Printable View
I’m interested in what others think is their preferred rifle weight .
I’m talking walk around Bush/Tops centerfire 6.5mm and bigger caliber rifles .
As I’ve got older my rifles have lost weight, but is there a lower limit of practical performance/recoil/balance / handling?
7-7.5lb
My Sako a7 is 3.1kg or 7lb with the a vx3 4.5-14×40 scope and muzzle brake it's pretty nice to shoot and carry
I have found the lighter you go the more you have to pay attention when you are actually doing the "shooting bit". My mates Kimber 30/06 Sub Alpine is very very light and there is no way you can shoot it accurately with out paying attention, none of that fancy shmancy not holding on to the forend that everyone seems to promote. My Saum is not as light but same applies when shooting it.
I used to think light as possible but now I have kinda changed, only my actual hunting rifle now is light all the others are heavier and easier to shoot accurately
Definitely caliber dependent. 7 lbs for real accuracy with the 18" Grendel. At least 7.5 lbs for anything bigger.
Should add, no problem shooting it super accurately off my pack #600mGun #270gang :DQuote:
Originally Posted by dannyb
My favorite hunting rifle is an M12 in .308 - with scope,sling and full mag, it's 8.3 lb - when I wasn't looking, I turned into an old fart, but I still carry medium to heavy rifles over big distances and difficult country without fuss. Tried the whole superlight carry on but just couldn't jell with it. When you have to make a quick shot, especially on a moving target, or when you have bashed your way over a saddle or ridge, breathing shot, with no time to set up, a medium+ weight rifle is by far better.
If the young fellas have to go all ultralight now, what are they gonna do when they get on a bit?
If you have to muzzle brake it, or suppress it to shoot it, your rifle is too light for you.
Have any of you tried the SSRNZ singles? 2.3kg with a scope and the one I tried was very pleasant to shoot. (7.62x39). By all accounts he made them on 308 as well..I know someone with one and they are a dream to carry....
Can't say I agree with that sentiment, I think that's down to personal preference, that being said I would happily shoot my rifle unbraked, I'm not a fan of suppressors but that's my preference.Quote:
Originally Posted by 257weatherby
Having my magnum braked means my 12 year old can shoot it too, it also is much nicer for a lightweight rifle so why not.
As I've said, no hate just different opinions :thumbsup:
Good brake and you can go pretty light and it's not gonna be un-manageable anyhow. My wsm weighs 3.2kg ready to roll with a VX5 on it and it's real easy to shoot. Take the brake off and it's a different story though!
Totally agree, also if you have to use a scope then the animal is too far away for you #banscopesandmuzzlebrakesQuote:
Originally Posted by 257weatherby
Aye?Quote:
Originally Posted by 257weatherby
My rifle is pretty comfortable at 7.7lbs. Its a Howa .308 with a barrel docked to 19", a Stug stock and a gen 4 hardy.
It will lose a little more when I get a MkII DPT (I'll run it with a baffle off too) and take another inch or two of the barrel. Also I intend to put on Tally lightweight rings. All of these proposed changes are not because I want weight savings, but rather I like the gear, and I like short barrels. Few less grams will be nice but it would not worth the $$ for weight reduction alone.
I've got a 20" 260 just shy of 3.8kg (need to re weigh). My preference is between 3.4-3.8kg. It's all about personal preference. To me, balance and manoureability are key for a hunting rifle, however, this is all dependant on the goals you set out with your rifle (such as location, distance, game, weight, calibre etc) be specific. I always aim for, not the worst case but the what if (within reason). My 2 cents.
Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk
Agree. money to weight ratio. its not worth it. Ive bought some expensive stuff just to save a few grams ..... literally a few grams, but, hey its a hobby. hahahaha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dama dama
Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk
I believe what 257weatherby is trying to say/means is that if you HAVE to add a brake or suppressor in order to comfortably/accurately shoot a rifle...well its just too darn light for cartridge/calibre/amount of bang powder youve stuffed in the caseQuote:
Originally Posted by hotsoup
to put it another way
you could happily shoot same rifle with reduced load or if it was heavier...SO something is out of whack...the muzzle brake/suppressor thing helps even it out.
my 20" lightweight poohseventy is a pussy to shoot with a suppressor fitted..without it I get "love bites" unless my technique/hold is spot on. compare that to the .308 which is a little heavier and its fine either with or without suppressor.
As far as I'm concerned light weight is a win / win situation. I very rarely make anything other than a head/neck axis shot which for me is all under 200m - I prefer to hunt rather than shoot and meat gathering is the name of my game and leave heads in the bush. I use light calibers (except for close bush work) and suppressors on everything. Yes, it does require more attention to place a round where you want it with a rifle that is light weight and which may have less weight forward - that just makes me shoot better. Currently sorting out a Savage LWH in .243 by adding a suppressor which apart from the obvious health benefits puts enough weight back into the pointy end to make it that much more stable (as long as the wind does'nt catch it at 90 degrees).
Don't believe everything this guy says, he tried to tell me the earth is round...........Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
Yes very true point @mikeeQuote:
Originally Posted by mikee
Difficult to hold a feather as to a rod - "still"
BUT - bugger the accuracy of "any where in the eye" hence I aim for largest zone (shoulder)
I went hunting yesterday pre dawn for 2 hours with a rifle that weighed 4.56kg (with Thermal a top)
No - even give I was not hunting - but just track stalking and distance surveying - to heavy - awful
So the Kimber 7m-08 Montana in at 3.04kg - with Scope - Sling - 4 rounds & one of those scientific MOD thingies - that's me :thumbsup:
2.5-5kg
My favourite rifle is 4.75 kg and it was previously around 5 with a heavier scope.
I find 3.3-3.7kg is a good weight for a non magnum but don't mind carrying heavier.
I had this rifle for a while, remington model 700 mountain rifle in .270 with vx3 3.5-10 and a stug stock. Booted bloody hard but boy it was nice to carry.
Attachment 112731
Now shooting a Tikka t3 ultralight in 7mm Rem Mag, with a senator stock and vx5 3-15. It weighs in closer to 6.8 pounds and is alot more manageable then the remington. I reckon its perfect in regard to weight for my style of hunting.
My hunting rifles range from about 7 pounds to 9 pounds. The ones I use most are around 8-8.5 pounds. Lighter the better if carrying a lot but for the heavy kickers a bit more weight is good, I don't have any with brakes and only the 6.5 x55 is suppressed.
I like 6lbs when Im carrying it but 10lbs when Im shooting it. Shooting light guns on targets at a bench is ok but they will show up every error in your technique, even more so from compromised positions.
Imagine Captain James Cook and his men fussing over how heavy their muskets were...
Yeah, but they didn't have the choice!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
Each to their own, but to be fair I have never picked up a hunting rig and said "nah, too heavy" and I'm a skinny fulla.
In saying that, why would you not make rifles lighter to carry as long as they still shoot comfortably for calibre?
Its interesting that many here mention recoil as being the big factor in how light you can make your rifle .
I thought it was just me , and my recoil sensitivities.
The 6.5’s are as big as I can handle in a light rifle and even then I run a fine line of too much .
My centerfire hunting rifles get carried much more than they get shot and that is the reason why they have gone on a diet as the years have gone past .
My recoil tolerance hasn’t got better over the years, infact it may have got worse, but with modern stock designs , good load / bullet weight choices and being honest with myself about not needing to be the tough guy I have managed to whittle down the weight of my rifle in direct correlation to the amount of grey hair in my beard and spring in my step .
I reckon stock design makes a huge difference too. Back in the day I had a 308 Midland; didn't boot like a stag; it booted like an angry stag! Kicked way more than my Ruger 77 .270, my brass butt plate light 303 etc; or other 308's I've shot
I've done the ultralight thing in larger calibres and it's just not for me (I'm a bit of a traditionalist, and aren't a big fan of suppressors or muzzle brakes).
I'm now heading down the path of just going down in calibre if I want a lighter rifle, and that way I won't have to compromise on the overall handling of the rifle.
My .270 weights about 8.5lbs scoped and it soaks up recoil really well. A year ago I was running a light weight .270 (6.5lbs scoped) and although nice to carry, it wasn't great for off hand shots, nor was the recoil particularly pleasant.
Well, this is a great thread. Everyone can be correct and each is certainly the expert on what like themselves.
I never thought my 4.2kg 7mm08 was too heavy till one day I tried putting the suppressor in my pack for the walk out. What a dream ! It was wonderful. Easy to heft and manouver through scrub, lovely to bring up to the eye ...
I'm a firm believer that a light rifle needs a light cartridge. This is partly for mechanical reasons (less stress on the metal ware scope mounts and bedding and less dependence on shooter technique. Try videoing yourself and see how much a 308 pushes your body around, even if subjectively the recoil seems minimal. The relevant part of this movement happens before the bullet reaches the muzzle brake.
So, now I'm working up a 3.5kg 16" barrel grendel. It's very nice to carry and shoots so well on paper but there are some compromises in usability for practical marksmanship and in knockdown power.
In Aus a mate who has a 45/110 put two dead mule recoil reducers into the butt section of the standard wooden stock and that made a huge difference to felt recoil , it got pretty heavy though. One was a little bit better and two made the big difference. Wood is clearly a much better material for stocks if recoil is an issue. So I guess all in all it's as much about how you distribute the weight in a set up or in the stock. I imaging that the brittle snap feel of some of the light weight aramid / carbon / kevlar stocks can be off set with a dead mule if you build into it suitable anchor points. A bit of 'swings and roundabouts'.
I like the feeling of a short heavy rifle, say 4kg if the weight is central or rearward I find it easier to shoot from non prone positions.
While not as nice to carry a good sling helps.
I'd rather a bit of extra weight in a rifle than a super lightweight one which ends up being muzzle heavy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bing
dind ding ding ding we have a winner.....weight distribution is as important as the weight itself, also shooting position ie: prone, standing, sitting, bench etc
non magnum 7mm08, 284, 280AI, 308 all around 5.5 - 6 lb bare rifle & all up 7.2 - 7.8 lbs with scope rings and suppressor. These are my go to hunting rifles - joy to carry and shoot.
7mm SAUM also weighs in at 7.5lbs all up in STUG cf stock, scope etc.
7mm RM, 300 wsm or bigger are 7.8 - 9 lbs.
Prefer suppressor for hunting to save what's left of my ears.
Do all load dev without suppressor or brake to limit carbon fouling, then fine tune load with suppressor or brake as needed. ( I'm not overly sensitive to recoil ).
