I am mainly a hiker,into tough country and not getting younger.But I want the chance at the longer shots.My rifle was built with quality and geared toward weight savings.I shot 500+ 20 years ago with good handloads and a factory 340wby.My rifle bare is 7-2 oz.8 3/4 dressed,bipod and a mark 4 6-20. I have shot it into 1 1/18 at 400 and 6 1/4 at 1000. I can spot my hits a majority on rock type targets.I have a practice rifle that is 9-2 0z. 11-4 oz scoped,bipod is +10 oz. This is a summer scout with my kid.When he was 16 he shot a speed goat with packer at 850.rifles are 338 Normas
Long Range Hunting Gun Weight
- Thread starter dragman
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
shootinfool
Well-Known Member
For the ranges mentioned at the first I would be looking somewhere in the 13-15 pound range. Heavier if at all possible, but I realize that this is a gun that you may wind up hefting around all day. There are ways to eliminate the carrying weight of the gun but for the average hunter I would recommend the 13-15 pound range. That is not to say that you could not get the job done with a lighter gun, just that I feel that the heavier the gun, the better your chances are. Just my opinion though, not that it means much.
youngtrout
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 256
Like the look of the shoulder sling posted, that Len sells, but I'm in the same boat as some other guys that hunt with a pack all the time. From the pic, don't see you taking anything but a rifle? How many folks hunt that lean? I can't seem to get out of camp with anything less than about 10-15 pounds minus rifle,,,,but again I always have a pack with extra clothing, spotter sometimes, always have meat care items, water, bare minimums in my mind.
But, carrying a rifle has always been a painwith a pack, typically on a pack in I strap it to back or side, sure makes a trek into spike easier. So far, best thing I've done is something similar to the gun bearer, might actually look into the commercial one before this fall, to see how it balances. Add to that, it looks a little nicer with treking poles. Nothing is worse than a heavy pack and a sling over the strap of a backpack, with the rifle wanting to fall off,
But, carrying a rifle has always been a painwith a pack, typically on a pack in I strap it to back or side, sure makes a trek into spike easier. So far, best thing I've done is something similar to the gun bearer, might actually look into the commercial one before this fall, to see how it balances. Add to that, it looks a little nicer with treking poles. Nothing is worse than a heavy pack and a sling over the strap of a backpack, with the rifle wanting to fall off,
shootinfool
Well-Known Member
If carry a pack and then a gun slung on the sholder I usually wind up having the bi-pod getting stuck on the sholder strap of the pack all the time and it then becomes a huge pain. Like I said before...if I use a pack I put the gun in the pack or strap it to it somehow. If not I hunt with someone else that will carry a pack and then I worry about the gun and ammo and laser and such that need to be ready. To each their own though.
Money!
For me (personally) I look at rifles in the 600, 1000 and oh my God ranges, but that is a result of my local environment.
My personal rifles fit into the 8.5, 12, 16, and 35 pound class. There is no rifle weight restriction up here so I like the 50 BMG for 1000+yd hunting.
While I'm sure others can answer much better than I can, weight on its own, not even just in the barrel (and a heavier barrel has its own pile of benefits), is beneficial to accuracy. It comes down to simple Newtonian physics.
An object at rest wants to remain at rest. The more massive that object is, the harder it is to get it to move. When you get down into position, you really want that rifle at rest. Even assuming you are able to get into a perfect, fully supported field position you still have to exert a force on the rifle to break your trigger.
Is your trigger technique 100% flawless? Do you NEVER anticipate the shot? Let's go ahead and assume you are 100% perfect in your technique. The weight is still a benefit anyway. The heavier your rifle is, the less is will travel due to recoil during the dwell time of the bullet. Your rifle is much less likely to track incorrectly on your rest, or cause your bipod to hop if it is heavier.
If you still don't believe that a heavier rifle is inherently more accurate that the same quality of rifle on a diet, consider the sport of biathlon.
The fancy Anschutz most people use weighs in at over 8lbs. Its just a 22 and these athletes are also racing! Wouldn't they of anyone want the lightest rifle possible? Apparently not.
i'll go for it !!! but it still doesn't make you or i less accurate with either rifle . i'm hunting i'm not competing . i mean remington winchester browning and so on have been making rifles in the 7 to 9 lb range for decades . i know that they are factory rifles . our boy in the marines army have been issued m 700 i think since the 60's i quess its just two ways of looking at it
Yes it does. Otherwise no one would want a rifle more than 6 lbs for any reason. Heck why not 5 lbs if you can afford all that Ti and CF.
The Marrine issue M40 rifles are indeed Rem 700 actions, but they are far from "factory". I beleive the M40A1 is 14.5 lbs.
The Army M24 is also a Rem 700 action and I believe bare gun weight is in the 12lbs neighborhood.
Still think there are two ways to think about it?
Kennibear
Well-Known Member
Need to be careful with your rig's weight as States like Idaho have an upper weight limit. Idaho's is 16 lbs as I recall. My 30-06 goes 15 lbs all up (splinter stock & E.R. Shaw 1.25" X 27" barrel which weighs 9+ lbs alone) and when I was younger it was a sled to haul around the mountains. Holds dead still with any decent rest. After I turned 50 I keep my weights at 10 lbs or less for ease of carry. With optics, water, safety gear etc. a hunting TOE gets to 40 -50 lbs you have to haul around. Hope you have a horse!
I shot on the high school rifle small bore and had friends that did biathalon, as well as air pistol and moving target air. The heavier weight was not necessarialy for accuracy but to slow the rifles movement down while shooting,biathalon is off hand which is not condusive to long range. If you are a rifleman you can do great with a light rifle, that is high quality. I saw guns in the light gun class this year out perform heavy in 1000 bench
Kennibear
Well-Known Member
In agreement with sp6X6 the pure physics are not with total gun weight but rather with "high polar moment of inertia". Take a tiny 22 for kids and add 10lbs of lead under the butt plate and that gun won't shoot or hold any better than before. Take a good look at Biathlon guns and you will see their weight is in the barrel and the stocks are super light weight Kevlar / Carbon fiber tooth picks. With the mass concentrated at the end of the barrel the Biathlon rifle has the same "Polar moment of inertia" as a benchrest sled gun. We Long Range Shooters could apply this same approach to our rifles and save a few pounds yet not compromise the performance of our rifles in the field. I gave up wood stocks for two reasons: 1) Weather resistance. 2) Weight transferred forward by lightening the stock (higher polar moment of inertia). Works every time. A ten pound lead ball starts rolling pretty easy but a rod six feet long made from ten pounds of lead does not turn over end for end readily.
Just for discussion.
Just for discussion.
MHO
Well-Known Member
13 lbs. Feels like Im carrying a boat anchor.
