Rifle Weight

[cbeard]

I LOVE Winchester Pre 64's. I took my Pre 64 .300 Win Mag on a sheep hunt last year. It weighs 9 1/2 lbs with the scope.

This was contrary to EVERY sheep gun article I have ever read- but my thinking was an extra 1 1/2 to 2 lbs was not that big of a deal considering my pack alone weighed in at 35 lbs plus.

Bottom line- When I settled my rifle across my pack to make the shot my rifle was rock steady and I made the shot with great confidence.

Lately, however, I have been looking at lighter weight "sheep" rifles (7-7 1/2 lbs with scope) for my next hunt.Problem is-I can't steady them like my Pre 64's and I have just about decided to give up my idea of buying one.

In you guys' experience is a lighter weight rifle worth the tradeoffs in steadiness and recoil compared to a standard weight rifle?

 

[RELH]

No! The ultra light weight rifle thing has been blown out of proportion by rifle makers and hunting editors who have something to sell.
I feel the same way about mags vs. standard caliber rifles, where alot of hunters think you can not kill a big game animal unless you are shooting a big super mag. Mags can be fine, if the hunter can shoot it with precision, but too many hunters will not admit about it causing flinching problems.
The ultra-light rifles compound that flinching problem at a higher level due to less weight that = more recoil.

Now I will wait to get blasted for my opinion.

RELH

 

[Pre64]

I've yet to buy a lightweight rifle. All mine are standard weight; 8-9 lbs. Someone once wrote,"nobody ever didn't make it up a mountain becuase thier rifle was 8 oz. too heavy."

I've found some rifles balance better than others, regardless of weight. At least for me. I have a hard time getting Rugers to settle down.

 

[257Tony]

>No! The ultra light weight rifle
>thing has been blown out
>of proportion by rifle makers
>and hunting editors who have
>something to sell.
> I
>feel the same way about
>mags vs. standard caliber rifles,
>where alot of hunters think
>you can not kill a
>big game animal unless you
>are shooting a big super
>mag. Mags can be fine,
>if the hunter can shoot
>it with precision, but too
>many hunters will not admit
>about it causing flinching problems.
>
> The
>ultra-light rifles compound that flinching
>problem at a higher level
>due to less weight that
>= more recoil.
>
> Now I will wait
>to get blasted for my
>opinion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RELH


Blast you!!!!!!!!


Seriously though, one of favorite authors went on a Marco Polo hunt several years back (very expensive) and took his favorite rifle, and 11 lb 8mm Rem Mag. He was very glad to have it when the shot came, but said he doubted he would carry it to 16,000 feet ever again. So there is definitely a trade off either way you look at it, just depends on the individual. I try to match my rifle to the game, not really the mountain. When its Elk, its the .338 (~9 lbs), anything else goes to the .257 (~7.5 lbs).
______________________________________________________

 

[huntindude]

I'm a pre 64 70 collector and swore I'd never hunt with anything else, until I tried a lightweight. my advice is buy the best quailty lightwight you can afford and try it , if you don't like it they're easy to sell because most guys who have one want more. I have a Rifles inc 300 win mag built on a 70 action and a Bansner sheep hunter 270 WBY and the only time I even think about using my old guns is antelope hunting when I use my 264 Westerner. as far as being steady I can't tell that much difference, if it's a long shot I want a rest anyway. for recoil if you don't go over a 300 win mag you don't really need a brake if you're like me and don't like them, for smaller guys , kids and women a smaller round or a brake would be better though I'll have to say. the more hours a day you carry your rifle and the farther you get from the road the more you'll appreciate a lightwight in my opinion.

 

[canhunter]

cbeard..I'm reading this as a pre64 issue not a rifle weight issue. If you LOVE a certain rifle then use it regardless of brand or what you are "supposed" to use. I don't see you saying anything about how carrying a heavier rifle was a negative. As far as rifle weight is concerned it is a known fact anyone can hold a heavy rifle steadier from a rested position. If it was me I would use the same rifle you used before with success and no complaints about packing it.

 

[cbeard]

Thanks for the input guys!

Just to clarify, I was using the .300 WM because of the possibility of taking a grizzly. On any future hunt for just sheep I am considering a Pre 64 Featherweight in .270 Win.

 

[YukonDall]

LIGHT WEIGHT RIFLES ARE SUCH A PLEASURE TO HUNT WITH, THEY MAKE HUNTING "MORE FUN" NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. .....YD.

 

[Hardway]

Heavier rifles are easier to hold steady....Thats why the benchrest guy's have wieght limits. It's all in who's carrying the rifle. For me, the ultra's feel real nice at the gun shop but just have'nt justified it yet. I'd rather spend money on more hunts and tags. PS...My old man just got a A-bolt Classic in .325wsm. That rifle could use a few pounds. I'd rather shoot my m70 .338wm