Gentlemen,

Continuing with the theme 'Too much free time', I have been looking into light weight rifles. I was wondering what is a good weight for a mountain environment rifle - one which enables one to shoot in the range 300 - 400 yards and hits with some authority, yet is managable both from the weight / carrying aspect and recoil?

I am thinking of something like a 300 WSM or a 325 WSM. I feely admit to being influenced by Alaska Outdoors Directory hunting & shooting forums where they discuss mountain / interior rifles. The species hunted covered elk, sheep, goats, black bear, grizzly bear.

I have been using the Kimber 8400m WSM rifles as my 'control group', pun intended.

The Kimber 8400M Classic rifle chambered for .300 WSM, .325 WSM etc is slated as being 6 lbs 10 oz.

Looking up Lilja (spelling?) rifle barrel contours, their web page states replacement - equivalent Kimber 8400M .300 WSM barrels are 0.56 inches diameter at 24 inches length (about 2.75 lbs, IIRC, at this length).

On another website, a poster who had a number of Kimber WSM rifles, including .300 & .325 WSM, stated muzzle jump / flip was the worse of the recoil vs. muzzle jump problems. He stated the Kimber WSM barrels needed to be Contour #2 to control barrel jump to a more satisfactory level.

On the Kreiger website, it states barrel Contour #2 is 0.6 inches at the muzzle (24 inch barrel) and weighs 2.8 lbs. I forget where I found the next bit of information, but Win 70 7mm WSM barrels have a contour which is 0.585 inches in diameter at a length of 24 inches.

Assuming action weights of circa 40 - 42 oz for the Kimber 8400M & Dakota 97 or, guessing 44- 45 oz for a new Mauser Kurz clone a #2 contour barrel at 2.8 lbs, mounts at say 3 - 4.5 oz, I think it is quite difficult to come in much under 8lbs. see examples below

Kimber Classic 6lbs 10oz plus Talley mounts 4.5 oz, scope = Swarovski 3-10x42 AV (12.8 oz or Swarovski 1.7-10x42 (16.6oz) =7lbs 11.3oz or 7lbs 15.1oz

Hypothetical Mauser Kurz clone = Action 44.5oz + 2.8lbs barrel + mounts 3oz (action integral bases)+ stock 24 oz + Swarovski 1.7 - 10x42 (16.6oz) = 8lbs 5oz

In Make it Accurate, Craig Boddington made the following statements regarding the persuit of lightweight rifles. Light weight rifles are a lot harder to shoot well / hold steady when you arte out of breath from hill walking / climbing than an 8 lb rifle combo. Additionally, those pencil thin barrels are much more difficult to get to shott well, consistently and are much more finicky than more traditional, thicker diameter profiles.

With this in mind, along with the earlier poster's comment, do you think / agree a barrel contour #2 is best, a good compromise?

Right, good question. At some point light weight becomes almost "too light".

Im going to talk about my two light rifles mostly because it highlights how even minute differences make huge impacts.

I have a Remington M7 AWR in 7mm SAUM. Naked that rifle tipped in a 6# on the button. Add a scope and rings and I'm right at 7# on the scale. The barrel on this rifle is not an ultralight pencil bbl - it's more of a medium weight sporter. It sits in the factory McMillan stock.

That rifle shoots 3/4" groups at 100, 1.25" groups at 200 and 2.25" groups at 300 with a 150gr. Nosler E-Tip at 2,900 fps.

That rifle fits me so fantastically well. The recoil is never bothersome in the slightest and my greatest challenge is that my wife might try to steal it for herself.


Ok, rifle #2 that I just picked up: Merkel K1 7mm Rem Mag. It has the pencil barrel, bavarian stock, incredibly trim break action design. It's 2" longer in the barrel and yet 1/2" shorter than the Remmie. It's a bit "butt weighted" because it does indeed use a true pencil barrel.

Naked, it weights 5# 9oz. Scoped up it's just a hair over 6.5#.

That rifle launches DoubleTap 160's at just over 3,000 fps and recoil wise it's stout. It's probably more a case of the 1/4" recoil pad and wood stock than anything else but the recoil transmits straight and instantly right into the shoulder with a very, very solid "whack". Accuracy is phenomenal - 1/2" with my first group at 100. This thing has the best factory trigger I've ever used. IT's better than the Timney on my Remmie... I'm pretty sure the Merkel is the more accurate of the rifle.

Ok, stock differences is what I'm seeing more than anything else. The Remmie feels "American". it's a little broader in the fore stock, a little wider in the butt, and actually lighter given the synthetic make up.

The Merkel is their Stalking Rifle...it's feels like a "wand of death". It's soooo solid - like I'm holding a solid piece of bar stock without any play in it. It's incredibly narrow in the fore stock, more like a true pencil.

It's not the weight that's making the difference between the two rifles - I can just change the scope out on the AWR and get the same weight as the Merkel. It's the narrowness and trim feel of the Merkel that throws me. It's easy to overpower the rifle with excess movement even on a rest. I hold the Merkel between my thumb and forefinger...it just needs no other grip than that.

The weight side? I have an 8.5# P.64 M70 with a 26" bbl in 300 H&H. That rifle is more consistently accurate only because it masks shooter error better. The Merkel magnifies shooter error because it's such a lightweight package.

I'm not even sure I'm really making any sense this morning.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, stock fit and feel is going to make a bigger difference on your accuracy than weight alone.

I'd get the grizz off the menu and go with the .270. For the big bears I'd just use another rifle.
A truly light .270 w/ good recoil pad isn't going to beat you up when you're sighting it in.
Get rid of the 400 yard requirement and I'd be thinking .260 or 6.5 x 55 and the rifle a scosh lighter.
A sporterized 6.5 Carcano at almost 6 # is what I carried in Colorado with no sling for a number of years.It was a joy to use when moving around in the high country. roger

I live in AK and had a mountain rifle built for me. Also everyone knows that the lighter the rifle the harder it will be to shoot. Then there is the weight issue of carrying the rifle. It is not that you are just carrying your rifle all day; it is that you are carrying your rifle, food, shelter, cloths, medical, rain gear, ect for a ten day hunt. My pack weights in at about 53 lbs with spilting some gear with my hunting partner. Also this will be the easy part of the hike. Last year I carried a boned out sheep, horns, cape, and gear out in one trip about 9 miles out to the air strip. I figured my pack weighted 110lbs. At the time I weighted a 145 lbs and man did it wear me out. To who ever thinks it easy try it in the mountains and see how you do.
Now to the rifle. I have two rifles that I use all the time. My mountian rifle a weatherby mark V ultralight that I had made into a 280AI. It has a 24" douglas #4 barrel that has deep flutes to take off weight and talley rings and a Swaro z-3. It shots 1.25 groups. The rifle weights in at 7 lbs loaded, scoped, and with a sling on it. MY other rifle a cooper 338-06. This rifle weights in 9.5 lbs with a trijicon accupoint, loaded, and slinged. It shoots one hole groups (if I can do it that day). The problem is that it weights 2.5 lbs more. It may not seem like a lot, but that is two days worth of food.
Now if I had a rifle that weighted in at 5 or 6 lbs loaded and ready to go, I could bring even more food. What people dont understand is that when you are hunting like this, food is one of the most important elements. You can't bring enough food to keep your body weight. YOu are always hungry, because you are burning 4000 to 7000 calories a day if you hunt hard. I think that 6.5 lbs is as light as I would go with a rifle that is scoped and ready to go. To me that would be best trade off. For caliber I would go with a 7mm-08, 23" or 22" barrel, more then likely a kimber action.

I think 400 yards is one hell of a long shot. Your question gets easier at 300, but if you can swing it, a mel forbes utralight in .338,06, or if you think you need that extra 100 yards go .338 win mag.
The newest model 70 all weather might be a good choice if it comes in .338...tj3006

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
I'd get the grizz off the menu roger

The problem is that you are on the menu and you might be forced to shot one, if it doesn't want to leave. I have seen interior grizzly shot with a 260 and drop on the spot. I have also seen grizzs get shot 5 times with a 388WM, before coming to a stop.

In the early 80's I had a rifle built for similar requirements. With the passing of 30 years your options are greater but here is what I came up with. Rem 700 30-06 with a custom kevlar stock that was fitted to me and Leup VXII Compact scope in Weaver mounts and 2 inch nylon strap for a sling. All up it is 7lb 2oz. Been my go to rifle ever since. Shoots sub MOA and every bullet weight from 110-180 I have shot goes in the same group. Recoil is not a factor because the stock fits so well. Also when I raise the rifle, the crosshairs just appear where I am looking, no adjustments are necessary.

Hard to beat a Weatherby Ultra-Lightweight in 338/06. Very light, handles well and will kill just about anything to 400 yards...and you can find them for about $1200 new. I have one in 338/06 and one in 30/06. A Remmy Titanium in 30/06 will suffice too. If you need more, have MGA build you a 375 H&H in his "fly" weight rifle...mine weighs 7lbs scoped, loaded and slung and has a 24" bbl plus a brake...which hepls a great deal. It recoils about like an 8lb 30/06. A 375 H&H with 235gr bullets will get the job done and shoots suprisingly flat....with authority.

Mountain shooting, especially in Central Asia, I think you should be prepared to shoot at 300 - 350 yards. If needed.

I think we are all agreed, it is a lot better to not have to shoot more than 250 yards, but there you find yourself sometimes.

So a rifle that is capable in both the accuracy, trajectory and energy departments is needed. I think this is one of the reasons the .300 WSM has caught on - a milder kicking, lighter version of the .300 Win Mag.

A .300 WSM would make a good long range deer & sheep rifle. It would also be good for larger deer like Elk plus Black Bear.

I am thinking a .325 WSM with 200 & 220 grain bullets will be a satisfactory alternative to a .338 Win Mag with 225 grain bullets. It would have a little less recoil & could be built into more compact, lighter rifles.

This seemed to be the opinion of Alaska Outdoors Directory forum discussion. No, it , a .325 WSM, is not 'bear medicine' like a .338 Win Mag & 250 grain bullets, but it is a bit better all round, carrying package for hills and the interior.

To my mind, one could put together a good, fairly light weight rifle in 280 Rem, .30-06 by choosing light weight synthetic stocks, and the lighter scopes like the 3-9x36 & 3-10x42 Swarovski AV line of one inch tube diameter scope sights. Many others have achieved this.

I do not think I would go for the lightest mounts necessarily but stick with the strongest. Nor would I go for a short barrel and thereby loose some of the velocity advantage of the cartridge. I used to have .270s and they gave me a headache on the range due to muzzle blast (even wearing hearing protection). So, I would like to keep the muzzle blast as far away as possible. A 24 inch tube achieves this without making the rifle too unwieldy.

My mental exercies suggest it is difficult to keep my hypothetical left hand version of the Kimber 8400M WSM rifles below 7.75 pounds if using a Dakota 97 short action (left handed), a wooden stock like an Obeche laminate & Swarovski 30mm diamter tube scopes. Similarly, if I try a Mauser Kurz clone - new rendering of a G33-40 action, it is difficult to get the rifle much under 8.25 lbs without having a real whippy barrel profile.

I have two "mountain rifles"

One is a Kimber Montana 84L
Tally lightweight bases with a VX III 2.5-10x40

Second is a Remington ADL
Stocked in a 1st gen TI using dual dove tail mounts
with a VX III 2.5-10x40

Both in 30-06

If you really want the "ultimate" lightweight long range mountain rifle, then you should contact Dan Atwood in Chickamauga, GA. He absoulutely builds the best in long range lightweight guns.

Now they're not cheap. But they will shoot, or he won't deliver the gun to you.

His guns are not necessarily my thing, as I like pretty wood and case coloring and engraving. But if you want performance, see Dan. He loves the .338 RUM.

He is also a poster boy for Barnes bullets, and shoots the TTSX. I've seen evidence of both the quality of his rifles and the success of that bullet on big game.

He can be reached at 706-866-2456, and no I have no financial attachment/relationship with Dan. He does alot of my gunsmithing work, and I trust him.

Mike

I know of a custom rifle for sale in 284 Win on a Model 7 action with a 2.5x8 Leupold on it...just saw it last night. It weighs 5.83 lbs scoped....for $1,300 it looks like a great buy.

I have a 325 WSM, Model, 70 MGArms Ultralight and it shoots a .351 grouping. It has the desert zebra camo pattern and it is one sweet rifle! It will kill just about anything(and has) that I have had on the menu, with the exception of the big, dangerous stuff. I also have a custom 300 WSM that has proven itself many, many times over in Africa, Mexico and here in the Western U.S. Love them both!

I have never had an issue shooting (or getting it to shoot) my 338-06 that I first put together in 1995. A LaBounty rebored M700 ADL in a take-off McM KS stock with a Leupold 2.5-8x in Talley lights. I have only taken game (a bull elk) out to just shy of 300 yards but I would not hesitate at all at 400 with a good rest. My last hunt with it used the 225 gr Accubond on a grizzly and a black bear. It groups this bullet best as the target shows. Prior, the 185 gr TSX and 210 gr Partitions on elk, nilgai and hogs. Simple piece but one of my favorites.

My father has a Browning X Bolt in 280 Rem with a Nikon 4-12 X I just measured it on the bathroom scale and it came in at an even 7 lbs. This rifle has great fit & finish, excellent trigger, a nice cooshy recoil pad, detachable magazine and excellent accuracy with any 160 projectile I've fed it. I don't know if this rifle is offered in the WSM's but if they do I'd certainly consider it.

A Browning X Bolt 300 Win Mag Stainless Stalker weighs in at 6 lbs 13oz and around 8 lbs with scope, rings and sling. Although it may not be the best caliber for brown bear, it will work, especially with heavier bullets. So, you can leave grizzly on your list. It was one of the rifles suggested by a family friend and former Montana guide.

I really like my X Bolt 300 WM for hunting but, it can be punishing from the bench. That said, I never noticed its recoil on the two deer I've taken with it.

quote:

MY other rifle a cooper 338-06. This rifle weights in 9.5 lbs with a trijicon accupoint, loaded, and slinged. It shoots one hole groups (if I can do it that day). The problem is that it weights 2.5 lbs more. It may not seem like a lot, but that is two days worth of food.

I have a nine pounder as well. I sure wouldn't like to pack it around all day, even tho it's a gem.

I'm not a lightweight rifle fan, so won't make any suggestions in that area.

But if I had in mind a rifle I feared might have too much "muzzle rise" when fired, I'd strongly consider getting it maga-ported.

Note, please, I am not speaking of a "muzzle-brake, but am writing about vents at the muzzle end of the barrel which DO NOT direct gas sideways back toward the shooter or horizontally torward bystanders. I am describing only two or four vents which direct gas straight up to keep the muzzle from rising.

I had four such Magnaport vents on one of my .404s and though they worked fine to greatly reduce muzzle lift, they were not hard to live with from a noise standpoint (and didn't reduce recoil much either).

I have a Rem 700KS in 3006 with a Leupold 2.5-8x and a simple nylon sling. Has a DuraMax finish on the stock and a cerakote finish on all metal. Weights 7-lb, 3-oz, shoots 180's sub 1" at 200 yards. Definitely a rifle I would bet my life on in just about any circumstances.

I'd look at a 300WSM in an untralight McMillan or Manners stock with the lightest scope I could find in the magnification I need.

300WSM doesnt recoil that much (to me anyway). Bullet selection is about as good as it gets. I have a few of these and they all have been accurate. I know some have mentioned issues with feeding and reloading...I've not had those issues. I'm using Redding dies and Win brass with Wolf/Tula mag primers and IMR4007SSC.

I had one of them (Savage Action) turned into a Sniper Rig....1/2" H-Bar McGowen barrel in a McMillian A-4. With 175MK and IMR4007SSC 10 shot groups are something special. You sure can get em to shoot!

Rob,

I have a potential solution. 9.3x62mm with the 250 gr Accubond running 2500-2650 fps.

You want light. How is 8lbs 5 oz? Heavy enough to help with recoil as well as stability when shooting. Light enough to easily carry.





Pre 64 M70 action so you're assured of reliability when the chips are down. D'Arcy Echols Legend, Edge filled stock to help with weight and recoil. The .494 BC helps with the longer 300-400 yd shots you mentioned and hits with authority.

Number 3 Pacnor barrel; not too fat, not too thin @ 24". Will handle all the species you mentioned, with aplumb!

Leupold 1.75-6 VX3 with standard duplex but topped with the CDS system left with the original moa elevation turret in place. When used in conjunction either the Leica 1600 or 1600-B LRF all one needs to do is range the target and the dope (baro pressure, temp and angle are instantly computed in) is immediately given so that all you need do is twist up the elevation turret and shoot; easily out to 400....even 500yds.

Using Varget, an Extreme temperature stable powder, loads are easily worked up.

When I was working up loads nearly 2 yrs back.



Today, sighting in @ 200 yds in final prep for Montana elk/deer next week.



All metal is Cerakoted Midnight Purple.

Alan

GSSP that's a beauty - are you planning on selling?

quote:

Originally posted by Bren7X64:
GSSP that's a beauty - are you planning on selling?

Not yet. Thanks for the compliment. And, you're not the first to ask.

Alan