For giggles, I bought a shipping scale that goes up to 50#. I've been wanting to know how much certain thing weight (backpacks, rifles, ammo, etc.). With my wife eyeing my carefully, I popped open the safe and started weighing them all. To be honest, I was very surprised by the results.

All rifles are weighed empty, no sling.


AR-15 #1: 6.4#. (16" bbl, holosight, 10/20 rnd, mag, collapsable stock). My tribute to a simple black rifle. Just a hair under 6.5#. It's light, easy handling, fast, and has a miserable trigger. My wife loves it - I'm good with that.

AR-15 #2: 12#. (20" Heavy barrel, Burris Sig Sel. 4-12x44, 5 rnd mag). 1/2 MOA rifle with a DPMS upper and a Jard 1# trigger. If you miss with this, then you really do have problems. It's that good. It's one heavy bastard!

Remington M7ms in .257 Roberts: 7.5# (VXIII 2.5-8x36). The Remington Mannlicher - light, handy, 20" bbl.

Ruger #1a 7mm Mauser: 8.75# (Burris EuroDiamond 3-10x40 illumiated). 22" bbl, normal Ruger #1. Exactly HOW heavy was this???

Marlin 336 SS LTD in .35 Rem: 7.75# (Burris Fullfield 1.5-5). The 18" Davidson's special.

Remington 673 .350 RMag: 8.5# (Zeiss 1.80-5.5 Conquest). Old Sharkey pays a price for having that rib and huge sharkfin sight.

Montana 1999 in .375 H&H: 8.5# (20" "C" contour bbl, no iron sights, Leupold FX-III 6x42).



I was really stunned weighing them. My first thought: the Ruger weighs HOW MUCH??? I mean, yeah, the Burris scope isn't exactly light but the majority of that weight is in the rifle. 8.75#? I weighed it five times. For a rifle that feels so right - slim, trim, handy, danged if that didn't turn out to be my heaviest carry rifle.

Second revelation: My Montana 1999 weighs LESS than the Ruger and exactly the same as the 673? Really? I mean, REALLY? Granted, the 673 has a 22# bbl...and wears a heavier scope but the 1999 has a long .375 length action. I was somehow expecting the 1999 to come in at 10#...I weighed it 6 times making very sure to dead center the rifle on the scale. 8.5#. It's got a wide, thick feel. Not that quick and nimble feel the No. 1 has. The 1999 has a more butt-heavy feel and the No. 1 is simply more centered - but put a finger in the middle of rifle and they are actually both very centered in weight. Go figure.

I was thinking the 1999 was a heavy rifle - and how the recoil was very manageable. I figured it was a 10# gun. At 8.5# scoped, I'm starting to understand why some people consider a 7.5# scoped .375 "right". I get it now. Even with 300 gr. Partions driven by 80gr. of H4350 - it's manageable.

All of this really goes to demonstrate one thing: weight isn't everything. I never would have guessed the Ruger weighed more. Fit and feel is at least every bit as important as actual weight.


And for the final stunner...as I whine marginally about the thought of carrying 8.5# of rifle in Africa one day...and probably whine even more about an 8.75# rife that I really do like.

My M1 Garand tipped in at an honest 10#. Tougher men than I is all I can really say. Respect.


Comment away folks!

My mauser-actioned 338-06 and 35 Whelen both top 10lb apiece with scopes and slings , most of the rest of the accumulated shooters weigh in around the 8lb mark , although my Ruger M77 in 25-06 always feels heavier at 9lb even

My CZ 458 Lott weights 10 LBS and my 416 Rem. Weights 10 LBS Both have slings my 375 weights 10 lbswith a sling my 338 RUM weights 10 lbs my
10ga shotgun weights 11 lbs my 300 RUM weights 9 lbs, my 257 Wby weights 8 lbs all my rifles wear slings, 7mm weights 9 lbs. I'm not going threw all my rifles

You have a lot of time on your hands.

I've carried my 10 1/4# 404j miles & miles while chasing buff in Africa. Yeah, it's heavy, but I wouldn't want it much lighter for range time. My other hunting rifles go from a 7 1/4" 280 to 8 3/4# 338x74K #1. They have all been toted miles & miles up & down Montana mountains after elk. That is where I find the li.wt. 280 a joy to carry.

As has been shown, weight is a subjective matter.
I have been surprised by the difference that the same weight feels in different rifles I built. My 7x57 weighs 8 1/2 lb with the aperture sights but feels trim and is easy to carry. With a scope, at 9 1/2 lb, it becomes top heavy and less well balanced in comparrison although mostly the scope rides in the day pack, if it goes at all. My 404 on the other hand weight 9 1/2 lb but still carries well. My XR 100 20 VarTarg weighed 12 1/2 lb and was a bear to carry because of the Rem thumbhole stock. I built another for it and now at 11 1/2 lb feels like a light weight because it is so much easier to carry.
Shape and balance can have more of a portability effect than wieght.

Von Gruff.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
You have a lot of time on your hands.

No, I have a very inquisitive mind.

rnovi
You know whats funny is I got a 50 pound fish scale 2 weeks ago and went thru my safe weighing rifles and I've never weighed any of them before. I too was fascinated with the weights of my rifles and what I thought some would weigh and which ones were lighter than another. Too much time on my hands? I say not I also have an "inquisitive" mind.
One of my lightest is my Mauser 96 Husqvarna in .257 Roberts, slim trim 23" barrel, 3-9 Leupold Compact, Warne rings, full length glass bedded and wood stocked 7 pounds 7 ounces scoped.
My 98 Mauser 9.3x62 scoped with a 2-7 Nikon Monarch 7 pounds 14 ounces.