Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
LIGHT WEIGHT / WALK ABOUT LR RIFLE???
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fiftydriver" data-source="post: 144182" data-attributes="member: 10"><p>I would have to agree that your first comment is not the case at all.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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</p><p></p><p>While you list some good chamberings, I think your limiting yourself in ballistic performance if you do not consider the magnum chamberings.</p><p></p><p>Kirby Allen(50)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fiftydriver, post: 144182, member: 10"] 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!!! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] 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) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
LIGHT WEIGHT / WALK ABOUT LR RIFLE???
Top