Total Rifle Weight and its effect - Page 2

BurkGlocker · September 20, 2008, 05:00 AM

My Savage only weighed 6.5 lbs before I filled the buttstock with sand and added a bipod, now it tips the scales at 9.5 lbs. Most of the added weight was to dampen recoil while at the range, the sand in the butt was to help balance the rifle out because of the bipod, but when I go hunting, most of the weight comes off of it.

countryrebel · September 21, 2008, 08:35 PM

On the steep canyon ground that I hunt I can feel that extra weight in a rifle because its usually in my hands and not on my back. IMO I really notice the weight more on steep uneven ground.

jsmaye · September 22, 2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Just curious, if you can't get 10,20 lbs. IN, how do you figure on getting your game OUT?

Adrenalin.

azredhawk44 · September 22, 2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Just curious, if you can't get 10,20 lbs. IN, how do you figure on getting your game OUT?

Just because I CAN carry 120 pounds on my back, doesn't mean I want to do so all day.

I've been on a backpacking trip where a fellow hiker got hurt and couldn't carry her pack anymore.

She packed way more than she was supposed to, got 8 miles in-country, then sprained her knee.

I carried my pack (40 pounds), her pack (50 pounds), and helped to carry her on a quickly-made litter (120 pounds / 4 people = 30 pounds).

That HURT, but I did it.

With 15-20 pounds on my back and a 6 pound rifle, I can take a quarter or half a deer, or perhaps even a quarter of an elk, and hike out.

rr2241tx · September 22, 2008, 02:28 PM

This whole discussion reminds me of the local motorcycle racing club in Hawaii, where 350# racers were spending $$$$ for titanium bolts to shave 3 oz off a 500# GSXR and going on about how much faster their bikes ran afterward.

Your rifle needs to be rugged enough to withstand the forseeable rigors of the hunt and reliable enough to hit whatever you aim at from the range you are going to say is close enough. If weight is a problem, then you have three choices: take less kit, get in better shape or hunt somewhere that is within your abilities with the kit and rifle necessary for success.

sholling · September 22, 2008, 03:58 PM

Gotta love the chest beaters that pontificate on rifle weight and who should be able to hunt where. I'll carry what I want and go where I choose without consulting the chest beaters thank you. If you don't like my choice of a 7lb (scoped) rifle tough, but please feel free to pack a 10 pounder to show us all how manly you are.

Lougee · September 23, 2008, 08:42 PM

I have a 338 RUM, Rem 700 Sendaro which have been using for Elk in Idaho. I like this rife, do not think about the weight, it shoots .5 at 100yds, kick doesn't hurt. I carry a day pack, knives, a pistol, extra clothes, food and water, with this rifle all day. If you feel good about your equipment, a little extra rifle weight doesn't matter.

Savage99 · September 28, 2008, 08:15 PM

When I was young, slender, strong and full of it we made up a P17 Enfield sporter in 30-06 and it must have weighed just over 9 pounds. Hunting where we were you could carry the rifle all over the mountains and not see anything day after day.

I did not take me too long to find the 'Featherweight' rifles and my first was a M99F Savage. That and similar weight rifles go about 6.75 lbs and 7.75 lbs with a scope. For decades that was ideal. A buddy who got a Ruger Ultralight was teasing me about how light his rifle is but I was ok.

However now I have got older. I still want to hunt but I am not as strong. I have gone on a diet and my weight is now good but I wanted a lighter rifle and the Kimbers came along. I got four of them for myself and my son. I still use the older Featherweights and in fact even a full size 'Westerner' on the farm but the light Kimbers are good for me.

September 22, 2008, 03:58 PM	#31
sholling Senior Member Join Date: May 18, 1999 Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California Posts: 4,261	Gotta love the chest beaters that pontificate on rifle weight and who should be able to hunt where. I'll carry what I want and go where I choose without consulting the chest beaters thank you. If you don't like my choice of a 7lb (scoped) rifle tough, but please feel free to pack a 10 pounder to show us all how manly you are. __________________ Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation. Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.

September 23, 2008, 08:42 PM	#32
Lougee Junior Member Join Date: September 19, 2008 Location: Raised in Montana, Retired in Illinois, Traveling fulltime. Posts: 1	I have a 338 RUM, Rem 700 Sendaro which have been using for Elk in Idaho. I like this rife, do not think about the weight, it shoots .5 at 100yds, kick doesn't hurt. I carry a day pack, knives, a pistol, extra clothes, food and water, with this rifle all day. If you feel good about your equipment, a little extra rifle weight doesn't matter. __________________ Ted Life NRA

September 20, 2008, 05:00 AM	#26
BurkGlocker Senior Member Join Date: May 18, 2008 Location: Sheppard AFB, TX Posts: 568	My Savage only weighed 6.5 lbs before I filled the buttstock with sand and added a bipod, now it tips the scales at 9.5 lbs. Most of the added weight was to dampen recoil while at the range, the sand in the butt was to help balance the rifle out because of the bipod, but when I go hunting, most of the weight comes off of it.

September 21, 2008, 08:35 PM	#27
countryrebel Member Join Date: September 3, 2008 Location: IDAHO Posts: 19	On the steep canyon ground that I hunt I can feel that extra weight in a rifle because its usually in my hands and not on my back. IMO I really notice the weight more on steep uneven ground.

September 22, 2008, 02:28 PM	#30
rr2241tx Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2007 Location: The Great State of Taxes Posts: 267	This whole discussion reminds me of the local motorcycle racing club in Hawaii, where 350# racers were spending $$$$ for titanium bolts to shave 3 oz off a 500# GSXR and going on about how much faster their bikes ran afterward. Your rifle needs to be rugged enough to withstand the forseeable rigors of the hunt and reliable enough to hit whatever you aim at from the range you are going to say is close enough. If weight is a problem, then you have three choices: take less kit, get in better shape or hunt somewhere that is within your abilities with the kit and rifle necessary for success.

September 28, 2008, 08:15 PM	#33
Savage99 Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2004 Posts: 567	When I was young, slender, strong and full of it we made up a P17 Enfield sporter in 30-06 and it must have weighed just over 9 pounds. Hunting where we were you could carry the rifle all over the mountains and not see anything day after day. I did not take me too long to find the 'Featherweight' rifles and my first was a M99F Savage. That and similar weight rifles go about 6.75 lbs and 7.75 lbs with a scope. For decades that was ideal. A buddy who got a Ruger Ultralight was teasing me about how light his rifle is but I was ok. However now I have got older. I still want to hunt but I am not as strong. I have gone on a diet and my weight is now good but I wanted a lighter rifle and the Kimbers came along. I got four of them for myself and my son. I still use the older Featherweights and in fact even a full size 'Westerner' on the farm but the light Kimbers are good for me.