Gentlemen - I was out at the range this past weekend making big smoke and thunder with my .450. I was shooting off the bench to just sorta stretch my legs and exercise my gun.

A few folks came over to ask what I was shooting (and why I was making so much noise). One guy was curious and kept asking about recoil and seemed real concerned about detached retinas. I explained that recoil was not bad. The gun is built with a Bastogne stock, a 24" L-W barrel, and weighs in at 10.8 LBS unloaded with scope.

Well, you would have thought that I had just said something questionable about his wife. He jerked back and repeated �10.8 LBS!, how can you possible hunt with a gun sooooo heavy.� One of his buddies quickly chimed in � well, I am sure you must have someone carry that for you while on Safari�. I explained that I have carried this gun by myself, during sweltering heat, for weeks on end throughout Zim and RSA without any ill effects.

Question - What is with all this craze to lighten guns? I have always built heavy guns and have never thought �Damn this gun is too heavy�. Does two pounds make such a big deal? On one hand you got a guy scared to death of recoil and the other, the same guy making a huge deal about weight? Have the laws of Physics suddenly changed and someone forgot to tell me? What is the big deal?

What weight is your big bore with scope and unloaded?

My .470 weighs about 10.75lbs unloaded; my medium-bore .375 weighs about 10lbs.

Neither seems too heavy, and recoil is just something we accept and move on.

This is a trend started by the rags; someone discovered lightweight rifles and everyone jumped on the bandwagon so they could get a free rifle from the gunmakers.

George

I think if more folks shot big bores, instead of pea shooters, they would also agree in rifle weight. That said, there are some instances where a light gun comes into its own, and thats traveling up steep peaks after goats and sheep. Now, not that many hunters persue those hunts as well.

If you do travel with your gun in your hands all day, then certainly a 10+" gun would be gladly traded for something lighter. That said, since I owned a 458 lott that was sub 10#'s, I would not have a big bore gun that light again, ports or no. No sense in having a gun that isn't shootable, or sacrifices its shootability. I like to shoot my guns, and build them accordingly.

I weighed my "8.5 lb" M70 .416 Rem Express. Wearing a 1.75-6x33 VX-III it weighs 10.2 lbs with an empty magazine! That is plenty light enough.

They must use a papier mache' stock to get it down to 8.5 lbs!

Don

My 458Lott weighs in at 8.25lbs (no scope, just irons). It was Paul H's. I had a kevlar stock on it. It actually isnt all that bad to shoot. One of these days Paul and I are gonna get our schedules together and put some lead down range.

Zero Drift,

470 Nitro weighs 10.75 lbs, 375 with scope 9.9. Even my 300 mag deer rifle was built heavy, a little over 9 lbs with scope. I experimented with a light weight 12 gauge for upland bird hunting and shoot better with a heavier gun with longer barrels. I do not understand the affliction with light guns other than the magazines promote them.

I do know the best shots in deer camp use heavy guns and the worst shots use lightweight models.

BigB

My .500 A-Square Hannibal 13.25# with 1x scope, 4 rounds and sling. I have carried it all day once when walking around up the Kisaralik River. I did not notice the weight.
.375 Weatherby ZKK-602 9.0# and my 3 FN-FAL's with a loaded 20 round magazine weighs 11#. No one has ever compained about the weight of the FAL.

I do not shoot well with light rifles, even those of moderate calibre.

My M70 .375 H&H weighs just over 9# unloaded with iron sights. Shoots very comfortably with a 14.25" length of pull.

My .458 Ruger #1 weighs 9lbs, also iron sights, and is not a comfortable shooter for extended sessions. Much of this is due to a factory stock that is too short for me but the rifle should be heavier for my taste.

The 500 NE that I am having done will weigh 11.5 lbs. It will have the proper LOP and feature iron sights.

I am not a muscle bound youngster and I do not have any diffiuculty carrying my rifles over the Wyoming prairies or the forested mountains. My preference for iron sights keeps my shots at big game to a maximum of 200 yards and this sometimes necessitates additional footwork to get within the preferred range.

I enjoy shooting big bores at jackrabbits and prairie dogs for recreation and practice. If the rifle does not have the necessary weight or stock length, the fun goes away rather quickly.

Regards,

------------------
~Holmes

"Those who appease a tiger do so in the hope that the tiger will eat them last." -Winston Churchill

I'm new to this big bore thing. I've only had the Lott for about 10months or so, but is there an unwritten rule that says a big bore has to weigh alot?Reading some of the responses I'm beginning to think there is. If you have a light rifle that is pleasant to shoot(figuratively speaking of course) whats wrong with having it?

JoelS,

Nothing wrong with a lightweight big bore at all if you enjoy shooting it and have confidence in the rifle.

I probably prefer a heavier rifle in a 458 than you do. Neither of us would be right or wrong, simply individuals with singular criteria.

My preferred barrel lengths are longer than is currently fashionable. So what? It's my rifle!

Regards,

------------------
~Holmes

"Those who appease a tiger do so in the hope that the tiger will eat them last."
-Winston Churchill

I think Jack O'Connor started a lot of this anti-lightweight, anti-big bore stuff, to highlight his baby, the .270.

As I recall he bemoaned the 7mm Rem when it came out, all the Weatherby's, and the big bores in general. Of course we never heard any of that again after he went to Africa with the 416.

Certain recoil pads, stock design, fit, and material all affect perceived recoil. I'm just getting too old to lug those beasts around, but I didn't like the weight of the M70 .375 way back when.

I'd rather suffer a little abuse at the range and be able to carry it.

But if you a strapping young boy or an oldy with the mass, you don't have to worry about weight and/or recoil.

Looking at my gun rack... I tend to have lighter rifles, though not any ultra-lights. I am small-framed (though albet kick a hole through the average male ) and tend to pack a light lunch. heavey rifles dont bother me if they are not so heavey for their caliber or purpose (unreasonable heavy). I would just assume have a heavy-well-ballanced rifle then one that is slow and unresponsive... or like some of the ultra light weights, with their buggy whip barrels, that feels invisable when you point them. Mine just tend to be light.

watch my typos I am still in college.

A good wide non slip sling makes carrying a 10.5lb gun painless. The difference between a 8.5lb gun and a 10.5lb gun to your ability to climb a hill is psychological.

For me the barrel heavyness of many Express style African rifles removes much of my ability to hold, point and shoot accurately, my own 9.3 looks like a conventional rifle, weighs 10.5lbs all up, is comfortable to hold and very easy to shoot.

My 577 Tyrannosaur weights 14.3 lbs. with a scope. My 500 A2 weighs 12.5 with scope, my 460 wby. weighs 11.3 with a scope. Last but not lease my 416 wby. weighs 10.6 lbs. with scope. There are no free lunches if you want to shoot a rifle that drives heavy bullets at respectable velocitys, you must build these rifle to the proper weight unless you want to absorb excessive amounts of recoil.

To me, even more important then weight, is balance, or a more obtuse term, feel. When I assembled my 35 whelen ackley, I'd planned to bob the barrel to 22". Fortunately I put the barreled action in the stock before doing that, and hefted it. The gun fealt so good in my hands, that I have no plans to shorten the barrel from its 24". What's important is the gun feels good, and it shoots good.

The 458 lott Joel mentioned was light when I got it, and now lighter that Joel had a synthetic stock made. It also has a short barrel, and it ported. Despite everything seeming to be wrong, the slender short barrel, ports, and light weight, it was not objectionable to shoot, and I presume with a better stock, even more enjoyable.

That said, when I started on the 500 Jeffrey project, and got a ~25 1/2" blank, I asked the smith to leave the barrel that length, I haven't found long barrels to be objectionable, and figured the additional weight will help control recoil, minute increases in velocity won't hurt, and the overal aesthetics of the gun will be enhanced.

The 458 being built should come out with some heft as well, the barrel is a Ruger #1 take off, and will end up ~23" after a new threaded section is turned on it.

Asside from all that, I do plan to have a 50 alaskan lever gun built, with a ~18" barrel, and finished weight around 7#. It won't be loaded to anywhere near the levels of the 500 and 458, and I want something compact to throw in a boat, and tote on my back when fishing.

I agree completely with Paul.

My .500 has this 23.25" barrel and when you pull it up quickly it feels as if all the weight is behind my left hand on the forestock. This is the only thing I do not like about my .500.
My .375 Weatherby (formerly a .375 H&H) on the ZKK-602 has a heavy barrel and as you know the slim stock. Consequently when I pull it up it is barrel heavy and points quite right at where my eye is looking. I love the way it feels.

If I could have another 2.5" on my Hannibal I believe it would be perfect. 2.5" doesn't sound like much but this is 0.925" at the muzzle, would add maybe a pound.

OK, this is extreme, but my 470 capstick weighs in at 14.75 pounds and kicks like a 25-06. I notice the weight in that I carry it differently than a light rifle, but if a guy cannot even carry around 15 pounds, how the heck can he pack a deer out?

After going through the thread again, and looking at Mitch's comment, I'd like to wholeheartedly agree with it.

I guess it comes down to why one gets a big bore, and what one intends to do with it. I'm not a collector, I'm a shooter and hunter, and if I'm not shooting a gun, I sell it to get something I will, or think I will.

So, since I plan to shoot my big bores quite a bit, they have to be shootable. I can't stand muzzlebrakes, and so to make a big bore shootable, it has to have some mass to it. I have also found that I like the way a gun with some mass to it feels in my hands.

My first centerfire was a Ruger M77 MkII ultralight .308 ~7# scoped, and while it shoots well, and carries like a feather, I can't stand the way it feels. I think this is more an issue of balance, but, despite my affection for the gun, I was glad when my wife asked if she could have it, within the week, the stock was cut down to fit her, and for her, I think it is a fine gun. For me, the near 10# 35 whelen was right the first time I hefted it, and shooting it has just re-afirmed that.

What this post shows is that those of us who enjoy shooting big bores prefer some heft to them, because it makes them shootable.

Paul H..
I agree wholeheartly with you.
The two .375H&H, ZKK 602 in standard configuration I have owned, was pussycats to shoot and hunt with. ( both are now sold, but that�s another story ).
My worst rifle to shoot accurately is the light Rem. model Seven in .243 win.
So rifle weight, barrel lenght and offhand shootability hangs together. And that�s goes for recoil as well.

Regards Arild

Mitch has got a good scheme of weights going with his rifles. I will join in with Paul, Roger, Arild and others to agree there ain't no two ways about it, the really powerful guns need to have some weight AND good balance. Then they can be handled well in the field.

To simplify the weight suggestion, I will approximate Mitch's weights by subtracting 1.5 pounds for the scope and mounts and give a rough approximation of the recommended weights by bore size, unloaded and with express sights only [ +/- (1/2 pound) for the "naked" rifle]:

.585 cal.: 13 lbs.
.510 cal.: 11 lbs.
.458 cal.: 10 lbs.
.416 cal.: 9 lbs.
.375 cal.: 8 lbs.

Add 1.5 to 2 lbs. for a light scope, rings and mounts, and ammo to get it field ready. The sling is just a carry strap for the big bore, and is not considered here.

Of course this is not to stifle individual preferences and idiosyncracies. For example, my favorite 375 H&H is 7 lbs. naked,
but my currently active 416 Rigby bugholer is 10.75 lbs. when I strip it down. The above is just a prudent rule of thumb for rifle weights.

I will see y'all after I get back from Botswana, where I am taking the two exceptions to the rule, one too heavy and one too light. See ya later, gotta finish packing.

------------------
Good huntin' and shootin',
RAB

[This message has been edited by R. A. Berry (edited 07-18-2001).]

I have a Ruger 77 RSM in 416 Rigby. It is the early model that weighs about 10.75 lbs naked. I have shot about 15 rounds through it. The stock has some nice contrast and figure in it.

If anyone has a 77 RSM 416 Rigby of recent manufactored lighter weight and wanting the heavier gun I would be willing to trade even. Providing the stock has some figure or contrast like mine.

Craftsman

I absolutly despise light rifles, when I run 50 yds. to get a shot, or to the top of a hill, I need some weight to hold the gun down so I can make that offhand shot. A Fwt. just bounces all over the place and has made me miss shots that I normally would not have missed...A light Fwt. rifle only handles well in the Den or living room...IMHO

9.5 to 10.5 Lbs. and 26" barrels is where I live. I like them heavier than that for shooting, but can't pack them all day...

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com