When I think of " light weight mountain rifle", my thoughts wander to the Remington Model 600 6.5Mag. Short, balanced, reasonably accurate, easy to shoot without a brake.

Tend to agree with Ray. The additional 2 pounds of rifle is nothing to a hunter who is in shape and altitude acclimated. I'm an old fart who has dragged 9 pound rigs for years. Actually I carry more water weight in my water bladder backpack, then there is the GPS, Zeiss rangefinding binocs, first aid kit and so on.
As "flatland" at home is 7000', we use horses as much as possible but they can't go everywhere.
IMHO, time spent at the gym is worth a lot more than time spent trying to save 2 pounds on a hunting rig.
For years my "go to" rifle was a 721 in 300 H&H with a BalVar 8, now it's a Benelli R-1 300 WinMag with a Nightforce 2.5-10x32. Both are sub MOA rifles and neither are pinweights. Both also worked, never a lost animal, never more than one shot.
Lots of Wyoming is not flat !

Anyone ever seen a Kifaru Rambling rifle? The website says under 5 pounds with Leupold 2-7x glass mounted. Sounds pretty incredible.

Never seen one in person, but that's immediately what comes to mind when someone says "lightest rifle ever". They're not the prettiest, but from a functional standpoint, I suppose they've got the edge. Looks like half a rifle, but costs as much as two!

quote:

Originally posted by JustOneMoreShot:
Anyone ever seen a Kifaru Rambling rifle? The website says under 5 pounds with Leupold 2-7x glass mounted. Sounds pretty incredible.

quote:

Originally posted by bumfarto:
Tend to agree with Ray. The additional 2 pounds of rifle is nothing to a hunter who is in shape and altitude acclimated. I'm an old fart who has dragged 9 pound rigs for years. Actually I carry more water weight in my water bladder backpack, then there is the GPS, Zeiss rangefinding binocs, first aid kit and so on.
As "flatland" at home is 7000', we use horses as much as possible but they can't go everywhere.
IMHO, time spent at the gym is worth a lot more than time spent trying to save 2 pounds on a hunting rig.
For years my "go to" rifle was a 721 in 300 H&H with a BalVar 8, now it's a Benelli R-1 300 WinMag with a Nightforce 2.5-10x32. Both are sub MOA rifles and neither are pinweights. Both also worked, never a lost animal, never more than one shot.
Lots of Wyoming is not flat !

Ill bet that ole 300 H & H was still getting it done when you parked it.... great photo

If one is going "ultralight" doesn't it make sense to cover all the factors weight? That would include scope rings, scopes, slings, even the ammo chosen (140gr. bullets vs. 180 gr bullets on a 7-08 vs. 308).

I admit to being guilty on this myself having put a heavy 18oz Leica scope on my Merkel K1 stalker. I could easily shave 8 oz off that package with a difference scope.

For me, roughly 7# is the point where holding a rifle steady starts to tail off.

I am a sucker for ultralight rifles, but I'm also pretty serious about fitness. I don't know why this has to be a "one or the other" question. An in-shape hunter can be further advantaged by lightweight gear.

As for lightwieght rifles being difficult to shoot in the field, I am getting ready to do some head-to-head testing on that subject and will post the outcome.

quote:

Originally posted by drewhenrytnt:
When I think of " light weight mountain rifle", my thoughts wander to the Remington Model 600...

I agree. It seems like going with a short action is an easy way to save weight right off the bat, then there are slightly shorter ones like the model 7 and 600. So I don't see the argument for starting with a long action in 30-06, 280, 270, etc. when a WSM will do the same out of something shorter. Now if you want something like a 338 RUM... Well, that might be a kill at both ends in a light gun so I guess we're back to the short actions.

I would definitely not use a Remington SA for a WSM. Too short to take advantage of its powder capacity and OAL without shoving the bullet into the boiler room.

Ray,

I really enjoy your posts and for sure both of us are old timers. I got my first deer with my handload in 1953.

The heavy rifles were always too heavy for me big game hunting wise. I carry or hold the rifle all day long and see nothing.

Finally a day later some buck is there and I shoot him. Sure heavy rifles hold better. I have heavy BG rifles as well and varminters too. Target rifles that go 14 lbs and more.

I always liked the Featherweights and now the Kimbers.

To each his own. Sometimes there can be more than one right answer.

I am more disappointed that you suggested a push feed action without a M70 type wing safety!

We both like 'new' to us guns. The rifle at the bottom of the picture is a custom I got just last year and it's come along fine. It's a 300 Win. Mag. on a old M70 action.

Advice to others: "If you don't have a Kimber Montana yet then get one!"

Savage 99--WOW a .300 magnum. Bet you can hit em anywhere with that and in a rare case where they don't go down instantly you'll have a HUGE bloodtrail. Why don't you go to the small cal section and educate those idiots that are using smaller cals?

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Savage 99--WOW a .300 magnum. Bet you can hit em anywhere with that and in a rare case where they don't go down instantly you'll have a HUGE bloodtrail. Why don't you go to the small cal section and educate those idiots that are using smaller cals?

Have you been shooting deer with a .223 for so long that you can no longer read? Go get a Chicken fried steak at Zentners Daughters and CHILL

Cross L--Perhaps you could join me at Zentners Daughter and read the idiot PM Savage99 sent me and then you might appreciate my post. BTW what town?

Zentners Daughters in Angelo. I guess its still open , havent been there in a couple of years. I have lots of family there.

Cross L--Yes Zenters daughter still open in San Angelo. I meant what town do you live in?

Bosque Co--Meridian and Iredell

Ray,

I shot the new to me M70 custom again yesterday loaded with 165's over H4350. Loads were close to max.

The recoil of that heavy rifle is just way more than a Kimber Montana WSM.

I shot the 270 WSM Montana also with 140's and the load was with a near maximum load of H4350. The recoil was far far less with the Kimber! I could do all of the kind of hunting I do with a 140 gr WSM.

Of course I like the new to me M70 300 WM.

I did some more work on it's bedding today and have some 150 gr loads for it ready.



Just look at that stock!!

oh good Savage you made it a pillow for bedding. How sweet.

quote:

Originally posted by bumfarto:
Tend to agree with Ray. The additional 2 pounds of rifle is nothing to a hunter who is in shape and altitude acclimated. I'm an old fart who has dragged 9 pound rigs for years. Actually I carry more water weight in my water bladder backpack, then there is the GPS, Zeiss rangefinding binocs, first aid kit and so on.
As "flatland" at home is 7000', we use horses as much as possible but they can't go everywhere.
IMHO, time spent at the gym is worth a lot more than time spent trying to save 2 pounds on a hunting rig.
For years my "go to" rifle was a 721 in 300 H&H with a BalVar 8, now it's a Benelli R-1 300 WinMag with a Nightforce 2.5-10x32. Both are sub MOA rifles and neither are pinweights. Both also worked, never a lost animal, never more than one shot.
Lots of Wyoming is not flat !

Great picture, Larry. Where did you steal it?

I always ckuckle at those that poo poo a light rifle claiming a person should just shed a few pounds of body weight to get the same effect. It makes me wonder just how much time they've really spent packing things around on their back, of course the answers are usually quite impressive. Many people, not me, spend thousands on gear (excluding rifles) to shave ounces of their backs with the highest tech stoves, bags, tents etc. It makes a difference. My knees leave me out of the real long trips these days but I still try and pack light. It's just makes for a more pleasant trip.