There are many parts to this, so it's not a simple question.

Is weight more important than accuracy, or over all length? This might be hard to quantify. Long range hunters obviously care more about using an accurate rifle, given the distance to their quarry. Bush hunters may prefer short, handy rifles.

A lot of it is about where you hunt. Do you hunt from a stand, or walk around? Is the land you hunt flat, hilly or mountainous? Are you in good shape, or younger?

How much recoil does your cartridge generate? How you react to it? Do you like a short barreled rifle, or a longer one? Do you even care about barrel length?

Do you use many different rifles, or just a couple? For example, some folks use a 30-06 for everything.

I know there will be different answers because we have people from all over. Geography, game hunted and personal preferences are different.

In the end, it is all personal preference. There is no right or wrong answer. Just what makes you happy.

It's not just the rifle, it's the scope as well. I chuckle about guys talking about short action light rifles and mounting mini Hubles. I usually hunt with either of a couple of FN Mausers., with Bushnell 4200 scopes, 1.5x6 and a 2.5x10. Neither scope is light and the rifles are average.

Been pretty busy lately, huh?

Have four under 7.5 pounds, all plenty accurate. Scopes up to 18oz. Light is nice, not necessary. My heavier ones are a pair of .270s which are really more gun than needed. My crossbow weighs maybe 8lbs, and is pretty awkward to tote. Nothing I shoot kicks much. Since my “reason” for rifles is based on using them to hunt, I try to run through the rotation to some extent every season, but the crossbow has been the only thing that’s made meat for the past three seasons.

I’m old, a little pudgy, but exercise regularly, and heart and lungs work fine. Main issue is tired old joints, and muscles aren’t much help if the frame is creaky. My average run in and out to where I hunt is about two miles. My deer hunting is about 50/50 treestand/ground seat. Hunting from the ground, I carry a cushion, a stool, or a seat that straps to a tree at ground level. Since it’s public land, days when it’s safe to still hunt are limited, and lately hikers, birdwatchers, and dog walkers have gotten more common, so I generally walk in, park my butt, and wait a while.

Weight and length only matter to me when I'm still hunting (so far whitetails), since I'll be holding the rifle in my hands most of the day. I've come to appreciate shorter barrels, also shorter barrels make easier manuervering in a blind or treestand. I still use what would be considered heavy and long barrel guns like sako finnbear and wby markVs, I like them so the weight doesn't bother me even hiking the mountains if the rifle is mostly on my shoulder.

Absolutely. And the stock material too. I know what you mean about the light rifle/heavy scope crowd. I see guys at the range with these tiny rifles (every little bit helps, they say!), but with a satellite tracking scope on top.



You've no idea!

I agree about the weights, and would add that a lot is what you're used to. I don't think that I ever had a CF rifle that weighed less than about 7.5 lb. That's scoped and loaded.

I'll have to post my Pro Hunter and No 4 pix. Both are chamberd in 30-303. The Lee Enfield weighs 10 lb 3 oz. The Pro Hunter weighs 10 lb. 6 oz. So much for single shots being svelt. But I went stupid on the PH. It's a range rifle. A 26 inch bull barrel (1 inch dia,). It carries nicely though. It's slightly barrel heavy.

Oh yeah
P.S. I'm no youngster

Steve;
Good afternoon to you sir, I hope the day's a nice one out east and that you and those who matter to you are well.

It's in interesting series of questions you've asked and I'll attempt to actually stay more or less on point with my answers here.

Indeed for me weight is more important than accuracy, though of course if I can have both that's a plus. Overall length is likewise a very important criteria for me.

In the main I hunt mountainous terrain and game populations preclude stand hunting. I really don't know many people who successfully stand hunt here. I'm in excellent shape - last fall I walked a couple 20 something year olds into the ground - but no, nobody would call 59 younger I don't believe.

One rifle is a 6.5x55 and the other a .308 Norma. They are both relatively light and I'd say neither is pleasant to shoot really. I do not enjoy shooting either one for extended periods or many rounds. I'll make sure they're still sighted, but prefer to shoot cartridges that don't beat me as effectively. In the Swede it's a 21" barrel and the .308 Norma is a 24". I much prefer hunting thicker stuff with the Swede - I can notice those extra 3" of barrel length - but that said, a .308 Norma needs at least 23" of barrel length to be "all it can be" in my experience.

For big game hunting, I only use the two rifles, they're a known quantity for me and as I've built them from the action forward - had a gunsmith install the barrels and did the rest of the work myself - rust blue, bedding, stock on the Norma, painting and modifying the stock on the Swede. The Norma has not had the point of impact move in about 10 seasons now - that's a real confidence builder for me.


This is built on a between the wars Mauser roll marked 98 action, modified Swedish military barrel installed, Timney trigger, Buehler safety, Wolfe mainspring, FN commercial extractor, Wildcat Composites stock - it weighs 7lbs 4oz as it sits there with 5 cartridges. It's slightly muzzle heavy and for me, is set up to point and shoot like a well balanced shotgun.



This is built on a Ruger 77 Liberty Model action, Parker Hale barrel, modified factory trigger, stocked with a Claro semi inletted blank for Richard's Microfit. It now has a 6x42 on it - that's different and it weighs about 8lbs 8oz loaded if memory serves. If anything, it's even faster to snap shoot for me than the Swede. I've hit a few things running with it over the years so the ability to swing and point is tantamount to my hunting style.




Hopefully that all made sense Steve and is close to the spirit of the thread.

All the best to you all this weekend.

Dwayne

My two centerfire elk and deer rifles are a Rem 700 and a Win FW.. But the rifle I've used most is a Hawken cap lock replica. From using that rifle so much, I think shape and balance may be more important than weight. My scoped rifles are 30-06 and 308win so recoil is negligible. I am sensitive to recoil and would shy away from too muck octane in too little weight.

Both of my bull barrel target rifles are long gone with no regrets and won't be replaced with anythin similar.

Carrying a Stevens SxS 311 all day is a chore. If I was a shotgun hunter, I'd opt for lighter.

I have also opted for a handgun for weight savings a few times.

For me, I can say I like lighter rifles, but I don't place a lot of importance on lightness.
My lightest hunting rifle is a Lee Speed-"ish" 303 I made on a 1900 Irish action, which weighs only 6 pounds 7 oz. My 6.5X54 Mannlicher is just 7-1/2 pounds, and I hunt with that sometimes too.
My heaviest rifle is an AR15 in 6.8 SPC with full steel free float sleeve and GI handguards, fixed stock and a mid weight barrel it weighs 12 pounds and 11 OZ.

I like them all.

I enjoy hunting with iron sights and so most of my game is killed with lighter guns because with the lack of a scope, mounts and rings, they are just lighter then what many carry.
But I have also killed many head of game with my M1 Garand, (Just last year for the M1 in fact) a few FALs I have owned and a 12 pound 50 caliber Sharps 1874 in the past too. So even shooting with irons I don't always end up with a light rifle.

I hunt with what I will have fun with that day or on that hunt, and don't concern myself with many other details.

I guess if I were pushed to place a figure on top weight I would put 13 pounds as the most I'd use. Not that I can't carry one heavier, but I have no reason to. Most of my scoped bolt actions weight in the 9-10 pound range except for one very light 25-06 I made that comes in at 7 pounds,13 OZ scoped, loaded and with the sling, and 30-06 Scout carbine is also quite light at 8 pounds loaded, scoped and with sling attached.

When going to the woods to bag a 4 to 500 lb elk, I don't care what my rifle weighs.

Well, as a lever action afficianado, I can say this. Weight matters.

I mean, if you have a 6 1/2 pound 1894 Marlin in .44 Magnum, you know that this is right in the Goldilocks zone. Neither too heavy nor too light.

But, if you have a Henry Big Boy Classic brass at 8 1/2 pounds in .44 magnum, the thing is a brick. A beautiful brick, but way too heavy.

A Marlin 336 in .30-30 at 7 1/2 pounds seems just right too me, although 7 pounds would be okay too.

The various stubby 1895 Marlins seem just way too light for the bone-crushing loads that people shoot in them.

But the 22" version is more realistic.

I'm not overly concerned with the weight. My heaviest is an older 700 remington 338 win mag with 4x leupold. Layne Simpson said it well in an article years ago. People fuss about rifle weight but aren't concerned about the 20 extra pounds they carry above thier belt. I've seen a lot of " light " 300 win mags get sold,traded or put in the safe. And some were owned by big men.

Weight vs Balance

I had a rifle that weighed 8lbs 3oz loaded with sling, it balanced so well that most people guessed it's weight at just over 7lbs.

It was easy to shoot in the field .

Yes, Weight is important, Too much for the recoil produced, and carrying the thing afield is drudgery.
Too light for the recoil produced, and confidence and consequently accuracy Suffer.
Witness the comments ref 300 mags, great killing power and reach, but not usually heavy enough to attenuate that sharp impulse. I never found 338s all that brutal, but I’m mostly using much lighter caliber ( 280, 280 Improved )

In between those xtremes are a bunch of nuances. Trigger weight, let off, Pistol grip, fore end shape,
Butt angle, width, pad etc. Etc . Optics, Cheek alignment

All elements are important , producing a synergistic whole for the intended purpose

Reminds me of discussions about shotguns for Grouse hunting in the bush vs pheasant or sharp tails out on the prairies. Skeet vs Trap

My usual go to deer hunting rifle is a lightweight 30-06 husqvarna.
The hunting around here is pretty much.....hike up to the higher ridges for mule deer so it is good to cut down on weight if you can in any way possible.

If I'm moose hunting then I'm packing a 300wm or a 338wm, I like them just as they are, heavy. In my youth it never bothered me much to carry them for endless miles, but not so eager to do so now. I find the length of the rifle more cumbersome than weight, but that is likely due to my style of hunting.

If I am packing a heavier rifle I just keep telling myself....what if I get into a static with a grizzly or two....that also helps.

Those 4200s are my grail, which reticle are you using in them ?
Mine are the simple duplex, but I’ve wondered about the 3-2-1

Just the Bushnell version of duplex.The 1.5x6 has moved from the 338-06 to a 358Norma. The replacement 3x9 3200 might be a bit lighter.They had stopped making it, I had to buy it used, where it came off a 375 H&H.

For me, I am Firstly a sheep hunter. Sheep hunters are famous for trimming weight off all their gear.
Secondly, I am always horseback, so that influences what I choose as a rifle. I do like compact rifles, but not extreme lightweights and as I get older non synthetic style rifles.
I am using a BROWNING B78 these days, ir weighs in at around 8 lbs, but is very compact and its compact scope has detachable rings.
I also use another Browning takedown ( levergun) with a scout scope.
The jack handle/ all weather model 700 works and shoot well but....but just seems far to common.

Dwt2 Any issues with eye relief ? I never tried a 1.5-6x36 on a heavy kicker for that reason, but more lately I’d like to try one on a lighter 338’06 The 3.3” eye relief was the knock on those 4200s Not sure if that spec was the same on the 2.5-10s, never had a problem with the ones I’ve used.

Sorry for the derailment, but it is relevant to weight and recoil attenuation and ultimately to the panache of a low mounted scope on an 84L .338’06 that I’ve been cogitating. 20-22”

Is there anything more appropriate for bush hunting for Moose, Elk and incidental defence from their apex predators ?

I had a B78 with a 26” octagonal barrel, quite light , at least I never felt it was overweight.

Trigger was a bit of a struggle to get tuned. Not like the more adjustable ones on the 1885

What mods have you made to lighten yours ?

The weight of 338-06 FN Mauser seems about right, neither light nor heavy.. 22" barrel. A heavier longer barreled rifle is much easier for accurate shots , though. I have a P-17, the anchor on the Queen Mary was a bit lighter, chambered 308Norma. My son on firing it said how can you miss with this!!. With the 338-06 I use 225gr at 2650fps , pretty close to a 338WM. Recoil has never been an issue. But I redid a Parker Hale stock to fit me and my bifocals.With bifocals, I use medium rings. Burris also had a deluxe low power variable.

I’m part of the crowd that likes lightweight, compact rifles with “mini hubbles” mounted on them 😉.
Actually I’m not sure if Bushnell LRHS 3-12 meets the mini Hubble definition or not.

My hunting is all on foot with pack, and my most important hunt every year for the past 18 yrs is sheep hunting, so I’ve always been obsessed with lightweight rifles. I also used to always use the lightest scopes possible and that resulted in my longtime main hunting rifle weighing 5.5lbs with rings + scope and I used it to take rams, goats, caribou, etc.

In my experience a light, compact rifle can be plenty accurate, but the scope can be a limiter for durability and difficult shooting.

My rifles are still very light and compact but now with a heavier, more capable scope, my shooting has improved. I’m still dealing with a total weight under 7lbs.

I don’t use any magnum cartridges, and for years I used 284Winchester before a rebarrel to 6.5CM in 2015 so recoil has never been a big factor.
The combo of lightweight, compact rifle with a heavier scope makes for a very capable package(hunting or at the range) and still within 7lbs total weight.

I like synthetic stocks because it doesn’t bother me when they get banged up. A wood stock with a blemish in it is a real mental problem for me so I avoid them.

Balance...

I worry far more about accuracy, durability, and cartridge function, than weight. If you are in good condition, the weight of the rifle should not be a factor.

True, but Time happens. Huge difference between say 60, and 69 for instance. It helps to get the stuff out if your pack that’s not gotten used in 10 years or so, and switching from Filson wool to synthetics, but if it’s daylight, my rifle is in my hands or in the crook of my arm, occasionally slung upside-down on my left shoulder with my hand on the forend (try it). 7 pounds carries easy in all those positions.

Used to carry a 10-pound M70, wear wool, tote a Stanley full of coffee and a nice lunch. Now, not so much, except during the Mountaineer Heritage season I used my PH 1858 Enfield, which runs about 9lbs or so.

Gotta adapt, or stay home.

I don't worry about weight too much but appreciate lightness more as time passes. As important as weight are balance and the contour of that portion I am carrying in my hand. I have a Hawken replica which is pretty heavy (about 10 pounds) but fits in the hand very nicely and balances well. It is much nicer for me to carry than is a 7.5 pound rifle which is a little too fat in the middle. Now, as I approach 72, it doesn't take much to make my hands start to hurt and a fat stock makes it worse. An old Model 70 is heavy but fits and balances pretty well.
I have no problem hitting the 500 meter rams at the silhouette range with rifles wearing a fixed 4X scope so I am happy with that for hunting. Last time I was out with my 6.5x55, I fired a 4 inch, 5 shot group, at 300 meters from a sitting position with a sling. I could maybe do better with a big 6-24 variable but it would bum me out having to carry it! GD

Not to much yet. I will shorten the barrel fairly soon though. The trigger on my Miroku made rifle is quite good

Balance does matter as well, as our forefathers figured out.

I bought an 1895 Marlin Cowboy with a 26" barrel, on the recommendation of an owner in another forum. He said that you hardly notice the extra weight from the longer barrel.

He was right. Because the octagon barrel is a light sporting width, and not a heavy width, and because it tapers from breech to muzzle, it balances very well and does not seem heavy at all.

I also have migrated to leverguns during the last 20 years or so.
I have tried most out there, bought and sold.
The journey is far from over.
I really like a narrow, flat receiver and flat forearm/ forend. This alone makes it more portable, in hand or in and out a saddle scabbard, imo
These days a guy has alot of chambering options.
Any levergun with a fat forearm is negated from my list or altered.
I have bought and sold the newer Marlin/ Remains and will not again. The reciever feels like it is made from pot metal to me and is very clunky.
I would like to try the newer Miroku / Browning 1895 some day...it looks ideal to me....my little old opinion

Does anyone know if the color case on the Miroku 73s is real, or some kind of coating like some Italian ones? My LW Hunter has real CCH, but it’s maybe 20 years old.

Marlin receivers have always been forged steel. Some have had pretty rough matte surfaces in places. Who knows what Ruger will do?

comerade;
Top of the morning to you my friend, I trust that this first Sunday in May finds you and yours well and that the weather's behaving.

We got all the bedding plants in yesterday afternoon and had a light rain overnight I see, so here's hoping the new fence keeps the deer out effectively for some garden produce later on!

As you know about me, I've had a life long love for lever guns as well, but other than shooting a couple deer with them don't really hunt with levers. Well okay, if we're going to call using a Ruger No. 1 as my horse hunting gun a "lever" then there's that, but I don't usually class any drop block single shot as a lever gun as they're "the same but different" sort of.

You likely know as well about me that I'm a student of history and as such, admired so many of the photos of old time hunters here in BC with their Winchester 95's and Savage 99's.

What you might not know is that I had a Winchester 95 in .30US in rifle configuration, as well as a Savage 99 takedown for awhile.

The Savage was in .250, a 1922 model and despite all my efforts and experiments wouldn't group bullets even as light as 75gr much better than 6" at 100yds. That one really hurt as my late father used a 99 in .250 even for Saskatchewan moose and I so wanted one of my own. Dad's shot good enough that he hit gophers with it, but any gopher it by the one I had would have merely been unlucky. So it went down the road via Clay at Prophet River.

Now the 95 was another story in that just for historical purposes I wanted to love it, but the more I handled it, the less I did.

To me, the magazine is exactly in the wrong place to carry it, you know? Again I'm no giant and bigger men with correspondingly larger hands might not find it that way, but it felt "wrong" when carrying it to me.

A buddy offered me more than I had into it and down the road it went as well.

Lastly, any Miroku arm I've handled has been very well built for sure. We've chatted in the past about the B78 in .25-06 my buddy hunted with for years and it was a peach in every way as far as build quality. The trigger was a wee bit fun for sure and I made a different fore end for his that floated it from the action and barrel - and saved the very nice original from taking beatings on the pack frame - but it was well made.

His late father had a 95 carbine with the Lyman receiver sight on it, which he'd hunted with up until he picked up a '58 Model 70 in .270 which along with a Husky .270 was "the thing" in this part of BC in the '60's so he said.

Anyways sir all that to say I'd be interested in your thoughts if you do get a 95. So I read, they're well built and many shoot very well too.

All the best to you folks this spring.

Dwayne

I find balance is more important than weight. If you have a rifle that off balance because you've added a bipod to it - you will curse it all day long because the rifle will tend to auto rotate around your shoulder as you carry it and you will be adjusting it all day long.

A hunter can African carry it but that can lead to other problems especially if the terrain is rough.

I like a rifle that is not over 8 1/2 lbs all in, and well balanced and with a good shooting sling for carrying.

Thanks Dwayne ...good info on the model 95. The Ruger amd Browning falling blocks do carry well in the field.. I have owned both now, they seem to carry like a levergun.
Yeah, my one concern was the protruding magazine on the model 95.
Interestingly, I own a 1950ish model 70 and Husky.
Yes , you are a good source of info

Thanks for keeping this thread on track!

To your questions, Steve.....Yes.

I consider weight, but not too much. It's only one factor. I'm old, but not in any hurry- I can rest. And probably see more game than going bust-ass.

My two lightest serious hunting rifles are the 725 and 700 in .270 and 243, respectively. My two heaviest are the Ruger 77 in .338 at around 9 lbs scoped, slung, loaded, and a heavy barreled M98 in '06, coming in around 11 lbs, also scoped, slung, and loaded. The M98 is the most accurate- inch groups at 300. Probably do better if I was better. It's killed a bunch of caribou off ATV access. But so has the 725, and RU77 cut down - barrel and stock - (" the wife's") '06 "carbine". I beat Ruger to that by about 10 years.....and use it a lot.

What I am packing depends on several other factors- game, terrain, distance riding or walking, what I feel like doing, what I have sighted in ammo for....

My walk-about gun up here is a M94 in 30-30, aperture sighted. It's the lightest of the lot. Carries nice. Thinking about putting a Boonie-packer sling on it, like the others have..

I killed a deer with it in 1966.

I spent my younger days humping around an 81mm mortar tube or baseplate and then later in life packed all kinds of cadastral survey gear around the Alaska bush. A couple extra pounds on a rifle (usually my Ruger 77 338 WM) ain't gonna kill me!

As mentioned, balance and stock design are probably as important as weight in the reasonable range.

Given those?

~ 7 lb. for a carbine or shotgun.
~ 8.5 lb. for a scoped high power hunting rifle.
~ 10 lb. for a battle rifle.

Heavy enough to mitigate recoil and shoot well.

Light enough to carry w/o too much fuss.




GR

^^ THIS ^^

In the old days of the British African game hunter rifles were extremely light, as most were carried by the native gun bearer and then presented to the hunter upon request.

Can't get much lighter than that

I like light rifles. But they have to have balance. Favorite deer rifle weighs 7.5 lb with scope and a full magazine, with a 23" barrel. It balances well.

[/quote]
I also have migrated to leverguns during the last 20 years or so.
I have tried most out there, bought and sold.
The journey is far from over.
I really like a narrow, flat receiver and flat forearm/ forend. This alone makes it more portable, in hand or in and out a saddle scabbard, imo
These days a guy has alot of chambering options.
Any levergun with a fat forearm is negated from my list or altered.
I have bought and sold the newer Marlin/ Remains and will not again. The reciever feels like it is made from pot metal to me and is very clunky.
I would like to try the newer Miroku / Browning 1895 some day...it looks ideal to me....my little old opinion[/quote]

You must have bought the early Remlins. These had a well-deserved reputation for being roughly made and with poor quality control.

However the Remlins made in the last few years { (2017 - 2020) or so } were much better, and compared favorably with JM Marlins made 40 years ago. I can attest to this because I bought a NOS Marlin 336 from the Marlin vault, when Remington took over, made in 1969.

The JM gun felt smoother in finish to be sure, and it felt like it was made of glass when it cycled. Very smooth. And the glossy finished walnut stock was superior.

However, a few years ago I bought a new Remlin / Marlin 1894 Cowboy in .45 Colt, after examining it very carefully with the jaundiced eye of many years of experience. It had no problems at all that I could see. Sights were straight and installed properly. Fit and finish was excellent.

No boogered screw heads. Nice walnut, though a matte finish, and not as nice as the 1969 Marlin. It fed and ejected cartridges perfectly, and internal examination revealed that the cartridge lifter had been subtly improved in design compared to a Marlin-made Cowboy that I had owned 10 years earlier. No rough surfaces anywhere.

It was so good that I bought it, after swearing that I would never buy a Remlin. It shot well, and I still have it. Being on sale helped.

I also own bought Remlins after that in .357 magnum, and .45-70.
All the same quality, fit, and finish, with the same wood.
The half-magazine 1895 .45-70 had a too-heavy magazine spring (think King Kong) which I shortened by 3 1/2" that solved solved the problem. Still a bit stiff, but since 405 grain .45-70 cartridges are heavy and slam back and forth in the tube otherwise, I won't shorten it more.

My 1895 .45-70 Cowboy had no such problems with it's full-length magazine tube.

I also modified the .357 and .45 Colt 1894 rifles by cutting one coil off of the coil hammer spring. I also bent the ejector flat spring inward bit to reduce drag on the flat breech bolt.
I then cycled each rifle 1000 times each, lowering the hammer for each cycle. Once lubricated, the results were startling. They operated with half the effort, and trigger pulls were reduced to about 4 pounds each. Cartridge ignition was still 100%.

The Marlin made 1894's would also have benefited just as much from the above treatment, although the trigger pulls were better out of the box. The Remlin 1895's both had good trigger pulls right out of the box.

Miroku quality is second to none for lever actions. Glassy smooth blued steel, nice wood, perfect functioning. I have an 1873 rifle made by them.

My Browning BL-22 is also extremely well made, with a glossy walnut stock and glassy smooth.

Also made by Miroku.

That's true, but heavier rifles shot straighter back then. Since the hunter wasn't carrying the rifle, he could have several super heavy rifles along and balance one on the bearer's shoulder like they did in daze of yore!

Rifle weight is pretty much a non issue for me. I couldn’t tell you within a pound what any of my rifles weigh.
I did have a rather lightweight rifle made for a sheep hunt years ago. I just used a thinner barrel and light scope. Never weighed it but guessing 7.5 pounds loaded. It was in horse scabbard most of the hunt. Carried it far less than a mile and shot a sheep and mountain caribou.

Yes, it means different things to different people.

It's a different right answer for almost everyone.