Mountain/lightweight rifles- good or bad?

[GlockZ]

In the last couple of days I've seen a few posts on lightweight rifles, and I'm sorry but I just don't get it. Other than being lightweight and more manageable, I feel that you gain more disadvantages then you do advantages. You lose velocity and energy, you gain a louder report when firing and gain more recoil. As for accuracy, well that I just don't know,so I won't say anything. Also just keep in mind that while I spent some time serving in U.S.Army I was usually the one lugging around the M-60, plus the combat load. It didn't kill me, yes at the end of the day, my body was hurting and wore out, but the next day started all over again,no problem. And yes usually by the end of the day I wished for the M-16, but it was what it was. Anyways for me, if I want to lighten the load, there are other areas to start with, such as my waist. If you lose ten pounds or so, before you start your backcountry excursion,you've lightened your load already. Just my thoughts, believe me I'm not knocking the mountain/lightweight rifles at all or anyone that owns one, I'm just not seeing the reasoning for them. Your thoughts?

 

[sbhooper]

I have gone away from the light rifles, myself. I like longer barrels, to wring out all of the performance possible. The light-weight rifles are fine, but heavier rifles are a more stable platform for shots in tough situations. I don't particularly like additional weight, but I will take the tradeoff for a more stable shooting platform. A truly light-weight rifle can get pretty pricey to build, too.

Use what makes you happy, but I will stay with my heavier rifles.

 

[Rooster52]

I have done the opposite.Went from heavy rifles to light weights. When hunting the highcountry , even ounces add up.

 

[Rancho Loco]

Pounds on the waist isn't the same as pounds in the hand.

Lightweight rifles are capable of very good accuracy. Your average hunter who doesn't practice, is not.

Chopping a few inches off a barrel doesn't mean squat in a hunting rifle, velocity wise, and many prefer a shorter barrel for accuracy, myself included.

 

[noharleyyet]

You don't really notice the extra pound til you carry a lb less all day...consecutive days. Hell my longest steepest elk hike cartaged a Ruger #1. No big deal in the moment.
#humblebrag ; )

 

[Hatchie Dawg]

I am a slightly over middle aged office boy and by the end of an elk trip I'm trying to judge which shirt is the lightest. Seems to all add up on me.
HD

 

[Rooster52]

When I was young rifle weight did not matter.Carried a 12 pound rig on a backpack mule deer hunt a couple of time s.But as I got older I have went lighter .Lighter rifle,lighter scope,lighter binoculars,lighter pack.Only carry what is absulutly necessary.Lets me keep hunting .

 

[marksjeep]

I hunt with a Remington 700 mountain rifle in 280 AI. It's lightweight, accurate, and the velocity/energy is adequate to ethically hunt all big game in Colorado within reasonable distances. I don't know why anyone wouldn't use a lightweight rig for hunting in mountainous terrain.

 

[mtmuley]

I don't use a lightweight, and don't plan to. I hunt the mountains of Montana, but I just don't care for the feel of those light rifles. I like velocity and won't sacrifice any barrel. Everybody's different. mtmuley

 

[mtmander]

First you need to be able to shoot the rifle you carry , I have used a light weight (Win M70 pre64 featherweight) rifle for many mountain hunts. I was always trying to reduce weight for these hunts as I carried what I needed for the several day hunt. I always felt comfortable with my ability to shoot this rifle because of the practice time shooting.

 

[Big Fin]

The opinions you seek will be as varied as the hunting conditions and applications unique to each person who responds.

I've hunted with light, heavy, and in between. After 100 days in the mountains each season, weight starts to become a consideration, but not at the sacrifice of what I need. All my light weight rifles are more capable than I am, no matter how much I practice.

Some of my preferences for a smaller rifle are not based merely on weight. I like the shorter barrel when hiking long distances. I like how a shorter rifle attaches to my pack. I like the feel and balance of shorter rifles in the crazy shooting conditions/positions that mountain hunting can impose on the situation. I like how a lighter rifle rides on my pack, allowing me to forego the use of a cumbersome sling. I've yet to find a sling I like when hiking mountains with a pack that has thick shoulder strap needed for the heavy loads elk hunting requires.

As for accuracy/performance, the difference in shorter barrels is so negligible at my hunting ranges, that I don't even make it a consideration. I get how some guys are ballistics scientists and they want to maximize everything the chosen cartridge can deliver. For me, that is not the highest priority. And, knowing my performance is ALWAYS the weak link in the equipment equation, I look for solutions that solve some of the other issues I have higher on the priority list.

I would overlay the demands of your hunting conditions to the pluses/minuses rifle weight decisions can influence. That will give you the best answer for your personal situation.

 

[Mark86]

I don't use a lightweight, and don't plan to. I hunt the mountains of Montana, but I just don't care for the feel of those light rifles. I like velocity and won't sacrifice any barrel. Everybody's different. mtmuley

I get what you're saying about barrel length, I want 26"+ and every bit of fps I can get out if my guns but there are "mountain rifles" in the 6lb range that have full length barrels. What are your thoughts on something like that? Just wondering

 

[shootbrownelk]

You tend to go lighter the older you get. You pack a rifle a lot more than you shoot it. The key is to practice in the off season to get familiar with the rifle, and manage the recoil.

 

[GlockZ]

Your right Big Fin, the opinions are as varied as each ones hunting situation and personal preference are. Which is fine by me, that is what I wanted. After I posted this thread, I went to my safe and did an impromptu weigh in on my rifles. The result, my Savage in .243 was the lightest at just under 7lbs., next was my X-bolt at 8lbs., the heaviest was my Win. M70 in .338WM at just under 11lbs., none of them I consider heavy and or cumbersome. It is total curiosity on my part to see everyone else's opinion and reasoning, not that I would be swayed in my opinion,but all who have responded have brought up some good points for me and others to chew on for a bit. Thank you all.

 

[mtmuley]

I get what you're saying about barrel length, I want 26"+ and every bit of fps I can get out if my guns but there are "mountain rifles" in the 6lb range that have full length barrels. What are your thoughts on something like that? Just wondering

For me, ranges vary greatly when I hunt. If I need to stretch the range some, the last thing I want is a thin barreled, whippey rifle. To me, a lightweight is useless. Just my opinion. mtmuley

 

[Ben Long]

I think the biggest thing I've noticed after switching from a heavy rifle to a mountain rifle is the rifle spends more time in my hands and less time slung over my shoulder. I hunt the timber a lot where shots are close and fast. The time and motion it takes to shrug a rifle into your hands is a lot more valuable to me than a few hundred FPS or the difference between 1 and 1.5 MOA. That said, I think some of these "ultra light" rifles take the trend a bit too far. 6 to 7 pounds is about right for me.

 

[Foxtrot1]

I'm a big guy, 6,8". I have a hard time handling the ultra light weight rifles. I have found I just shoot a rifle that's a little weight forward better. I can't imagine much worse than carrying a rifle for miles on a hunt and being worried about my ability to make a difficult shot in the field with it. That said, I don't carry a rifle as many miles as some of you guys do. For me, I'll stick to a 8-9lb (loaded and scoped) rig that I can shoot well in the field, out of breath, or from awkward positions.

 

[Curvebow]

I agree with Big Fin! Plus, I have cut my teeth hunting in the NYS Adirondacks, where your rifle goes for a walk with you and little shooting is ever done. I have a Remington Model 7 in 7mm-08 FS model (circa 1980's) that was 5.25 pounds out of the box. The gun shoots 1" groups and with a VX3 2.5-8, sling and 5 rounds weighs 6.5 pounds. I even bought another one in 308 in pristine condition, but so far, that one is mostly a safe queen.

I know the Adirondacks is not the West. However, if hunting the West and longer ranges are an option, I have another Model 7 in 7mm SAUM with a sort of custom stock. I used this rifle last fall on a successful moose hunt in Newfoundland.

Any rifle I buy must be "light weight" or I won't even cnsider the purchase. Lately, Kimber Adirondacks and Mountain Ascents are appealing to me, although I have no need at all for more guns. I still want them; badly!

Its totally a personal decision and use what you like!

 

[nuevo_eph]

I hope this doesn't offend the original poster, but the first thing I looked at was where he lives. Once I saw New Jersey, I understand his angle. I just spent the last three days climbing up and down a few thousand feet of mountainous forest mixed with scree each day while looking for elk (for a friend's hunt). You better believe I'd like to carry a smaller and lighter rifle that doesn't weigh much or get in my way. And it still shoots better than me.

 

[elkduds]

A tale of 2 rifles.
1. Interarms Mark X Mauser, 7mm Rem mag, Timney trigger, 24" barrel, wood and blue steel, 9.5# w original Redfield Tracker.
2. Stevens 200, 270 Win, Timney trigger, 22" barrel, plastic and steel, 6.8# w Leupold VariX III.

This fall I have been shooting paper w these 2 side by side, alternating, to sight in w lighter bullets for deer hunting. I adjusted the triggers to be as similar as I could make them, got very close. Instead of making the 2 rifles seem more similar, I am finding out how different they act. I have used the Mark X as my only big game rifle, hunting CO for over 20 years. A few years ago @ age 55ish, my right shoulder got worse, and carrying the Mark X got painful on 10-mile days. My uncle had given up his magnum for a 270, which got me thinking.

My hunting buddy used a 270 for most of the years I carried the "superior" 7 mag. As I researched lighter alternatives to the magnum, the 270 stood out as being the ballistic equal of the 7 Rem mag, when shooting bullets weighing 10-15 gr. less. Meaning I would have the same trajectory out past 400 yds from the 7/175gr, and the 270/160 gr., with the lighter bonded bullet @ least equaling the heavier corelokt in on-elk performance. Which is longer range than I shoot @ game. Plus I could lose 3# off my shoulder when slung.

I am learning that the heavy, longer magnum is easier to shoot accurately, despite a slight edge in recoil. Wind, a poor rest, a hurried trigger squeeze bother the Mark X less than the little Stevens. Quite a bit less, to me. Shooting one, then the other, back and forth @ the same range: I see the difference between the rock-steady standard size Mauser and the feathery mountain-style Stevens on paper. I feel it @ the bench.

The 270 will not replace the magnum. When shots are long and walks are limited, I choose the big 7. In the woods, on long/steep hikes, when the shoulder complains, I'm good w the little 270. Bonus: learning to shoot the 270 well has made me more accurate w the Mark X.