chambered in a more powerful cartridge. A similar build is a 7mm-08 crf and I like that one even better. A lighter rifle carried three ridges back sure beats a nine pounder back in camp.

It might have been O'Connor who noted that a rifle is lighter when someone else is carrying it for you. A heavy rifle may seem more stable to shoot after that long climb, but it has also worn you out more.

Light is nice, so long as the barrel has enough weight to it. It's quite nice to carry a short but fat barrel, and it will settle down and shoot when needed.

Very true. I don't like overly light, whippy barrels. I have a Classic Kimber that I traded for. I wouldn't shoot until I replaced the OEM tube with a 23" Broughton 5C barrel with a bit more weight and length than the original. The rifle is still light, but it handles a lot better, with more forward balance. And it went from 1 1/2" to sub half inch with certain loads.

I was into it at a good price so I'm not under water even after spending for the new barrel. It's a keeper.

DF

DF: Did you ever weigh it? Also, where is the balance point?

Thanks

I don't find 8 lbs to be a burden and have carried much heavier. But I shoot my rifles that are 7 lbs every bit as good and find somewhere around 7.5 scoped to be about perfect. I don't shoot sub 7 lb rifles quite as well. If you're carrying it slung over your shoulder a 10 lb rifle isn't much harder to carry than a 7 lb rifle. But the 7 lb rifle is far more likely to be in your hands than on your shoulder when you get that quick unexpected shot.

Balance is key...I like mine 7-7.75, slightly forward balance.

Why would you want to shoot a mountain 🏔?

Why can't Remington bring back their Model 7 Stainless Synthetic? It was small and light with a 20" barrel. I've seen guys get 1 1/4" 3-shot groups at 100yds with factory ammo in most calibers. Perfect for mountains or any hunting.

I'm still looking for a used one in .243. I NEVER see one in a gun or pawn shop!

The is a stainless synthetic stock 6 mm rem on gun broker right. Now

Because it was there!

Geeez, do we have to spell everything out for you?....

Deleting the 3.5-4 oz of a 1/2" Decelerator pad, or the 5-7 oz off most other recoil pads, and gluing a flipflop pad w/ 1/8" backing plate (total weight less than a ounce) on my M700 MR's puts the balance point at the action screw--right where a 22" standard contour bbl balances. Taking that much weight off of the very back end of the rifle makes a big difference.

It ain't about the weight up front, it's about the balance of the rifle.........

Casey,

The most recent issue of RIFLE SHOOTER included an article written by one of those infernal gun writers about rifle balance. It includes several points brought up in this thread, and some not normally considered--such as the balance point in reference to the front action screw not really having much to do "shootable" balance.

I'm not much of a fan of 50mm objectives, but had gotten this Conquest 3-9x50 in a gun deal and kept it.

Weight as you see it is 7#, 9 oz, balances just behind the front action screw.

This scope is slightly heavier than a 3-9x40, but it's grown on me.

Here's an interesting load, a hog killer. BTW, it's a .308.

DF

Very true, reason I like my P-64 Fwts with the aluminum or composite buttplate vs a pad. Had one with a white line, never got used to the balance. Also put a flip-flop pad on a vanguard because I had planned on chopping a few inches off the barrel, came out very well.

I guess I like the Fieldcraft quite a bit. For me the stock fits better than a Montana and is much more comfortable to shoot. My 18" 6.5 Creed is really nice to carry, ducks through the alders and the devils club nicely, etc. It does bark a bit, but that doesn't happen very often.

My second choice would probably be an 84M Montana, in same caliber or something similar (260 or 7-08). With today's bullets, they cover an awful lot of territory. My 280AI Montana is an awesome rifle - I wouldn't want a 280AI any lighter, but I guess I don't feel the need for "all that power". In a short action cartridge, I don't know that I've had one yet that was "too light".

Robert,

That is some real fine shooting! No 10 shot groups with those pills...

You have some really nice rigs, and from what I gather, you do a lot of your own work--very nice work, too.

Saw your post on that revolver with the nice stag grips--it has probably taken a few pigs, I'd guess.

I have a 7.25 pound (scoped and loaded) 270 WCF and a 6.63 pound (also scoped and loaded) 300 Weatherby. Recoil is about the same thanks to a break on the 300, but I find myself grabbing the 270 a lot. It's a great balance of enough weight to hold steady, light enough to carry, and recoil is minimal.

Ruger M77 7x57, 22" barrel.

Ruger rings

B&L Balvar 2.5x8 scope

Leather Brownell Latigo sling

5 cartridges in the box, 1 in the chamber (Remington cases, Hornady 154 grain Interlock, 49 grs H 4350)

8 1/2 # at 40 to 50 degree dew points.

Last pig I killed was Sat with a .22-204 shooting a 75 gr SSII at 3,000 fps. Was coming out from the camp, driving down the Red River levee, saw a small group of 80# pigs at the base of the levee. Eased my rifle out the window and killed one with a shoulder shot. Typically I use a rifle, although a hard cast 270 gr. Thunderhead by Penn Bullets would whack one. Google Penn Bullets Thunderhead.

DF

I would much rather have an ultra light rifle with a heavy mounting system and bullet proof scope that actually tracts than a lighter rifle and a lightweight scope and mounting that have known flaws.

My current hammer is a Kimber MT 6.5cm with a Burris Veracity. I like and the heavier scope really tamed down the factory 147s.

I used to hunt with a Weatherby in 300 win mag and it was HEAVY at around 9 pounds or so. I noticed the weight in the mountains. I went to a 270 win (Weatherby ultralight) and then a 260 Remington (model 7). But these days I use a model 7 in 308 that weighs around 7 pounds with the scope. The smaller cartridge means I can have a shorter barrel and it does not kick all that bad either. It can kill practically everything. I think if I went lighter in the same caliber it would kick too much - I like to watch the bullet hit and not lose my sight picture. Anyway, in a mountain rifle I do want something in a short action that does not kick too much and weighs around 7 pounds total. Compact, but not too light yet lethal. Patrick

My only experience is with the remington mountain rifles, dad bought me on in 270 when I was 14, was my main gun until a few years ago when I came across a ss model 7 708. I think a 700 mountain is the perfect size, between a model 7 and a full size 700. I lucked up on a mid 80s 700 mountain in 308 a few months back and got a great deal. Installed a timney, bedded, better recoil pad, 2.5-10 nikon monarch....now to site in.

My latest version of a mountain rifle.



It's a Montana with a slightly heavier contour Pac-Nor barrel in 7X57, sitting in a Mountain Ascent stock.
6-1/4 lbs as shown with a Leupold 3.5x10 and Talleys.

Someday when I get over this concussion, I may get a chance to shoot it.

Here is my Rem Mtn. Rifle. 23" #2 Shilen, 6.5 Creed, McWoody Mtn Rifle stock, NF SHV 3-10x40 in Talley LW's, Timney 510 trigger.

DF

That's a beaut, DF. Congrats.

Thanks, Rick.

She shoots as good as she looks.

DF

I have a Sako actioned, pencil barreled Browning Safari in 308 w a Leupold 2.5x8x36. Right at 7lb. also have P-64 FWT in 270 & 308. Will those work?

Working and being Kosher here on the Fire are two different concepts.

.308 is way too boring,

270 is too... Well, you know...

And everyone knows how sorry Leupolds are...



DF

Here is my current Mountain Rifle...and yeah the mountains I climb now aren't as high as the ones I used to climb...

That’s a long action. Tell me it’s not chambered for “that” round...

DF

Good looking setup. I just bought a NOS (no threaded barrel), in 7mm-08 and mounted a Lewey VX2 2-7X33 in Lewey mounts and rings. All in with 3 rounds, my wife's postal scale reads 6lb 0.7oz. I have a VX3i 3.5-10X42 that I might switch out to later. After getting on paper and getting POA and POI pretty close, I could see it didn't like Superformance. I switched up to Barnes 120 TTSX and got two consecutive 5/8 groups.

Pretty pleased with it. They seem like nice little rifles. Shooting game with it, under field conditions, remains to be seen. Taking it to Wyoming next week, but only as my backup.

No worries...its NOT a 7x57....its a .275 Rigby. Says so on the barrel.....

This one has been working well, in various places around the world, since 1996. It's an Ultra Light Arms Model 24 .30-06, ordered after dinking around with other cartridges in various ULA's until I realized that, since I was traveling a LOT back then, the .30-06 was probably the most practical round, despite being incredibly boring to most hunters. In fact, took it on a Nunavut Territory caribou hunt around 2002, and during an evening BS session early in the hunt, one of the guys asked what cartridges our rifles were chambered for.

They ranged from the .280 Remington to .35 Whelen Ackley Improved--but when I said, ".30-06" he looked at me and said, "I figured you for a .30-06 kind of guy." I was so boring, in fact, that I used 180-grain factory ammo--yet killed two of the biggest bulls on the hunt with shots of around 400 and 450 yards. Which are still the longest shots I've taken on a dozen bull caribou--and were only taken because the herd showed up not where it was traditionally migrated at that time of year, but in the middle of the local Inuit meat-hunting area, so the caribou were pretty spooky.

This was a free-range New Zealand red stag, one of around half a dozen animals taken on a field-test of Berger bullets. The range was only about 200 yards, but the bull was bedded down across a small, steep canyon, and never even tried to stand up after the shot.



The rifle has a #2 contour, 24" Douglas barrel, and is still very accurate despite having been abused in various climates, and the rifle being used as scope-test platform on a number of occasions. On the New Zealand trip it had a Bausch & Lomb 1.5-6x, but these days it has a 3-10x42 Nightforce SHV, which increased the weight somewhat to an even 7 pounds scoped.

For me, the Blaser K95 Kiplauf, a break open single shot, represents the quintessence of a mountain rifle; a breakdown, short, light, and accurate gun with a simple and efficient detachable scope mounting system.

I use nothing but a K95 in my mountain hunts. This picture is fron the last one, one week ago invthe Tien Shan Mountains of Kyrgyzstan.

Beautiful rifle and an excellent Ibex!

What is that chambered for? ( at least the barrel you used on that hunt...)

70 yrs and a horse hurt knee changes opinions significantly.

After hunting all day with a heavy rifle?

So, you shoot animales when they are laying down and sleeping. Ah, ha..

Dayom.

I've been a sheep hunting nut for a long time. Physical limitations won’t let me do it anymore but I did get to hunt Dall sheep in the NWT back in 1995. I just HAD to have the new controlled round feed M70 in 7 mag and that’s what I took. That 26” barrel was too long and the gun weighed too much but it did the job. If I could go back I’d take either my 700 Ti in 7mm RSAUM, the CA Mesa in 6.5 PRC, or my Fieldcraft in 6.5 Swede. They all weigh considerably less and balance well.

For me, balance is equally critical as overall weight. For a true "Mountain Rifle" I want something at or under 7lbs "all up" (scoped with sling and rounds). But I want that rifle to have a weight-forward balance. The no.2 Douglas Contour on the NULA / Barrett is ideal to me.

I'll be re-barrelling at least one of my Kimber MT's with a modified 84M contour that mic's .620 at 22"... such a rifle will still be around 6.75lbs "all-up" which is about my ideal over-all weight.

As a side-note, a good friend of mine drew a bighorn tag in the Missouri Breaks this year. The Breaks aren't exactly mountains, but as my buddy puts it, "Where God decided to make mountains upside down." He killed a ram that should make B&C in the second week of the season (which started September 15th) in one of the steepest areas. The shot was around 275 yards--and it took him two hours just to get to the ram afterward. It took all day to cut up and pack out, even though there was a road within half a mile.

His choice of rifle was emotional rather than practical. His father passed away earlier this year, and my friend inherited several of his hunting guns. He decided to take his father's favorite medium-game rifle, a standard (not Featherweight) pre-'64 Model 70 Winchester .270 with a 3-9x Leupold in the typical steel Leupold bridge mount of the era--PLUS the bipod his father usually used. All up, with one of his father's leather slings, it probably weighed around 11 pounds. My friend is 65, and still packed it and the sheep--because he wanted to.

Thank You, Ingwe!

On this hunt it was wearing the barrel I use with the heavy stuff, a 270WCF shooting Berger VLD Classics.

Alvaro

M.D. : good for him glad he did so well with that old 30-06 pre-64, i inherited the same kinda a rifle but with a old Bausch & Lomb scope with the adjustments on the mnts. i understand how he feels at 65 i am in the same boat !

That makes me proud!

I always thought of the front action screw as the standard reference for a balance point to be rather arbitrary. But it seems if the balance is behind the front action screw the rifle is more difficult for me to hold steady. The balance point being forward of the action screw is fine, possibly easier to hold the muzzle more steady in many cases.

I wouldn't give mine up! Harvested a lot of critters with that rifle.

Whew. That was close.

Of course 257 Rigby is mo better than plain ole German metric 7x57. More panache and with some of that Brit stiff upper lip. Rev Mike will understand.

DF

After reading this thread, and being 69 years old. Maybe I should quit carrying my intermediate length mauser in 30-06. Most of my rifles are between 7 and 8 pounds! I bought the 06 in 72 and its been my go to rifle since! Never felt like it was heavy, maybe after I turn 70 it will get heavy!

AKA 7x64 Short.

My 9 pounder is “terrain/distance, and age” dependent. It seems as I get older, terrain and distance, seem to be getting more challenging! memtb

I've been thinking of having my Zastava 7x57 chambered to x64. It has a 1:866 twist, and if I had the stock trimmed down it might make a great mountain rifle...although the closest thing I get to a mountain is a highway overpass.

John, that’s a nice lightweight rifle! And, in a great cartridge! memtb

pete,

I forgot to mention the chambering of my friend's pre-'64, though it's interesting you assumed it was a .30-06.

Instead it's a .270 Winchester.

Glads to hear that's how that turned out. Excellent.

VERY nice. I love LOTS of ‘horns’ <antlers>

Rechambering a 7x57 to 7x 64 is heresy.....you knew that right?

My overwhelming experience of mountain hunting has been by horseback and weight wasn't of great concern to me. That said there was a considerable amount of walking to be done as well and weight did become important at that point.

I'm not a sheep hunter and suspect that they are normally hunted at higher elevations than I hunt for elk but I've seen and at very close range several Rocky Mountain big horns on these hunts.

My rifle of choice on these hunts is a .270 Winchester with 22" barrel in the featherweight persuasion. Although I also have a .30-06 that will substitute fine and a VZ-24 custom that handles the .280 Remington cartridge. All sport a 3-9 X 40 scope and are lightly covered in a grease called Rig for weather protection and all shoot the Barnes TTSX bullet to 2" high at 100 yards. I also carry a Leica 1200 around my neck because I'm a lousy judge of distance in the mountains.

You ask why?.....well I hunt with them a lot and they shoot well and I trust them to deliver the accuracy and power I want in a hunting rifle....what else is there?

Yeah, I know. But it doesn't keep me from thinking about it every once in a while.

To be frank Mike I wouldn't re-chamber, I would be more inclined to buy original or re-barrel when due.

There isn't that much in it...well, except for the sex, fame and fortune.

Did I mention charisma?

Here are a few more "mountain rifles," all weighing several ounces under 7 pounds. Have hunted with all of them in various places here and there; all are VERY accurate:

NULA .257 Weatherby, made before the present high-BC trend got going.
Tikka T3 Superlite .260 Remington, one of a limited run from Whittaker Guns with a 1-8 twist. I modified the magazine to 3" long.
Merkel K1 .308 Winchester, a far more traditional mountain rifle with typical German game scenes on the receiver, and very nice figure in the buttstock.



All four of Eileen's big game rifles would qualify as mountain rifles as well, since they all weigh 7 or less scoped, including her old 16 gauge/9mmx72R German combination gun. The others are a semi-custom Husqvarna .243 Winchester, NULA .257 Roberts, and custom Serengeti .308, made on a Kimber 84 action. She's hunted considerably with all four.

that merkel is a fine looking rig MD.

Mule Deer
Would that 9mm x 72R be a 358 calibar?
I have to agree with 44MC, I love that Merkel!

Texczech,

It's approximately .358 caliber. She bough the gun at the Wisdom, Montana gun show maybe 20 years ago (which often has tables out in the streets, because Wisdom is so small) from a guy who thought it was a 9.3x72R. He even included a partial box of RWS factory 9.3x72R ammo. several of which he'd fired in the gun.

But after we got home and I started planning to handload for it, I decided to slug the rifle barrel, because old German rifles are often one-offs that have somewhat varying bores. It turned out to be close enough to .35 caliber to use Speer 180 flat-noses designed primarily for the .35 Remington--which actually made handloading considerably easier!

Yeah, I like the Merkel a lot too, and don't hunt with it as much as it deserves. But that could be said about a lot of my rifles--because I have a lot of rifles!

Thanks John.
I always thought a drilling would be a good all around gun. A Merkel is definitely a "retirement" gun in the future.

I'm enjoying this thread immensely. Even though I'm in a position financially to partake in some "western mountain hunting", for lack of a better term, being of sound mind but not-so-sound body anymore means that train done left the station. It doesn't mean I can't experience it vicariously through y'all!

It often struck me that a lot of the rifles I see Eastern Nimrods toting in the deer woods these days would be equally effective farther afield- lots of seven pound-ish, scoped, relatively flat shooting fusils de chasse. Could it be that a century of hunting literature accented by a couple decades of internet omniscience had the effect of homogenizing tastes in rifles across the board, to a fairly large extent?

Easy question to answer. Pre-64 Winchester Featherweight 270 in Bansner fiberglass blind magazine stock, Leupold 6x scope in S&K steel rings. Load it with 130 Partitions and practice, practice, practice!

I have a similar rifle, pre 64 fwt 270 in a mcmillan compact edge, dual dovetails and 3.5x10 leupold. It covers a lot of my needs off!

I have not tried all of the rifles mentioned here, but of the ones I have owned and hunted with, the Kimber Montana has been my favorite.
Nothing too fancy, but it is built right IMO for carrying in the mountains.

my vote would be for a Marlin 336 or Glenfield 30....same thing.

About 6 1/2 pounds with a full tube and a 4 x on top. Easy to carry. Heck, we carry them 99% more than we shoot them on a hunt.

As long as you shoot the thing beforehand and know the trajectory, you are good to 300 yards or a bit more..

Yeah, every time I get the itch to do that I pull out an old drop differential chart that I put together using an online ballistics program. With 140, 150, and 160 grain bullets, the difference in drop between the 7x57 and .280 (7x57's twin) is a litle over an inch at 300 yards, about my limit. Even if I stretch it to 400 the difference is about three inches. Even the difference between the 7x57 and the .280AI isn't substantial, so I always just tuck the idea away.

The 7x64 has charisma, the 7x57 has panache. Can't lose either way.

John:

How does that kiplauf shoot? They're known for being pretty accurate.

Thanks

Mike

Well I’m only slightly depressed- I weighed the old 300 Weatherby Vanguard I’ve been lugging around the Rockies hunting elk and it is under 10 lbs with sling & Zeiss 3-15x50 in Talleys. But at 9.98 lbs it is hardly a Mtn Rifle in the classic sense. My backup is still 8.6 lbs and that is about as light a rifle as I point well so it’s probably good I’m not a sheep hunter. Elk on foot & packing them out normally on our backs does make the rifle heavy at the end of the day but I’m confident it will hit where aimed.

Mike,

The kipplauf shoots pretty well, though I admit not trying a zillion different loads to see exactly how small it will group. Started with the 150-grain Nosler Accubond and Varget years ago when I bought the rifle, and it groups three in about 3/4".

I've been toting various permutations of faux-ti remingtons for a while now, and a sub-7lb rifle sure beats 8.5lb+. Currently have a 280AI Pacnor ultralight 23" in a flipflop padded ti stock, a factory model 7 barreled 243 on a ti action in a Remington/Mcmillan FS stock, and a 7-08 factory mtn rifle barrel on a CM action in an Edge.

"Mountain Rifles" seem most relevant when the hunt involves one man and one trip out with the animal. Backpack elk or moose may allow a heavier rifle as that extra weight gets averaged over 3 or more packouts, unless packing moose or elk in an area ripe with grizzly and the rifle is with for every leg of every trip.

Evolution has seen all of my talley lightweights swapped for leupold DD, for a few ounces added. So far I've resisted a transition to SWFA 6x, though I have a few to try. Tough to walk away from a 10oz leupold on a mountain rifle.

I remember as a kid reading how rifles with two-piece stocks just wouldn't shoot very well, especially break-actions. I guess things have improved in the last 50+ or so years.

Rem Ti with a 280 mountain rifle barrel punched to Ackley
Nightforce SHV 3-10X42

I plan on replacing the Talley's with Leupold Backcountry cross slot rings and mount.

https://imgur.com/EqEou1V

In my experience that's pretty much BS, unless you're talking benchrest accuracy. Aside from several very accurate Ruger No. 1s, I once owned a Savage 99 in .300 Savage that would shoot cloverleaves with Federal factory ammo. But I suspect the improved quality of bullets, along with better factory ammo and handling techniques, may have helped considerably.

Beer and fried spuds is half the reason I hunt Big Game!


good point though.

Damn, that Blaser costs more than my old pickup truck

Offshore

My first pickup cost $200--more than a new Remington 700 cost at the time.

Everything is relative.

My Adirondack (6.5) at 5lbs 10ozs with scope/Talleys has been making it difficult to choose one of my other rifles while deer hunting the mountains of WV. It just feels too comfortable between the hands, slung, and shooting small groups is a +

Before sheep guideing took over my life I'd taken 3 of my own including 10 days in Tok. My 1st Chugach ram was taken with a 300WM, it was quartering towards me and way to much gun for a meat eater. A Sako Forrester in 243 entered my life and accounted for 2 nice rams,60" bull moose, untold caribou many blacktails,and 3 wolves, all killed cleanly. The rifle carried a 6X Leupold and I loaded 100gr Hornady SP for everything,it weighed 7lbs on the $. A gal borrowed it for a deer hunt and when she returned it the process took a while and left with it too! I sure miss that rifle.

I'll admit that I have never understood the meaning of "mountain rifle". Different strokes for different folks. To me it meant a rifle that nicely fit the horses scabbard, then later it meant a lightweight rifle of good ranging ability such as a .270 Winchester...…...today it means a rifle that shoots very well, is dependable, and one you have confidence it......no different than any rifle I own for the purpose of big game hunting. When I hunt the mountains, I carry the rifle on a horse so weight isn't the greatest consideration. Accuracy, dependability and supreme confidence are the items that top the list. I usually find this in an older M-70 or today's Howa and Weatherby Vanguard. And since there is always a remote chance that one might have to chase away a bear, I like calibers of .270 Winchester to .300 Magnum but the 7mm-08 has recently struck favor for my likes.

When you fork over a lot of cash for a horseback trip into the mountains, you get to decide what a mountain rifle is.....so pick it based on your ideals, not mine or anyone else's.

I started my mountain hunting a long time ago and stopped around 15 years ago. My mountain rifles were generally a Maple stocked 30-06 Springfield or a full stocked 270 on a Mauser action. I expect both rifles loaded were around 9 pounds, both were topped with 4x Leupolds. I still have the Springfield and it would be under consideration if I were to book a horseback trip into the mountains again. This was high ground Mule deer and Elk hunting not sheep hunting. Both of those rifles worked perfectly and I made some fine shots with them. Today in my somewhat lesser condition I think I would take one of my lighter 270's or a 7.5 pound 7-08. It being a 22 inch barreled Model 7 Remington topped with a 2-7 Leupold. I have to say that those were the trips that made life exciting and very much appreciated. The furthest I ever shot at an elk was 450 yards and 300 yards for Mule deer. We used to spot them and actually sneak up on em for the shot. Pretty sure I could have gotten closer to that longshot elk but the weather was changing fast and we needed to get him down. Nowadays I have many rifles, back then I only had the two big game rifles and a couple of varmint rifles, a 223 for prairie dogs and a 22-250 for coyotes. Still I got by pretty good!

I don't need a mountain rifle on a regular basis because we have a rather chronic shortage of mountains here on the Texas Gulf Coast. But If I were to need one I would like a Model 7 Remington with the longest barrel available in 7-08 with a nice light Leupold VX 3i 3.5-10x40. I know most of you would opt for a lighter scope but with my eyes these days I need more magnification.

I too love the .270 Winchester but have lusted after a 7-08 in a model 7 rifle siince they came out with the Model 7. I think the both came out within a year of each other, In my opinion the model 7 and the 7mm-08 were made for each other.