I know I only hunt in England where I am at most a couple of hours from my car but I am amazed at the current obsession around rifle weight that I see around here.

I have found to my cost that serious hunting requires something that soaks up heartbeat, breathing in the field positions that come with big game hunting.

When the going gets tough I break out my 9lb bolt and leave the 7lb Blaser and 8lb Sako at home - why? Because allthough I may feel slightly uncomfortable after 3 hours, the moment a buck that I HAVE to shoot appears at 250yards requiring a standing shot the discomfort is replaced by a sight picture I find difficult to reproduce at half the range with the lighter rifles (which by the way have excellent stocks, triggers and balance)

It is fun to use a lightweight rifle and the engineering that goes into them can be exquisite but I don't think that anyone with a trophy animal in the scope ever thinks 'If only my rifle was lighter'

Which seeing as the WSMs are lighter and shorter (and hence less muzzle heavy) makes me wonder what field performance will be like....

Hello,
Could not agree more with you about all the hype about "light rifles..." I have been hunting and shooting now for over half a century and for my own purposes, like the rifle to have a bit of heft, muzzle end is good, to not only absorb the recoil, but aids in a steady hold, especially off hand. All shots at game should be taken with the most steady of positions, but there are times when you have to stand on your feet and shoot the game. Super light rifles are always weaving all over the place or at least it seems that way to me. Recoil is not my main concern, but accurate shot placement for during the "heat of the moment..." recoil is seldom noticed unless you are shooting one of these "locomotive killer calibers."

There seems to be three things in the market place that generates sales for sporting arms. Weight, higher velocity/energy, and lest we forget, "short magnums..." and we could also include fluted barrels plus there are more I am sure, but these three seem to dominate these days. I am not sure why we want all the short magnums, but have been told that one of the key features is that one can use a shorter consequential lighter action and reach that magic featherweight goal. From tiime to time I hear that the "short magnums" do not kick as hard?? Well, if the caliber is driving a 200 grain bullet at say 2900 feet per second in one of these short magnums and in a non short magnum of same caliber is driving the same bullet at the same velocity and the rifle is lighter to start with in the short magnum rifle, I would venture that the "felt recoil..." is greater, not less. The velocity, energy, recoil aspects are not action length or cartridge length specific but more related to the laws of physics regarding mass and velocity. Could go on forever, but guess it is just the arrangement with old genration and the new genration. Neither ever seems to understand the other one, but I will stick to my "ol'shoot'n irons" as they are.
Favor Center!!
dsiteman

i agree within limit's (I hate 9lb rifles!). While I'm an old backpacker and never begrudge lightweight gear, for me a rifle can be made too light. I like something in the 308/30-06 class to come in at 7.75 lbs ready to go with sling and rounds. Plenty light, but shootable. My own 30-06 is 8lbs 1 oz which is just fine. The WSM's in an M70 are only 2.5 oz's lighter thatn their LA 300 WM big brother (both w/ 24" bbl's, same contour)... that's it. Depending on mounts and sling the 300 WSM from USRAC will go 8.5 to 9 lbs... not a lightweight. The Magnum's, for me, kick too much to get housed in a rifle less than 8lb's "all-up".

I personally favor heavier rifles, but then again, I'm not average size (6'5", 240 lbs).

However, you answer your own inquiry in your first sentence. When you go into the back country for day, after day, after day, a heavy rifle becomes a burden. If you are trying to back-pack into the back country for 14 days, and you have to take less food because your rifle is 10 lbs, instead of 6, it becomes a problem.

A typical "day hunt" for elk or mule deer in our parts, means carrying about 12 pounds of water (no springs or creeks close and 80F heat), 6 lbs of emergency gear (extra clothes, etc), about three pounds of butchering equipment, plus optics. Suddenly, a 10 lb rifle gets to be significant, especially at 9,000 feet, where there is no air, anyway. At some point the extra weight makes you decide to leave the spotting scope home.....

All that said, I just put together a 7mag for a long range hunting rifle, and she comes in at 10.8 lbs fully loaded. When you get there, you still have to make the shot, and I can do that a lot better with a 11 lb rifle than with a 6.5 lb'er. FWIW, Dutch.

Apparently the hunting public "needs", hype. We go through this every year. The gun companies have to come up with something new, and some people have to have that bigger, better, faster, more, item. I don't have a problem with it, because I always research anything I take into the field with me before I pack it. As far as light rifles go, I will stick to my favorites no matter what they weigh.
I do a bit of mountain hunting, and I love the advances made in the past few years in back packing gear. Also, as I increase my experience at back pack hunting, I find lots of things I can do without.
I do get a laugh at some of the reasons given for the "short, super short, extra short, whatever, cartridge", phenomenon, like shorter bolt throw, pa-lease. Like 3/8, to 1/2 inch is going to make a difference. Short cartridges are more efficient, but I will still stick with the old stand-bys, that I can buy ammo for anywhere if need be. One of the interesting possibilites that the new short cartidges do bring up however, are a whole new batch of stuff for serious wildcatters to work with. The new Outdoor Life has a story by Jim Carmichel, on a new wild cat he has worked up.
So, when the next big "craze", starts, it will be interesting to see what comes up. Like everything else, it's all a matter of personal opinion, and personal taste.

DGK

I don't pay a lot of attention to weight within "reasonalble limits". Mine may not be yours. 6'2", 220#, I don't mind toting some iron. #1's are heavier than some, I tote 'em, the T/C carbine is a feather, I tote that too. I don't just grab a gun and go though, each has an application. Use the T/C for close cover still hunting, not because of weight, because it's very short. So are the shots.

I don't think I have carried a gun that weighed under 10 pounds in a long time. I have several lighter, but always end up wit hte heavyweight. After a few hunts it odes not matter. Generally am out with a Remington SP-10 shotgun (12 pounds), a Remington 700 Varmint Synthetic in .308 (12 pounds).

A hunting buddy was after me over ten years ago to look at the lightweights. He is in excellent shape and as big as Arnold and I wondered why he was so enthused with his Ruger Ultralight. But you know how we are wanting the other guy to agree to use or approve of what we fancy.

I told him that I was happy with my Featherweights and that they would all seem obsolete if I got an Ultralight. Besides I was not that old then at 55 and in reasonable shape.

Then I fell a year and a half ago negotiating some steep terrain in VT where the mountains may not be the Rockies but in some places it's as steep as it can get without the earth falling off of the rocks. I had stepped on an earth covered rock not knowing it was under the soil and the soil tore away and I fell. I have fallen before and it's no big deal.

The rifle I was carrying was my old M70 in 300 H&H with a 3.5-10 Leu on it. I am not going to weigh it as I type this but it's a heavy rifle. When I fell I protected the rifle of course. Heck I have health insurance.

Then I started walking and my right knee felt strange. I did not know it at the time but I tore a cartlidge (meniscus). Months later it was still the same. Sometimes I would just fall down as the body shuts off the nervous system for certain kinds of pain. In fact a member of AR was with me when we stepped forward to go downrange and I took what seemed to be a pratfall. My knee just gave out!

Keep in mind that just like you I have been there and done that and played all kinds of ball etc with the big guys.

This was October 2003 and I knew I had to do something. So I started buying Kimbers as they weigh less. I hate to leave my Featherweights at home but I need to cut back on what I carry when the goings tough. For easy going I can still carry the big guns.

Here is a picture of a pest I shot at 291 yds from the sitting position without a sling. I always could shoot light rifles well and I still can. Keep in mind that my centerfire and rimfire match rifles go from 14 to 16 lbs as the weight is indeed an advantage. But it's not if I can't make it up and over the hill!

The shot was made from under the apple tree at the top of the page. The Kimber Montana weights somewhere around 6 pounds something.

Yeah light rifles!

Marketing "hype"
maybe for whitetail hunters.

Light rifles have thier place. Sheep and caribou hunting in high elevations. There is little off hand shooting done. (My light weight sheep rifle is well balanced and shoots like a dream off hand.) When I am packing a ram off the mountian on my back is when I really appreciate a really light rifle. The lighter the better.
Other than this a 9# rifle suites me just fine.

Daryl

Yukoner,
are you ignoring me?

Jim

Jim,

I am not ingnoring you. Sorry about the delay. We are getting record snows and I am plowing for neighbors pretty steady. I stop at accurate while I am eating my breakfast or lunch. Then back to work. I will get this thing going. You will not regret it.

< Sorry for the highjacking guys >



Daryl

Daryl,
Thanks,

Jim

You would have to hunt in the mountains a few times & you will appreciate the lighter "mountain" rifles. For me, anything over 9# is probably not going up any serious elevation. If I only hunted from stands or vehicles it wouldn't matter, but above 6000ft, every ounce turns into pounds @ the end of the day.

Hunting in Montana has it's "ups and downs". The key with light rifles is having one that balances so well that you can shoot it off hand as well as a heavy rifle. Proper balance and fit will depend on the individual. For me the Tikka T3 Lite works perfectly, maybe not for everyone.

Light weight rifles are not "hype". Not everyone needs one but here in the west where one hunts far from his truck and climbs lot's of mountains in the pursuit of his quarry, they may make the difference in staying out longer and climbing one more mountain where that bull is hiding.

You ever notice how those who whine the loudest about having to carry a heavy rifle. Squeal the loudest about it's recoil :lol:

That's how I picked up a barely used T3 Lite

I am 6' 5" 250lbs it almost seems unfair carrying it . Put a limb saver pad on it and I can comfortably shoot a box of 30 06s wearing a short sleeve T Shirt

I've got heavy rifles, mid-weight rifles and light rifles. Use all of them for different situations and as difficult as it may seem to believe, actually enjoy ALL OF THEM.

A heavy does hang well Off-Hand, they set in the Sand Bags nice and deep, and are less effected by either my touching it or a slight breeze. Nice to shoot all day at the Range. And the ones I have seem to all be rather accurate.

Light seems to be nice for (old me) when I look toward the truck and realize I have 150-225# of Antlers(attached) in one hand, the rifle in the other, and need to walk 200yds West to the corner of the field and then 200-xxxyds South down the edge in order to reach the truck. Same for bringing one up out of the Swamp over the blow-downs and man-eating briers.

But, I certainly DO NOT think bad of anyone who desires to carry a 9-15# rifle on similar hunts. It is often quite comical to see how "well" they look when we meet up though.

This year I carried my 8lb 30-06 up and down steep snowy mountains including right at timberline... some days going as far as 10-12 miles... I can carry an 8lb rifle all day and find it no burden including above timberline... actually, I've never figured out why a guy needs a light rifle above timberline. The steep and slippery wooded elk mountains are far and away harder to negotiate than above-timberline "sheep country"...

Most folks can have their cake and eat it too...just use 2 stocks, one heavy and 1 light. Give the heavy a big butt and a premium pad.

I have packed a lot of fairly heavy rifles in the extremely rugged and isolated country of B.C. where bringing your kill out must be done with a packboard as horses cannot traverse much of this country. I tend to favour medium bore rifles such as the .338 Win. and the .375 H&H, due to the increasing Grizzly problem we have here, but, these rifles usually weigh about 9-10 lbs. and this can be quite a burden when you MUST also pack a light overnight camp at all times.

I really would prefer a lighter rifle and have quite a number of them, but, I don't always feel comfortable with a .280, '.06 or 7x57 when burdened with an Elk quarter, emergency gear and the rifle and it's about 3.5 miles back to the truck, through country that is dotted with fresh piles of Grizzly poop.

I am in the process of having a couple of lighter rifles built for this purpose, a 9.3x62 and a.338-06, these on Brno ZG-47 and 21-H actions, synthetic stocks and simple Leupy 4x scopes. This should give me both the extra whallop and the lighter weight I feel comfortable with. They will also be effective up to ranges that every experienced mountain hunter and worker I have ever known considers appropriate for actual shooting of big game.

Any rifle that one has can be very accurate or less so, weight has relatively little to do with accuracy, however, it can be an asset in shooting a given rifle more accurately.

I carried 10 pounders and 6.5 pounders.
Personally, I like light rifles, but not interested in the "ultra-light."

Nearly all my hunting is done either backpacking or serious walking in steep terrain: B.C., Nevada Humbolt range, N.M. Pecos, Idaho Selway - all is 5,000 to 11,000 ft. I'd like to carry a rifle that weighs 2 lbs, kicks like a rimfire, shoots like a rail-gun and hits like a .340 wby. Yet, everything is trade-offs.

The compromise for me is a gun that scoped, sling and loaded weighs less than 7.5 lbs. At this weight the barrel is still heavy enough to give good accuracy and a .280 class rifle a pleasure and even a 7 or .300 mag is comfortable in regard to recoil. Yet, they are light enough to shoulder and swing quickly on elk in the dark timber.

In my mind my money is better spent buying lighter boots, backpacks, and gear. I can cut the number of pounds I am carrying much cheaper than by buying an expensive ultralight rifle. I carry a 9.5 pound rifle that balances well and is steady even when I'm winded.

Personally I think a light rifle is a bigger advantage hunting thick cover for whitetails than it is for hunting the mountains. Ranges are short and shooting is often quick. I like a lighter rifle with good balance that handles like a bird gun.

Jeff

I fpund that my 12 to 14 varmint rifles get heavy real soon. My 10 lb 416 goes a bit longer my 8 lb rifles I can carry all day. I my super light weight TC carbine you do not even know it there.

I guess I would settle on something in the 7 to 8.5 lb range if I only could have one. I carried my 8.5 lb 338wm around Ak for a week with out anytrouble and my amost 9lb 300wm elk hunting. Fo me a super light weight isn't needed nor would I put up with the recoil from a 5lb 300wm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kutenay:
...I am in the process of having a couple of lighter rifles built for this purpose, a 9.3x62 and a.338-06, these on Brno ZG-47 and 21-H actions, synthetic stocks and simple Leupy 4x scopes. This should give me both the extra whallop and the lighter weight I feel comfortable with. They will also be effective up to ranges that every experienced mountain hunter and worker I have ever known considers appropriate for actual shooting of big game.

---

Hey kut, Since you had(have) such good luck with the 338WinMag and the 375H&H, is there a particular reason you chose the above two cartridges over them for your lighter rifles?

One of my very good buddies is a big Elk hunter, but was extremely recoil sensitive when we first met. (Not suggesting you are.) He was on the quest for the perfect Elk rifle for his needs and was going through rifles like a Democrat through TAXES.

One of the rifles he got was a 338-06 built on a Mauser. Real nice rifle and it shot well. I eventually asked him about why he would want it instead of a 338WinMag and he said his decision was based on Recoil. He also had a 300WinMag and was shooting it with some of his own reloads that were quite robust. So, it seemed he could handle more recoil than he thought.

Looking at a couple of Reloading Manuals one night, I happened to notice there were some "Starting Loads" for the 338WinMag that claimed to be the same velocity as his 338-06 would reach with it's Max Laods. Granted there were a few more grains of a slower powder, but not many. We talked about it and eventually he got another 338WinMag and began working his way up with the Loads. This new rifle is relatively light with a fine Decellerator Recoil Pad and just doesn't bother him at all.

I don't get the impression you are overly recoil sensitive, just curious why you would choose those calibers over a light-weight 338WinMag or a 375H&H?

I shoot either a .300 Win. Mag. or .338 Win. Mag. for 90% of my hunting, and my rifles weigh close to 9 lbs. fully loaded with the sling attached. I've hauled them up some very steep mountains for sheep, goat, elk, grizzly, and mule deer without too much suffering, and in these two chamberings I don't want them any lighter.

One of my friends had a 7 1/2 lb. .338 Win. Mag. built, and his preferred 250 gr. full-house loads are guaranteed to get your attention, especially off the bench! His philosophy is that you haul the rifle more than you shoot it, but I believe in the concept of subconsious flinch, and this howitzer plants plenty of subliminal messagaes about recoil that I'd rather not contend with.

I'd rather stay in shape and keep my own weight where it should be rather than carry a .300 or .338 that's too light. If weight was that much of an issue and I wanted sufficient power, I would go with a .30-06 or .338-06.

AD

quote:

---

Originally posted by allen day:
......I'd rather stay in shape and keep my own weight where it should be rather than carry a .300 or .338 that's too light......

---

Excellent point Allen and my contention exactly. From my experience 98% of carrying a heavy rifle is physical conditioning.

My primary hunting rifle is an old .300 H&H that goes in the neighborhood of 10.5 lbs with scope. I love it and would not think of trading it fopr something lighter. I have carried it to the top of Sheep Mt here in Wyoming more than once. I have found if I am in good physical shape the weight doesn't bother me. I am not just talking going to the top of the mt. and then setting there. I like to hike around. Shucks just hiking to elk camp was about 6.5 miles round trip.

"Excellent point Allen and my contention exactly. From my experience 98% of carrying a heavy rifle is physical conditioning."

I say to that! Having been there and done that I will take youth anyday!

"For N.American hunting, most .375s are just too darned heavy to haul up the mountain. I've done it, but never again..........

AD"

Experiance being in shape and old and then write me a letter.

Hotcore, my desire to have very carefully thought out rifles on specific actions comes from my experience in my home mountains since 1956; this involves packing a rifle as much or more as a tool than as a sporting implement. There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of mountain hunting here in B.C. One, is the sort done by guided hunters and those few residents fortunate enough to own horses. The other is the multi-day backpack hunt that many of us do, this is strenuous and every ounce counts.

Allan is, as always, absolutely spot-on in his comments about the .300 and .338 cartridges and the rifles and weight thereof; his remarks concerning conditioning and so forth are also pertinent and a very sound piece of advice for anyone who wants to hunt B.C. big game. BUT, a rifle of this weight gets a tad heavy when you are packing a 45 lb. camp on your back for several days on a solo hunt, so, I want something lighter, but, capable of STOPPING, not simply killing a Grizzly.

I have chosen what are, IMO, two of the finest hunting rifle actions ever made, the ZG-47 will hold five 9.3x62 rounds, feed and eject flawlessly and is superbly made with every useful Mauser 98 feature plus the integral mount base double flattops. NO Mauser that I have ever seen, and I have owned and used everything, including minty '30s Oberndorf ones to the FN Supreme, will feed belted magnum cases like a Mod. 70 will, so why spend the substantial sum of money involved to have it gunsmithed when the 9.3 will do anything that a .338 or .375 will do on Grizzlies, Elk or Moose at the ranges that B.C. hunting conditions actually allow responsible shooting at? Here, you usually hunt Elk in the rut, in country that is just brutal and very densely forested and if you wound the animal, you will lose it in the bush and canyons before you can get close to where it was when you hit it, ergo, a medium bore, moderate weight thumper is the best rifle choice.

For the lightest possible, controlled feed, ultra-reliable backpacking rifle, a 7.5 lb. custom on the 21H action in the .338-06 will, again, have a STOPPING ability superior to an .06, be portable, not require very costly gunsmithing to modify to handle fewer rounds and still shoot flat enough to do everything that I actually need to do and am, at pushing 60, capable of doing in serious, solo, backpack, mountain hunting.

I still love my .338 Win .Mags. and was out shooting them today and using my favourite 250 NP @ 2725, I do not find the recoil a problem. However, while a Mod. 70, especially the P-64s feed belted cartridges better than anything else I have ever tried, including my beautiful but over-priced Dakota, and I got one of the good ones; they are heavy rifles, even with the Brown Precision stocks. I can no longer shoot well enough to take realistic advantage of the extra power and range they offer over a light .338-06 and they do tend to slow you down when living out of a backpack for 4-5 days. So, that is why I am having these rifles made up, it is to use two cartridges to replace two others which are slightly better, but the chosen two will do more for me under the hunting conditions that I have; it is a simple rifle function-weight-power relationship.

The Grizzly situation is not b.s. here in B.C. and most of those attacked recently have been really experienced bushmen, not novices whose own ignorance precipitates the aggression. I feel that, I want to use a rifle that handles the way Skibum describes but has some real oomph and these two setups are as good as it gets, IMO. There is no such thing as the "all-around rifle", I hate that term just as I, along with Allen, hate "tactical"; some rifles are certainly more versatile thhan others, my current projects are specialized enough to be perfect for what hunting I actually do.

You pal's experience with the .338 is pretty common, it is not difficult to learn to shoot, but, working up to max. with with, for example Speer 200 gr. slugs over RE-15 seems to be 'uncool" to many beginners; this is why so many people have what Allen describes perfectly, the subliminal flinch, which I think probably is responsible for most of the wounded and lost game the world over. I might add that for most serious big game hunters who hunt internationally, a .338 or .375 is a better choice than my concepts as they do not have to carry a heavy pack and a heavy rifle for days on end. I consider it wise to finetune my equipment for my specific hunting needs and, Father Time, in his inimitable fashion, certainly seems to agree!

My 5# 8oz .270 is quickly becoming my favorite rifle. If you are on a backapck hunt, ounces count. 5.5# is plenty of weight for a .270/'06 class rifle. I'm building a 5# 0oz .243 for a sheep guide right now. THese weights are scoped, slung, ready to go, not bare rifle weights. Light is right for certain types of hunting. Most folks really do not expend much energy when hunting, so rifle weight is pretty much irrelevent.

And as for me being a real "he-man" and saying the recoil is not bad-I'm 5' 10" tall and weigh 140-145#. Not exactly in the "he-man" catagory. Shooting these rifles 30 or so times in a session is not bad at all.

Savage, physical conditioning is important at any age, especially if you're a hunter. I know guys in their 70s who are excellent hunters and and in excellent physical condition who work at staying in shape all year long. Some of these guys engage in mountain hunts to this day, and one of them (age 76) took a fantastic B&C elk above timberline in Wyoming just this last fall. You may not be able to climb as many mountains as quickly as you did at age 35, but if you're in shape you'll still be able to get up to the top without killing yourself.

AD

Allen,

Most of the hunting we do for big game here is woods hunting and rifle fit is more important than caliber. To bring a rifle to the target fast and easy is very important.

We have used Featherweights for a long time. It's all the weight anyone needs.

What the hunters in Vermont in particular need is some practice. I just heard another story of bad shooting the other day. A hunter shot at a buck and it was found the next day eaten by coyotes.

I like to hang around with the target shooters, PA chuck hunters, PA bench guys and all around international types like you.

I recall shooting in a running deer match near Peru, VT long ago. I won six in a row shooting a Ruger 1A and you know how slow the lock time is on those. The few gun stores here have no reloading stuff at all.

So I had the knee fixed. That was a piece of cake. Then I stepped on something and injured the tendons in the bottom of a foot. Thats ten times as big a problem but its getting better.

Never mind the guys who are seventy. Plenty never get that far and it's too bad.

It's easy to type to take off some weight and get in shape. Hunting is a piece of cake compared to single handing on the sea. Thats where I really have to be careful.

Most of my rifles would fall into the heavier end, but having said that I do appreciate a good lightweight rifle. I always try to pack light as possible but likewise I try to be prepared for a number of different situations.

I find it to be a very purposefull notion to pack light, especially due to the fact that a guy needs to cover much more ground today on public land to be succesfull.

You dont have to be in poor physical condition to appreciate the virtues of a lightweight rifle, and being in shape can go a long way toward steadying a 7 lb rifle.

Hey Kut, Sounds like you put a lot of thought into the two "new" rifles. Good post which was easy to follow your concepts.

Do you have a target weight for each of them that you will be trying for? 7.5#-8.5#? I believe I remember you prefer Blue and Wood over S&S. Will you be having any kind of special "coating" applied to the metal, like Parkerizing or Robar?

Any special "lightening tricks" for the wood, or will it be necessary?

Most important from my perspective, I'd guess you already know what bullets you hope the rifles shoot well. Partitions? TSX? FailSafe?

Best of luck to you with the new rifles.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
My 5# 8oz .270 is quickly becoming my favorite rifle. If you are on a backapck hunt, ounces count. 5.5# is plenty of weight for a .270/'06 class rifle. I'm building a 5# 0oz .243 for a sheep guide right now. THese weights are scoped, slung, ready to go, not bare rifle weights. ...

---

Hey Mark, How about expounding on the light rifle a bit more? Action? Stock? Lightening tricks? What bullets do you use?

Rem 700 Ti long action, Lone Wolf stock, 3-10x42 Swarovski scope, many, many things done to lighten the rifle. Definitley not for the inexperienced.

I have been using 130gr TSX's, running at a chronographed 3065 fps @ 10' from a 22" Shilen barrel. RWS cases, WLR primers, 55.0gr IMR 4350.

The two rifles I am building will be slightly different in order to meet my needs for all of the hunting available to me. The ZG-47 in 9.3x62 will have a stainless barrel as I consider this to be a slight improvement for wet country use, although I do not think that it is as mandatory as some people do; I dislike coatings and prefer a finely bead blasted caustic blue with the barrel beaded to the same matte level.

I do NOT use a stainless barrel in order to neglect my gun maintenance chores, only a fool mistreats any of his bush equipment, IMO, especially in the isolated wilderness areas where I once worked and now enjoy hanging out. I do not care for stainless actions due to some problems I have seen with them and this is a major reason why I am so fond of certain Mauser type and Mod. 70 actions, one can detail strip them in the bush, easily without tools.

This 9.3 will get a slimmed down JRS style Boyd's laminate stock with the forend mortise channeled in two ovoid hollows and thhe buttstock hollowed out; a Limbsaver will be added. I expect it to be about 8 lbs. all up and this is as light as I want based on shooting my drilling with the rimmed version of this cartridge. The bullet will be the 286 gr. Nosler PT. because my experiences with it, thus far have been outstanding as have those of others I have discussed it with.

The .338-06 will be the same, except I will use a Bansner synthetic stock and get the weight down to about 7.25-7.5 all up. This is for backpacking in the alpine country and, with the 250 gr. Nosler PT. Gold Moly Free, I should get about 2550 fps. in a 23" bbl. with recoil that is not disturbing. With this, I have five Grizzly busting shots available when packing meat and, again, the action feeds like silk; I prefer this chambering, as do quite a few very serious mountain hunters I know, as it is flat enough, but, will shoot right through a quartering Moose or break both shoulders of an Elk, Moose or Grizzly.

The rifle that Marc describes above is exactly what I would want IF I hunted where there were no Grizzlies; I know guys who have shot them with a .270 and I would not hesitate to shoot Elk or Moose with the 150 NP or equal bullet. With the increase in day-bold Bears and consequent attacks upon hunters/guides/foresters here, I just want more stopping power in my mountain rifle(s). In fact, I have a Husqvarna 4100 with the steel bottom metal and Brown stock along with Wisner safety; this is a 7x57 with a barrel that I have shot the finest accuracy out of and I will probably have another .338-06 done on it, as well, for the above reasons.

Kutenay, my 22" bbl'd 338-06 would do exactly 2,550 with 250 NP's on top of H4350... I suspect you'll hit your velocity goal with a 23" barrel. Personally, I'd go 21", but that's just me! Sounds like a good "working" rifle.

Hey Kut, Thanks for the details. Looks like some interesting rifles that you have put a lot of thought into. I would probably use different Actions than you are, but that is of no real concern.

Best of luck with them.
----

Hey Marc, Any particular reason you went with the 270Win?

"Doc" certainly speaks well of the TSX bullets when it comes to Deer. Have you found them easy to get good accuracy? How are they doing on-Game for you?

What do you consider a reasonable distance for you and this fine outfit, 500yds?

Interesting the Guide would go with a 243Win for Sheep. Do you know what Bullet he wants to use? What distance (400yds?) does he anticipate using it?

And a nice size Scope to boot! That kind of surprised me. I really expected a Compact scope, but I'd guess the clarity is well worth the extra few ounces.

Thanks for the details and best of luck with the rifles.

I chose a .270 because I like it. It is very effective, very flat shooting, reasonable recoil, good energy-just a great all around caliber for elk on down. Look at actual ballistics and fire breathing magnums start to fade quickly. AN inch trajectory over long distanc eis nothing when shooting in the field. It looks good on paper and sounds cool in a magazine article, but that is about it. It is reasonable as far out as you can shoot it. Persoanlly, I am not "cool" because I liek to get very cloes to things before I shoot them. Sniping form long range is not my cup of tea. But yes, it would be effective to 500yards with no problem. But I would not shoot at an unwounded sheep that far with it. I'm funny that way.

The sheep guide and his whole family use a .243 for almost evrything. Low recoil and it works. I don't like them, but then I usually hunt in very very thick stuff where it is hard to follow up without a good blood trail. They have shot a lot o f40" sheep, 10" goats, caribou, blacktails and other stuff way out there with their .243s. I'm rebarreling another .243 for an AK guide right now as well.

THe TSX's have been consistently accurate in a lot of rifles. THey are really shooters. I hated th eoriginal X's more fo rhteir performance than anything else. Deer run off and sho wzero signs of being hit. They tend to run farther with an X through the lungs than say a Partition. In thick stuff, this really sucks. plus, when they run off with no sign of a hit, I start to lose confidence. If th emuzzle velocity is below 3000 fps, this gets worse. By 2700 mv, the Barnes X is totally useless for me-I refuse to use them.

I am a snob about a lot of things, and optics is high on my stuck-up-list. I would probably get a 3-6x33 Swarovski next time to save an ounce or so. The .243 will have the 3-9 Leu Compact, saving a good deal of weight. I am thinking of building myself a 7-08 that weighs 5#

Most of my rifles are medium weights...8-9 lbs all ready to go. I find this about right for the vast majority of hunting I've encountered. However, lightweights (less than 7lbs) have found a place in my hunting arsenal simply because a lot of my hunting involves carrying stuff to the stand (such as portable stands) through dense brush or traveling through tangles in general. Also much easier to navigate out while dragging/hauling game. Rifle weight doesn't play as big a role for me in "climbing" as others so long as it's fairly open terrain or somebody else will do the heavywork hauling stuff out (guided hunt). Climbing in thick brush is a different story. Much easier to maneuver with a light rifle in my hand than having a heavier one slung on my back or getting fatigued doing the same thing with a heavyweight.

-Lou

Kutenay hunts the same country I do.
Believe me after a couple of days of covering as much vertical distance as horizontal you start pruning all the weight you can. After the 3rd day you start wondering if a scope is really required!

I had my lightweight rifle built on a BSA Royal Featherweight. The Royal long-action was only built for 2 short years -'58 & '59 - and is of what they described as an "Improved Mauser type action" It is a CRF with a wonderfull adjustible trigger. As a 30-06 it tipped the scales at 5 1/2 pounds dry with a 22" barrel and steel bottom metal. ( BSA also produced this rifle in .458 Winchester that weighed in at 7 pounds dry! )

After I shot out the orignal barrel - no easy feat with an '06 - I pondered long and hard what to rebarrel it to. As in my hunting area grizzly bears are starting to become a bit of a concern I wanted something with a bit more clout than the '06 if needed. I considered both the .35 Whelen and the .338-06. After much research and talk with people who shot both cartridges the 338 version was picked and I could not be more pleased. I went with a 24" barrel to both provide a bit more velocity and also to provide a bit more weight out front for shooting off-hand. I now have a rifle that weighs in at 7 1/2 pounds scoped, holds 5 rounds in the magazine and launches a 225 grain bullet at 2750 fps.