What my hunting rifles have evolved into over the years.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great thread.

Comb height:

When you bring a rifle to your shoulder and your face is cheeked up hard on the comb you should be seeing nothing but cross hair. The majority of rifles I see now days have the scopes mounted too high for proper eye alignment.
Click to expand...
I'm glad someone in the know said it, because I was starting to doubt what I was taught.

Save one specific instance, I've literally never seen a person with an adjustable comb (whether built into the stock, or via an aftermarket bag/wrap, etc) to grant a proper cheek weld on a hunting rifle, anywhere. Lots of guys will get a neoprene or similar wrap to hold a couple rounds on the stock, but that doesn't grant more than a couple mms of height, if that. I don't have a deformed face last time I checked, and with a proper cheek weld, my pupil sits almost exactly 1.5" above the stock on most popular rifles sold today (Rem 700, Winchester M70, Ruger M77, etc, etc). A 40mm objective lens scope in a medium-height mount sits almost .75" higher than that.

I don't see how consistency can be attained without a proper cheek weld.
 
Let me preface this post by saying that my hunting experience and preferences are not as extensive as the OP.

Not counting groundhog rifles, my first hunting rifle was a 45 caliber flintlock with a 44 inch barrel. Next, and possibly my favorite was a 58 caliber 1803 Harpers Ferry rifle (Navy Arms). Lately, I have used an 1866 Trapdoor with a 29 inch barrel. I have a Winchester 1895 (405 WCF) with a 27 inch barrel but have not used it as much as I would like to on hunts. (The few times it has been out it has shown me I really do not need a 45-70.)

So, I guess I am similar to the OP in that barrels are getting shorter, calibers are getting smaller and I am getting older.
 
bobson, go to images.google.com and search for "manners mcs-ta"
 
Quote:
Comb height:

When you bring a rifle to your shoulder and your face is cheeked up hard on the comb you should be seeing nothing but cross hair. The majority of rifles I see now days have the scopes mounted too high for proper eye alignment.
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone in the know said it, because I was starting to doubt what I was taught.

Save one specific instance, I've literally never seen a person with an adjustable comb (whether built into the stock, or via an aftermarket bag/wrap, etc) to grant a proper cheek weld on a hunting rifle, anywhere.
Click to expand...
My pre-64 Winchester was made in 1939 and was stocked for iron sights. I have a Weaver K4 mounted on it right now, in low rings and a cheek pad from Midway that was designed for shotgunners (who are always experimenting with stock dimensions.) This combination meets the standard of seeing crosshairs when you shoulder the gun with a good spot weld.
 
I think the comb height is a significant issue. Not being able to achieve both a secure cheek weld and eye/scope center contribute greatly to a lousy shot in the field.

On the scope deal...well..I have a 4-16X on my rifle and I like it. I'll admit it's probably overkill but I bought it some time ago and I don't plan on buying another just because it isn't up with the trend of low power. It's great for sighting in at least :)
 
This is what I did on my Savage... a good old pipe foam and vet wrap cheek rest. It makes the comb kind of fat, but it works as you can see. :)

image_zpsd28d3aea.jpg
 
On the scope deal...well..I have a 4-16X on my rifle and I like it. I'll admit it's probably overkill but I bought it some time ago and I don't plan on buying another just because it isn't up with the trend of low power.
Click to expand...
I didn't know there was a trend to low power. Every catalog I get (and I get quite a few) has nothing lower than a 3X9, and virtually no 4X or 2.5X fixed power scopes
 
I haven't evolved in a direction: I have evolved a dual personality. Our property is a mix of very open country (especially for KY) on the ridges and typical thick brushy hollers where it was too steep to clear for pasture. So I have two kinds of hunting: brush hunting where 75 yards is a long shot and stand hunting where I could potentially shoot 400 yards ridge-to-ridge. So I have evolved two different kinds of rifles.

For stand hunting in the pastures you will hardly ever find me with anything else than a 257 Weatherby with a scope that has a 10 or 12X top end. Down in the hollers I may be carrying any manner of gun, maybe even including an aperture sighted lever action. My current favorite is a Tikka T3 lightweight left hand in 308. It has a 3X9 but I usually have it set at 3X. This gives me some versatility because if an opportunity for a longer shot presents itself walking into or out of the brush I have a legitimate possibility of taking it. I'm not comfortable taking a 300 yard shot with an iron sighted 444 Marlin.
 
Our tastes are quite similar. I went on a 10 day wilderness hunt in rugged country while still in my teens, 1977. I have hunted the same area every year since, although due to hunting regulations those hunts are usually only 4 days long now. That experience taught me I wanted nothing to do with a 9-10 lb rifle. And as I get older, the less I want to do with them. But at the time, there were few real options, and a college student budget limited things further.

It took me until after graduation, to justify the $175 for a Brown Precision stock in 1983 which got my rifle and scope weight down to 7.5 lbs. I haven't looked back. I've gone lighter, and with one exception generally find much under 7.5 lbs to be too light and somewhere between 7.25-8 lbs ready to hunt just about perfect.

I've gone lighter, but did not find most of those rifles balance or shoot well for me. The one exception is my Kimber 308. It is 6 lbs +/- a couple oz depending on the scope. I find the balance perfect, much better than some rifles weighing 16-20 oz more.

I consider the Leupold 2.5-8X36 scope to be just about perfect for general big game hunting. Although the last scope I bought was a VX-2 in 3-9X40. Close enough and about $150 less. The new VX-2's are essentially older VX-3's and I'm quite pleased with the quality. I've not put one on a big game rifle yet, but I have 1-4X20's on a couple of AR's. Thinking that would be a better big game scope than I had ever given it credit for. I plan to try that soon.

A 22" barrel is fine with me, and I could be happy with 20" on most of them. The only rifle in the safe with 24" barrel is a 300 WSM. It would be fine at 21-23" with 23" being perfect. If it had a 26" barrel on it I would have already cut it, but won't do it just for 1".
 
I get this discussion about light rifles but it also depends on the size of the hunter. A large strong man can carry a 8.5 to 9 pound rifle just as easily as a smaller man can carry a lighter rifle. I've also hunted in rough country at high elevation and I found the other items that I was carrying such as clothing to be of much more bother than the weight of a rifle. If you're trying to negotiate black timber or down aspen on steep slopes any rifle can be too heavy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
Savage scope set-up
Replies
4
Views
622
JDGray
J
D
  • Locked
How to set it up?
Replies
8
Views
512
tribbles
T
J
  • Locked
Hunting Scope vs. My Leupold "tactical"
Replies
13
Views
897
jerseycraig
J
1
  • Locked
What Height Rings to Buy?
Replies
2
Views
293
dr0
dr0
NeuseRvrRat
  • Locked
cheek pad/comb raiser options
Replies
6
Views
830
G27RR
G
Back
Top