LIGHT WEIGHT / WALK ABOUT LR RIFLE???

[dlebeck]

Ya, I know a LR rifle has to weigh a ton and have a heavy barrel, massive stock, monster scope, steel rings and base, and so on.... BUT, that's not what I want! Looking to build a rifle, mainly for white tail, mulies, maybe elk. Ranges to 500, maybe more, most likely less. I would like the gun to weigh in at 6lbs, NOT KICK THE [censored] out of me. It can have a brake or not. Thinking something in either 6, 6.5 or 7mm, non magnum. Maybe a 243 or 6mm, maybe a 6.5x55 or a 7mm08, maybe a 280 or 280AI.You could suggest a mag cal, but I think the light weight will recoil a problem. This gun will be built by a well know LR gunsmith (you don't need to know who). So, lets have your thoughts.

Thanks

Douglas Lebeck

 

[heatseekins]

"I know a LR rifle has to weigh a ton and have a heavy barrel, massive stock, monster scope, steel rings and base, and so on"

Not true at all /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Idaho laws limit you to 16lbs. My long range hunting rifle is 10lbs. You definitely dont need anything like you describe to shoot at distance for practical hunting. Weight helps, but unless your shooting off a bench (none of those where i hunt) it can be more of a hindrance. I also have never been able to put my scope on more than 16x to make a shot because of various conditions so a large scope isnt necessarily needed.

Friend has a 7-08 thats fairly impressive and he has taken some mule deer at 500 ish yards with it. It is a lightweight styer 7-lbs? and is very nice to pack. It does have a skinny barrel and after 3 shots you can watch the barrel move. A 6 lb rifle will need some custom light weight parts, but 8lbs is fairly easy to do.

If i were to build a light weight rifle like you speak of i would build a 260 or 7-08. #5 heavily fluted barrel @22-24" Stock of your choice (maybe McMillan edge) and a Leupold MK4 4-14 scope. You would probably be in the 8-lb range. If i wanted to use it for elk i would probably build a 7wsm and put a brake on it if it kicked too bad.

 

[wapiti13]

Go to a short action 700 and get the weight down. I went with the 284 Win. Great ballistics out of a short action. Dropped weight where ever possible,(Lone Wolf stock, rings, Leupold compact scope, etc.) Rifle weighs in at 6lbs. I put my weight into a slightly heavier barrel than most would use since I want accuracy! Good luck. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[Fiftydriver]

I would have to agree that your first comment is not the case at all.

My personal packing rifle for long range shooting is only 10 lbs ready to hunt with. That included the Leupold Mk4 scope, rings, bases, bipod sling and magazine full of three 7mm Allen Magnum rounds.

I would also like to mention that if you are not opposed to a brake, why limit yourself to the performance level of the standard calibers.

No doubt many of them will work and work well but the magnum chamberings offer much more ballistic performance not to mention terminal performance with the ability to drive longer, heavier, higher BC bullets at higher velocities.

My 7mm AM drives the 200 gr ULD RBBT to 3150 fps with a very comfortable load pressure wise. I could easily push 3200 fps but there is no real need to do this. From bullet drop figures out to 1000 yards I have to use a BC of .920 to get my ballistic model to match up with actual bullet flight.

Recoil with that rifle with one of Shawn Carlocks small diameter 3 port brakes is about like a 25-06 sporter rifle but with ballistic performance put performing pretty much everything out there including any big 338 magnum except the ones based on the 408 CT.

If I had it to do over again, I would have gone with a #4 contour barrel instead of the #3 just for a bit more barrel mass. This would only add 1/2 lb to the rifle if that.

You could shave even more weight then this off a rifle going with an ultralight stock and sticking to a conventional magazine box system. Also a lighter scope could also be used although the Mk4s are pretty light for what you get.

I build light weight rifles all the time in large magnum calibers. It is a little known fact that the lighter the rifle is, the more efficent the muzzle brake will work to lessen felt recoil.

Why? Because the rifle has less inertia and momentum and as such the brake can slow it down faster then a heavier rifle set in motion.

In fact the larger the chambering capacity wise and the lighter the rifle, the more it will feel like the rifle is actually pulling away from you on recoil.

I have had this complaint from many customers saying the rifle just does not kick at all and that makes them flinch because they are trained to have at least some recoil. I tell them thats a hell of a problem to have!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

While you list some good chamberings, I think your limiting yourself in ballistic performance if you do not consider the magnum chamberings.

Kirby Allen(50)

 

[Varmint Hunter]

I'm in the process of having a rifle built with a similar use in mind. I considered every cartridge under the sun and ultimately decided to go with the time-tested and proven .308win. It may be boring to some but it will fit the bill perfectly, IMO anyway.

I had Chris order me a Broughton 4.1 contour bbl which should keep weight down while providing enough barrel ridigity for consistent accuracy under field conditions. I'll be using a Lawton 7000 action on this rifle and expect to be shooting it often. The .308 should povide looong barrel life which was also an attribute that I was looking for in this new rifle. No brake will be needed on the .308, which is something I wanted to avoid using. Forget your hearing protection just once while hunting with a brake and you'll know why. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[ol mike]

Doug ,

I just had this conversation over at 24hr campfire.

I've rooted around at some of the online gun sale places to see what looked appealing.
Buds guns in kentucky has a rifle [actually two] that caught my eye for this type project they are model 7 rem's in 7mm and 300 saum's for $429 new.
That's an excellent price for a laminated stock remington.
My idea was to lighten it up by sawing out the middle of the back of the stock and whereever else i thought i could get away with.
The 7mm saum w/140 gr. accubonds should do great for what you mention although it is a magnum.Recoil probably wouldn't be all that bad.
Anyway i'd have already bought one of them but i have a browning 7 wsm and a rem 270 w/a hs precision stock.So the next step for me would be a titanium model rem or a kimber montana although i'm hearing not too good of things about montanas quality assurance.
A lot of guys point out that it is hard to shoot a really light gun well without A LOT of practice.
Best to you -Mike

 

[lerch]

I am getting a pretty slick lightweight long range rig built right now. Kirby is rebuilding my heavy 270AM into a light wieight rig as we speak. It will have a 27" bbl in #4 contour, tan camo mcmillan stock with extra light fill, in the awesome 270AM chambering again. With my current gun i was getting just shy of 3500fps with the 169.5 uld's, but this is a very hot load, it only required me 14.5moa with a 100yd zero to score a bullseye at 1000yds!!!!! This gun will be built more around the 195gr uld. The entire gun will be teflon coated in tan to match the desert camo stock.

while this wont be the lightest gun ever built it will be good enough for me and it will pack a hell of a thump!!!!

steve

 

[dlebeck]

I don't think I made my point clear. What I am building is a VERY light weight rifle that my broken down old body can carry with ease. Mostly whitetail, mule's and maybe an elk. Mostly ranges under 500, but maybe at 500 or a little past. Not too hard to shoot, not too hard to carry. What I think I have decided on is this:
Rem 700
MCM Hunters Edge Stock
Rifle Basix LV-1 trigger
Kriegger barrel - #1 or 2 cromolly
6mm remington
no brake
VariX III 2.5x8

Hope I didn't **** you guys off and thanks for the imput. It means more to me then you know

Douglas Lebeck

 

[ol mike]

Doug ,

I plugged 243cal ,w/ 105 a max w/500 bc at 2900fps and it will have roughly 980 lbs of energy at 500 yds.I'd guess that to be a minimum for big mule deer under field conditions.
90% of the time you hunt w/the gun a 6mm would probably be fine.A 6.5 -284 sure would make a nice short action light gun.
A 6mm was my first centerfire cartridge back in 1978 @ the ripe young age of 17...
Your component list is top notch!!!!!!!!

 

[dlebeck]

Thanks, I do like the 243 and it is actually tied with the 6mm. I really do like the 6.5x284 as well. See that's my problem. I have a Ruger #1V in 6mm and that thing just likes to kill. I have narrowed it down to two smiths: Chris Matthews (#1) and Darrel Holland (#2). Thanks and if anyone else has imput, please lets hear it.

 

[davewilson]

personally i think a 6mm and 500 yards for big game is just not the ticket.especially when you're making it a very light gun.not saying it won't kill even past those ranges, but you have no margin of error. keep your shots to 300 and under for big game and get another gun for elk.with a good brake a 7wsm won't kick any harder than a 243.use the 160-180 gr bullets and you've got an elk gun well past 500 yards.

 

[rebelfootball73]

"
Friend has a 7-08 thats fairly impressive and he has taken some mule deer at 500 ish yards with it. It is a lightweight styer 7-lbs? and is very nice to pack. It does have a skinny barrel and after 3 shots you can watch the barrel move. A 6 lb rifle will need some custom light weight parts, but 8lbs is fairly easy to do.

i own 2 styers and love both of them one is a 270 and the other is a 7mm08. i have killed deer out to 400 yards with the 7mm08 and to date my longest kill with the 270 is only 5 yards. dont know what it is but i just love my 7mm08. it shoots federal prem 140 grain partitions very very well .5 and under 5 shot groups at 100 yards. when i do my job i have had several groups under .25".

 

[FEENIX]

The thread is over 5 years old, I hope that OP didn't have to wait this long.