I’m looking for an easy to carry, synthetic stock “Lightweight Mountain†rifle with stainless steel barrel. The rifle without scope should weigh about 3 Kg. (6.5-7 lbs). The calibres that come in my mind are 6.5x55, 270 win, 270 wsm and 7mm-08. What calibres are ideal for a Mountain rifle ? I'm NOT looking for a hard kicking 300 ultra super mag…rifle. Any suggestions are appreciated

Kimber Montana 270 WSM...weighs 6 and a 1/4 lbs is factory block and pillar bedded and shoots!
I love mine...

Take a look at this one:



Remington 700 Titanium...

It really leightweitght. I have mine in .30-06, shooting 20mm pictures with 5 fast following shots! Shoots smooth and is very leight altogether, as You could see I have mine with my Titanium Gunworks Titanium Scope mount, which comes with a weight of just 89 gramms the whole scope mount with that strong bridge design!...

Have a look at Marc Stokeld here in the forum: He uses the same Remington 700 Titanium gun as a base and makes it even lighter! Drop him a mail and let him show You his one with some good pictures...

Klaus
www.titanium-gunworks.de

I agree with Swarovski, it's hard to beat a Kimber Montana. You can get the 84m's in 243,260, 7-08 etc.. If you are hunting lighter game maybe one of these might have strong appeal, they are just over 5lbs w/o scope.
But again I'd vote for the 270 WSM the gun weighs slightly more but fits me a little better than the 84's. I have 2 Kimber 270 WSM's one is very accurate and the other is Extremely accurate. The 270 WSM isn't a particularly violent round and the Montana's ergonomics help keep felt recoil to a minimum.
If you are tall and have long arms you might find that the 8400 LA Montana fits you better than the 8400 WSM length does. I like the WSM length the best but if possible you should try all three sizes to see which fits you the best, there are suitable calibers in all of them..............................DJ

Cannot and will not disagree on Kimber, like them, thought about owning one, but my concern is only that on longer shots, I might not steady a gun this light as well, though it has the accuracy potential, I may not tap into it as well as a heavier gun.

I really wish Kimber would OFFER a standard barrel contour option, say .650-.675 muzzle at 22-24", I would GLADLY tote the weight increase and appreciate it at the moment of need, and the accuracy gain at the range, let alone the lessened recoil, IN that order of priority mind you.

What size game, how far will you be shooting? Expect to have a good rest and time to make the shot?

I will be hunting mainly caribou/deer in the mountains and the shots can be rather long....lets say over 300 yards. I have a 25-06 rifle which I like very much, but to carry it stalking caribou all day it’s a bit too heavy, 4 kg. (9 lbs.) with scope, and furthermore it has a very nice wood that I don’t won’t to scratch

I think I bought the perfect mountain rifle in 1970... a Smith&Wesson model B in 30-06. six pounds six ounces sans scope.. been useing it for years, just now beginning to break in.. shoots MOA with most handloads.. I'll never wear it out.. Les

I would take a look at the Blaser R 93.

The bbls are not stainless, but whatever they do to "blue" it makes it one of the best finishes I have ever seen.

For a light as possible R 93 get it with an Attache bbl. They are fluted and weigh less than a regular sporter bbl.

For long hikes, foul weather and medium distance shots and considering action design, weight, integral scope bases, etc I'll go with a nice Ruger Mk2 (light version)

Best regards, Gus

A M700Ti in 260, 270 or 7-08 would be about perfect in a factory rig. For me, anything much over the 280 in a 7# rifle kicks a bit much. No, I'm not recoil shy, my regular hunting rig is a 8.3# 338-06 but when you get into 7# territory? I made mine a 280 on a M70 action. Thin, straight grain wood stock, no recoil pad. With a 23" ft.wt. bbl. & Leup. 3-9comp it weighs in just over 7#.

Dont leave out ruger there model 77 ultra light in stainless synthetic with 20" weights in at 6.5 and thats the 30/06

I vote for the Weatherby Ultra-Lightweight and have two of them, a 30-06 and a 338-06 with the Talley light weight alum. alloy vertical split scope rings and bases. The weight is around 6-3/4 lbs scoped with a leupold 2-7. They are very accurate, handle well, look and carry great. Fine rifles they are.

Love my tikka t-3 in 300 win mag. 7#'s 2 oz with 3-9 burris ballistic plex. What a gun for $550. Yup a 300 win mag can kick but being a handloader I can turn it into a 308 or 30-06 with powder selection and safe loads from manuals. I have a load that runs 150 grainers at 2750 fps with very little kick. I also have a load with 180's at 3000 fps that I have shot .9" 5 shots at 300 YDS!!! For $550 you cannot beat a tikka T3.

My vote goes to the Kimber Montana in 7-08. I have one and think it is everything a mountain rifle is supposed to be, and a lot of bang for the buck (pun intended). Lou

quote:

Originally posted by Ingvar J. Kristjansson:
I’m looking for an easy to carry, synthetic stock “Lightweight Mountain†rifle with stainless steel barrel. The rifle without scope should weigh about 3 Kg. (6.5-7 lbs). The calibres that come in my mind are 6.5x55, 270 win, 270 wsm and 7mm-08. What calibres are ideal for a Mountain rifle ? I'm NOT looking for a hard kicking 300 ultra super mag…rifle. Any suggestions are appreciated

Sauer 202 lightweight-synthetic. About 6 lbs 2 oz. out-of-the-box. Highly accurate and functional. Fluted barel (but not stainless). It is not uncommon to have one shoot five rounds into less than an inch at 100 yards.


Jordan

quote:

Love my tikka t-3 in 300 win mag. 7#'s 2 oz with 3-9 burris ballistic plex. What a gun for $550. Yup a 300 win mag can kick but being a handloader I can turn it into a 308 or 30-06 with powder selection and safe loads from manuals. I have a load that runs 150 grainers at 2750 fps with very little kick. I also have a load with 180's at 3000 fps that I have shot .9" 5 shots at 300 YDS!!! For $550 you cannot beat a tikka T3.

DITTO mine is an even 7lbs and a shooter, I put a Kick-Ezze pad on it and reoil is not a factor!!

OK, for something different...

Browning BLR in 270-win or -wsm, or 7mm08 (or any of a host of other calibers). Available in stainless with laminated stock.

Andy

The Kimber Montana is a superior rifle, IMO. My .243 shoots consistent 1/2 moa groups, and I have used it to take marmots out to 566 lasered yards. My .300 WSM shot moa with the first load I ran through it. I shot an elk at 292 yds the first day out. Now I have another at hand, a 7-08. These things are great; light, well built, accurate.

I have two ancient Savage model 110's. They each weigh 6 1/2 pounds with a 22" barrel and the original black walnut stock. That's the way they built them in those days. They just feel right. If I put a 4X weaver on them and a sling and loaded them, they'd be just a bit over 7 1/2 pounds. Having those two, I've never seen any benefit to trying to get rid of about a pound in gettin an ultra-light.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
I would take a look at the Blaser R 93.

The bbls are not stainless, but whatever they do to "blue" it makes it one of the best finishes I have ever seen.

For a light as possible R 93 get it with an Attache bbl. They are fluted and weigh less than a regular sporter bbl.

...agree - offroad (synthetic stock) weight 3,0 kg - caliber 6,5x57 or 7x64

Savage Sierra in 270WSM. Less that $450 and accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR:
Cannot and will not disagree on Kimber, like them, thought about owning one, but my concern is only that on longer shots, I might not steady a gun this light as well, though it has the accuracy potential, I may not tap into it as well as a heavier gun.

I really wish Kimber would OFFER a standard barrel contour option, say .650-.675 muzzle at 22-24", I would GLADLY tote the weight increase and appreciate it at the moment of need, and the accuracy gain at the range, let alone the lessened recoil, IN that order of priority mind you.

What size game, how far will you be shooting? Expect to have a good rest and time to make the shot?

Kimber DOES offer what you are looking for. They call it the LongMaster Classic. In 308 it weighs 7lb 8oz and it has a 24" barrel.

The Remington 700 Mountain Rifle LSS. It has a stainless steel action and barrel and a laminated stock, and weighs about 6 1/2 to 6 5/8 pounds. It is available in 270 Win, 280 Rem (equivalent to the 7 x 64), 7mm-08, and 30-06.

If I were choosing a caliber for a mountain rifle, I'd choose the .270 Winchester because I like that caliber, for nostalgia (the Jack O'Connor factor), for relatively high velocity (3100+ f.p.s. with 130 grain bullets), relatively low recoil, and for easy accessibility of ammo. But the .280 and 7mm-08 also would work equally well, although the 7mm-08 would give up a bit of velocity for a gain of less recoil and a tiny bit less weight since it's built on a short action.

I'd just get the action of my desire, go with the lightest stock available I could find for it.. and then just order a barrel on what ever caliber I desired to shoot.. in the manufacturers lightest contour... and the length I wanted it to be...

I am sure you can do that for a lot less than some of the really spendy rifles that are really lightweight are...

A few years ago, I did pick up a Weatherby that was their lightweight edition, that was chambered in 338/06.. and also in the 7/08...

I loved that rifle... but not the price tag...
But I have to admit, If money was no object in my life, I'd have bought one of each.. and probably one in 30/06... YOU just aren't an American rifleman, unless you own a 30/06! ( whether you use it not a lot... )

Another vote for the WeatherbyMkV:
Lightweight(6.5lb)#1-24" or
Ultralight(5.75lb)#1-24"fluted
Cal:.280rem!

I have read a lot of good things about 270 wsm and I’m very interested in that calibre, but in a lightweight mountain rifle does it kick much more then the standard 270 ?

When it comes to light hunting rifles Melvin Forbes wrote the book, and his New Ultra Light Arms rifles are the lightest around.

Check his M20 (short action) and M24 (standard action) rifles. You can get a mountain rifle at 4.75 pounds/2.2 Kg.

I bought my first rifle from him in '93, and I have a second on order now.

jim

I like your choice of a sainless composite socked rifle for a mt. gun. My Ti700 works fine now but it is very, very light. So light it took some sorting out for me to be able shoot it well. A stainless Model 7 in any of the same calibers would be a lot cheaper and weigh only a little more. I have a Model 7 I bought for my son many years ago and it shoots about as well as the Ti700. It's handy, cost much less and weighs little more. Stainless/composite Styer's have recently become available here in 6.5x55, which would be an interesting alternative if the slight increase in wt. wouldn't bother you. You might do a history search on the forums for other threads on mt. rifles and especially the Ti 700. There are some very happy users and some not so happy.

M1, I must correct you, nothing against YOUR taste, but the 308 was never for me, great round it is.

I LOVE the smaller cousins in 6.5 and 7mm.

That said, I shoot 708 in a 21" with 139 gr popping out at 2960 fps. I don't know where exactly that compares to a 270, but it can't be much less, not in practicality. Accurate, mild recoil, plenty of bullet wt. for intended game.

If the Kimber light weights feel good, stock shape/fit, and how they hold, I would support that, of course steyr and tikka's are light, and well built. Even a TC carbine would be handy, if you can 'settle' for a single shooter.

Many other great options above, save that BLR in stainless laminate, both materials would be heavier than the alloy/standard wood version. I have noticed laminate's weighing a noticeable amount more, sometimes desired, but perhaps not if wanting to save weight. Choice of light but sturdy mounts say 2 pc alloy would help, along with simple aluminum tube fixed 4 or 6x scope, or compact variable with modest objective size, and lightweight sling.

I would NEVER EVER however sacrifice my 'holdability' factor if choosing a LIGHT rifle meant doing so. They all have the instrinsic accuracy needed, unless poor quality control.

Every gun holds different to each individual shooter.

Yes the Ruger's are not bad, as the former Winch M70 Featherweights. Lots of choices.

I'd go syn stock if in ROCKY terrain, for sturdiness/scratch resistance. Being in Iceland, do you 'roll your own?' or use factory ammo.

If factory loads are your option, a Tikka in same 25/06 as well as any 6.5x55 (some factory loads may not be up to performance capability due to old rifles mandated lower pressure for liability), also the 7/08 will do good work to 350-400 yds with shot placement. A 280 might give you 50 yds or so more point blank range, as a 270 or 7mm WSM but I don't know if you are limited to factory ammo, and if so, how available various rounds are in your country.

MANY options. I'd stick to 25-28 cal 120-140gr bullets, at 2800-3000 and you should be in good shape.

quote:

Originally posted by Ingvar J. Kristjansson:
I’m looking for an easy to carry, synthetic stock “Lightweight Mountain†rifle with stainless steel barrel. The rifle without scope should weigh about 3 Kg. (6.5-7 lbs). The calibres that come in my mind are 6.5x55, 270 win, 270 wsm and 7mm-08. What calibres are ideal for a Mountain rifle ? I'm NOT looking for a hard kicking 300 ultra super mag…rifle. Any suggestions are appreciated

I've built a bunch of ultra light rifles for people who insisted on them, but I much prefer a little more wt in a rifle, if you want to shoot it well offhand. Especially in the mtns, where you are often winded after a stalk or humping over that ridgeline to head off a herd of elk. Invest an extra half pound or so in the barrel and you'll have a gun you can shoot better in most hunting situations. As for weight, just leave that extra can of beer out of the pack... on second thought, leave those extra flashlight batteries out, instead .

Remington Ti (old style) long action .270WIN. Bell&Carlson mountain rifle medalist BDL stock, factory BDL TG, Callahan speed lock, jewell trigger, Talley LW's and Leupold 6X42. 6lb 2.5oz scoped! It could be lighter, but this works for me.

I'm not a big Remington fan, but this rifle is the sht. It weighs less scoped than a Kimber 8400 naked and shoots amazingly well.

I've had a bad experience with Kimber. They won't see any more of my $$$.

Terry

I sure think that kimber montana is a great choice. But my little ruger ultra light is a really nice rifle too.
I am not specificly a ruger guy. I like lots of rifles but a #1A is an awfully classy choice, Mine is a 7X57 and it is a real tack driver and would be a great choice on your mountain hunt....tj3006

i bought my kid a model 7 remington in 7mm08 i hope he grows out of it pretty quick because I sure like it

quote:

Originally posted by brayhaven:

quote:

Originally posted by Ingvar J. Kristjansson:
I’m looking for an easy to carry, synthetic stock “Lightweight Mountain†rifle with stainless steel barrel. The rifle without scope should weigh about 3 Kg. (6.5-7 lbs). The calibres that come in my mind are 6.5x55, 270 win, 270 wsm and 7mm-08. What calibres are ideal for a Mountain rifle ? I'm NOT looking for a hard kicking 300 ultra super mag…rifle. Any suggestions are appreciated

I've built a bunch of ultra light rifles for people who insisted on them, but I much prefer a little more wt in a rifle, if you want to shoot it well offhand. Especially in the mtns, where you are often winded after a stalk or humping over that ridgeline to head off a herd of elk. Invest an extra half pound or so in the barrel and you'll have a gun you can shoot better in most hunting situations. As for weight, just leave that extra can of beer out of the pack... on second thought, leave those extra flashlight batteries out, instead .

To pick up where he left off, I can tell you a person I know, with plenty money was on a guided sheep hunt, VERY winded after a hard stalk, and topped a ridge and he and the animals spotted each other, it was shoot then or never, last day, and to shoot was going to cost him if not mistaken $2500 to pull the trigger, and he did. He was carrying a LIGHT weight 280, and he did miss clean.

Would he have hit with a heavier rifle? I don't know, but I myself once in Texas had a muzzle light Model 7, stainless, 260, stuffed in a walnut deluxe stock for looks, and it shoot well floated and all, but with a 4.5x14x it was far too muzzle light, deer present about 150 yds and I was in a chair in front of a mesquite bush to break my outline, and the wind was howling, literally 25-30 gust and it DID affect my hold, as well as my having to shoot offhand, I had nothing but rock and cactus had I laid down and had I moved much the deer would have spotted me.

Long story, I missed the first shot, which is always your best opportunity, and took many more 'attempts' as he ran away, carefully aimed but the thin barrel was heating up, and the deer was running and it was a botched up situation from the get go.

Had I carried my varmint bbl rifle which I had on the trip that morning, that large racked buck I am sure would have been mine. It took a doe later in the hunt one evening, easily at a similar distance, heavy gun, 6x42 modest but bright scope of adequate magnification.

That hunt taught me a lot. I'd rather 'over weight' in my rifle than underweight, but there ARE choices that give you a balance of 'carryability' and 'hold ability or shootability'

Too sacrifice too much on the last one, will leave you regretting possibly one day in the field, as it did me, and I learned the hard way.

I bet a 5-6lb rifle scoped and all is nice to carry, but I'd make sure I could place my shots well before toting it.

Fast lock time and lighter triggers will help get the bullet out the bore sooner than later, minimizing drift off target before lead is on the way.

TC, curious, what problem with Kimbers? Did they offer to fix it? Thanks.

Nice looking rifle, It looks very balanced even for such a light gun. If it fits the shooter real well, that helps alot. I think stock fit is something overlooked in 'field accuracy equations'

quote:

TC, curious, what problem with Kimbers? Did they offer to fix it? Thanks.

Nice looking rifle, It looks very balanced even for such a light gun. If it fits the shooter real well, that helps alot. I think stock fit is something overlooked in 'field accuracy equations'

6.5BR, yes the rifle balances very nice. All of the weight savings are on the action end so while it only weighs 6lbs it still balances like it should. At one time a lightweight rifle meant a very short and thin barrel and that was it. These rifles were muzzle light and had a lot of the problems you mentioned in your post. Things have come a long way and a few companies understand the lightweight concept these days. These rifles balance and shoot extremely well. I had the above rifle out Thursday and shot several 1" 3 shot groups at 200yds and the scope has a heavy duplex reticle.

On the Kimber statement, yes they fixed it, but messed other things up while they were fixing the first problems. I've got a Chinese assault rifle that has a better wood to metal fit than the Kimber I bought!

REPRINT FROM EARLIER POST OF MINE ON THE SUBJECT.
My one experience with Kimber was a disaster. I ordered a 8400 in a .270 Winchester when they first came out. When the rifle arrived the wood to metal fit was the absolute worst I have ever seen on any rifle. The barrel almost came completely out of the channel before it came to the end. Wood rubbed against one side of the barrel and had a huge gap on the other side. The action had the same problems. I called Kimber and told them about it and they sent a "call tag" and UPS picked the rifle up about a week later. When I got the rifle back a few weeks later it had a new piece of wood on it that was nicer than the one it came with but they put a dig in the buttstock area and scratched the muzzle. Needless to say, I was pissed off and disgusted by the whole thing and the idea of owning a Kimber had lost it's charm. I sold the rifle on the classified board (full discloser) and moved on. The new owner say's it shoots .5's on a regular basis and he's happy with it. I will never buy another one.

Here are some pictures of it. I just expect more than this for $1000.00

Like I said the new owner is happy with it, I probably would be too if didn't have to go though what I did with it (and got the rifle at the same price I sold it to him for )

Terry

6.5-

In another thread this week, I pointed out that proper balance is needed to make a rifle of any weight "shootable." The lighter the weight, the more critical it is to have proper balance. Most home smiths do not have the equipment, and more improtantly, the know-how required to properly balance a fly-weight rifle.

Also, the typical custom fly-weight rifle will shoot better then the typical shooter. Your friend missing the sheep is not a condemnation of the equipment, but rather your friend's inability to use the equipment to its fullest potential. But it is a rare shooter indeed who will admit it is THEM that screwed up when they have an inanimate object that is not capable of defending itself in conversation. Much easier to blame rifle, scope, wether, whatever. Personally, I have missed so many heads of game, even if I did not own up to my own mistakes, no would believe the excuses anyway. I was actually talking about flubbing a 50 yrd shot on a broadside deer just last night! Me and my buddy had anothe rgood laught at my expense

Had your friend spent more time with good practice sessions with the rifle before the hunt, things would have been different. Also, I do not know his physical condition, but do know that many people are not in true "sheep shape." I don't know the particulars here, but do know people who have had problems with not being in the best shape possible.

I used to shoot off hand over 300 days a year and well know how a rifle needs to be balanced to shoot well. A heavy rifle with poor balanace is equally difficult to shoot, even in strong winds.

Storng wind definitely hammers a light rifle more. But it also works on the bullet more than most folks know, and they are doomed by aiming errors before they pull the trigger anyway.

If a person wants to shoot a light rifle well, and the rifle has proper balance, they can do it. And leaving batteries at home is not the same as shaving weight off the rifle. Due to the way it has to be carried, every ounce is felt. Also, you need to leave everything possible at home for a true backpack hunt. Yes, I am one of those people who cut my tooth brush handle in half and then drilled holes in what was left!

But the great thing is we have choices and can all get what we like the best. Folks who are uncomfortable with fly-weight rifles should get soemthing heavier. THose trying to cut every half ounce from the load can get the fly-weights and learn how to shoot them. Just like Burger King, you can have it YOUR way!

While typing this I have been thinking about shooting in high winds. That just sucks!

TC1 posted his thread while I was typing and also made the point about proper balance. I just saw it and heartily agree. Dittos Terry!

I cannot say about the above hunter I referred to's shooting skill on that hunt, he is a cardiologist who works alot but may not have shot much, nor been in sheep shape, as I am SURE that hunting has to be hard as heck. He WAS winded, and I can tell you, I'd want a Heavy bbl but short so I can handle it and it won't feel like a ton of bricks on muzzle end, but my heavy barrel varmint at 21" comes to mind as minimizing 'wobble' effect holding offhand.

He likely had no rest available or time to use one. Steady stix might have done the trick, had he had any type of 'staff' to use in a pinch perhaps he would have connected, I do believe the shot to be around 250 yds perhaps. I will have to ask him.

Also, he recently told me he shoots about 100 rounds a week, Kenny Jarrett loads his 280 AI ammo for him, returning his cases for reloading.

Now for me, I handled ULA rifles at the SHOT Show this year, and I could not imagine trying to hold one steady. That is just me, spoiled with letting the weight of the gun do alot of the work for me, but I do agree, when toting a rifle, every ounce can and is felt when in hand and hiking all day. Everyone likely has a weight range and stock fit that is best for them and I cannot knock anyone who can shoot their light rifles well. More practice can likely offset the increased difficulty they can present, so a certain degree. That said, a 7 lb rifle, w/o scope is not bad in my mind but if hiking a lot, I can see where losing a pound would be a relief for carry. I just wonder if the pendulum sometimes swings too far, and some hunters who lack commitment or opportunity to practice, suffer with less field accuracy when using a rifle that albeit has the built in accuracy, but struggle with holding them as well during the shot. To me carrying a tad more heavier rifle is worth it if I have the extra confidence that I need in particular hunting conditions.

Can you imagine the soldiers in WWII who carried those heavy rifles and all the ammo and gear, all day? They must have built up some real stamina and/or were very exhausted often. I know the average hunter does not want to 'train' and prepare for the physical endeavors one encounters in the field. Each must choose what is individually good for them. I just know from personal experience my shooting is often better with a heavier rifle than ultra light. That said, I think once hunters sight in and find their load or ammo of choice, effort must be made to practice shooting their rifle as in the field, not only from a table with sandbags. Long ago I realized that shooting often from a bench made me take too long in the shot process in the field. My wild hog was killed this year at 240 yds, Ruger #1 mannlicher, about 7.5 lb w/o scope I believe. I had a rest but immediately began squeezing as soon as I had the scope reticle on the vital and broke the trigger. Taking too long trying to get a 'bench rest' aim can make one start to 'increase their wobble' so I am a believer in getting a firm grip, aim, and squeeze with follow through (not jerking the trigger mind you) but deliberatly breaking the trigger, faster than one might at a paper target, but not such to pull the shot.

Technique in the field can be faster and often needs to be as game does not always wait around.

I can tell you of Numerous times on write ups on the Kimbers that shooters missed or botched shots due to the rifles being almost too light. Those were various experienced shooters.

Simply put, one must invest the time with whatever their weapon of choice is and learn it, and know their limitations. Thanks guys.

You are right about light rifles being harder to shoot without specific practice. Unless you are in a situation where you can shoot a good bit with different positions, one is likely to find light rifles pretty unforgiving. In this case, something with more heft is steadier and would be the proper choice.

One thing I do a lot that helps me is to dry fire. I pick something a ways off, mount the rifle, center the aim, and squeeze the trigger. Naturally, I first make double sure that the rifle is unloaded! I have some physical limitations now and can't take the recoil as I could in the past. The dry firing helps make up for less rounds fired for me.

I also shoot a .22 several days each week. That trigger time also helps me when I am shooting a larger rifle at big game.

In the end, I am still sorry your buddy missed the sheep. I sure know what that is like!