Rifle Weight?


PDA






jlmurphy
December 26, 2006, 04:59 PM
I have a Savage action in a McMillan A5 stock with a Nightforce scope, without ammo it weighs 12 lbs 8 oz, and this is with a medium weight barrel. I was wondering if every heavy barrel rifle has to be that heavy. I know it is simple math, just add up the components, and heavy rifles are easier to shoot accurately. I was hoping someone with experience with lighter stocks or composite barrels had built a lighter rifle that performed as well as the heavy rifles.

If you enjoyed reading about "Rifle Weight?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
browningguy
December 26, 2006, 06:11 PM
It depends on your use, but that is extremely heavy for a hunting rifle. Even my 458 Win Mag with a heavy 24" barrel only weighs around 10.5 pounds with a 2-7 scope on it. Most of my hunting rifles weigh in the range of 7-8.5 pounds with 1.5-4.5 and 3-9 scopes on them.

If it's a prarie poodle gun to use from a bench or rest that weight is probably ok, it should allow you to spot your own shots in the scope with any of the .22 centerfires. I don't have any McMillan stocks, or Nightforce scopes but it sounds like they are adding a lot of weight. McMillan says the A5 can be made as light as 2.5 pounds, but I believe the standard is a pound or so heavier. If you are using something like a 6-24x scope then you also have a bunch of extra weight.

You would have to tell us what is "just as well" before anyone can provide options though. I'm currently building a medium weight 300 Win with a B&C stock with the aluminum bedding block and planning a 3-9 or 2.5-10 scope. Not sure what the final weight will be but I'm planning on around 8 pounds, and should be an MOA or better rifle. The stock itself is 2.1 pounds as I recall.

nipprdog
December 26, 2006, 07:36 PM
this is with a medium weight barrel

:confused: :confused:

Savage offers sporter barrels and heavy barrels. what do you mean by medium weight?

ocabj
December 26, 2006, 09:17 PM
Heavier is more stable. You'll appreciate it when shooting.

You can shave 2-3 lbs off the weight by going with a different stock, or by getting another A-5 with the lightest possible fill. It'll make it front heavy though. You shouldn't shave weight by getting a thinner contour barrel. What you could do is go down to a 20 or 22" heavy barrel. Talk to Pac-Nor or one of the other quality manufacturers. The shorter barrel plus a lighter stock should be able to lighten your rifle a good 3 lbs at least and give it a good balance. You may even opt to go fluted to save even more weight.

But if you want to talk heavy, you should try my service rifle AR. It weighs about 14.5lbs. 3.75 lb lead weight in the stock, 2 lb lead weight in the handguard.

Shoney
December 26, 2006, 09:44 PM
Heavy rifles are not only more accurate at the bench, they are more accurate during hunting conditions. Those who complain about those extra 3 or 4lbs are better served by taking 5lbs off their candy arses. Hello!! There's a nifty weight equalizer called a sling.

With three of your friends, do a simple field test. Each person takes the same 8lb hunting rifle, runs 25 yards up a hill of 30 degree slope, then fire offhand at a target at 75 yards. After regaining your breath, repeat this with your 12lb rifle. Guess which rifle is more accurate.

Since the mid 1960's, I've packed a 13+lb rifle on extended 10 mile hikes across the prairie, stalked whitetails thru the forest, and carried it to the continental divide, up 5000 feet in elevation over 5 miles for trophy mulies.

Those woosy prevaricating panzy proponents of light hunting rifles don't know Shinola.

rockstar.esq
December 26, 2006, 09:57 PM
Shoney: I had to google "Prevaricating"! Definition: "To stray or evade the truth".

I have a 10FP in .308 Win with the standard Savage stock. What was said above regarding how the lighter stock makes it front heavy is EXACTLY true. I'm planning to use the Choate Varminter stock however I'd love the A5. I maintain that only accurate rifles are interesting and I'm still able to schlepp a heavier arm through hill and dale. That being said, my muzzle loader is a delightfully short and light beast which I fully expect will hit with sufficient accuracy to fulfill it's intended function.

For deer, it's not a MOA pre-requisite but for a "do all" rifle as mine is, the target function is it's primary use.

jlmurphy
December 26, 2006, 10:27 PM
I should clarify what I mean by "medium weight barrel", I used a #17 contour Shilen Select Match, cut to 24". I have other full target profile barreled rifles in target style stocks, and they have spoiled me with their accuracy and have probably allowed me to get away with less than ideal shooting form. While shooting thousands of rounds from a heavy spring piston air rifle chasing ground squirrels, I realized the value of a comfortable stock. Most of the shots were offhand and the extra weight was a plus. I wanted the A5 stock for it's pistol grip and the butt hook, the Savage action for the floating bolt head, and the Nightforce scope for it's ruggedness (I just wish it was lighter). I wanted a rugged,comfortable rifle that shot like a heavy target rifle, but was lighter, that's all! I would also like to lose 20 lbs and have more money in the bank while I'm at it.

browningguy
December 27, 2006, 12:02 AM
Since the mid 1960's, I've packed a 13+lb rifle on extended 10 mile hikes across the prairie, stalked whitetails thru the forest, and carried it to the continental divide, up 5000 feet in elevation over 5 miles for trophy mulies.

It's a good thing there are still a few real men in the worldwideweb I guess.

rangerruck
December 27, 2006, 12:30 AM
absolutely, I have a cz american carbine, that weighs less than 6 lbs, with sling , scope, and ammo. it will shoot literally 1 hole groups at 100 yds.
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a284/pmullineaux/czpics002.jpg
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a284/pmullineaux/czpics016.jpg

if you have a well made , top of the line bbl, and a very good chamber, the rest can be handled.

.38 Special
December 27, 2006, 12:38 AM
I think the weight/accuracy thing is probably a bit overdone. I also think you should buy rifles of the weight you are personally comfortable with and ignore everyone else's opinions.

Davo
December 27, 2006, 01:18 AM
Weight usually makes a rifle more consistant, but that is not always true...just usually. There are "light tactical rifles" usually w/short barrell and a short action (light dosent always pertain to weight though). These perform nearly as well as longer barrelled/actioned rifles but with a slight weight savings.
Some feather weight guns perfrom very well but in a tactical rifle light weight can be expensive and MAY affect performance.
I agree that most who complain about 2 lbs on a rifle or 5 lbs in a pack would be better served by loosing a few pounds and in the process getting fit again so that the hunt is a pleasure.

mc223
December 27, 2006, 04:25 AM
Under 18 # is for wimps.

Essex County
December 27, 2006, 04:14 PM
I built a sporter on a 1917 Enfield once. Weighed 10 pounds, but felt too much like a feather in the softwoods and swamps so I drilled holes in the stock and added 4.75 pounds of linotype.........Essex

If you enjoyed reading about "Rifle Weight?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!