Lightweight Hunting Rifle Suggestions

cam1936 said:
I put a Rem 700 Mountain SS into a Wildcat. Came out to 5 lbs 7 oz bare, 6lbs 3oz scoped with a 22" barrel and a floorplate. Very practical, less $$$ than a Montana.

kIZ1BvG.jpg
Click to expand...

I have to disagree on the less money part. A montana is around $2000.00 some for a few dollars less some for a few more new.
New model 7 is over $1000.00, wildcat stock finished and painted and installed you are around $1000.00. So you are very close to the same price. SO I think it is a toss up. I have had both done, and would take the montana everytime. My Kimber Adronidak is under 5lbs bare, and would cost a pile of cash to do that with a model 7
 
DFerguson said:
Hi All,

I am looking into getting a new lightweight hunting rifle and am curious as to what your suggestions would be. Currently looking at kimber's lineup of rifles, however, I am aware that some people have had issues with them and their customer service can be a nightmare to deal with. Any input would be very helpful! Thanks.
Click to expand...

Try to shoot one if possible. I went heavier, due to recoil on my Tikka T3 Lite 3006. Then again, I shoot quite a bit at the range year round. I now have a Howa HS Precision 3006, recoil jump is less noticeable.
 
You need to decide what features you like, dislike or don’t care about. Lots of the lightweights you see give up features to achieve their weight. Short pencil weight barrels, blind mags, most are short action, things like that. Each feature will play a role in how it handles and how easy it is to shoot. After building a dozen or so what I consider ultralights (under 5 1/4 lb) rifles I’ve learned what I personally like and don’t like. And unfortunately that list changes from person to person. For example some guys like blind mags, I absolutely hate them.

If I was buying a lightweight in the op goal weight and budget and wanted the best handling/balance and features for the weight I would buy a used non-magnum (6-lug action not the 9-lug) weatherby ultralight probably in 280. And spend the rest or a portion of the rest on a scope. They have been around a long time, handle/point beautifully, have a floorplate, 24” barrel that’s not a pencil and with a long action and a heavy 32oz stock they still weigh in at 5 3/4lbs. I’ve had and built many lighter rifles but none handle as a nice or are have the same features or are as easy to shoot.





leeelmer said:
My Kimber Adronidak is under 5lbs bare, and would cost a pile of cash to do that with a model 7
Click to expand...

A factory model 7 in a wildcat is almost exactly 5lbs (within an ounce depending on how you finish the wildcat and that’s including a decelerator- if you go flop flop you will be under 5lbs but I’m not willing to sacrifice a good pad). You can buy a used model 7 for $650 a wildcat blank is $375 - if you are handy at all you can finish the blank yourself - plus sell the factory stock. You can’t buy a used Adirondack for near that money.
 
Last edited:
leeelmer said:
I have to disagree on the less money part. A montana is around $2000.00 some for a few dollars less some for a few more new.
New model 7 is over $1000.00, wildcat stock finished and painted and installed you are around $1000.00. So you are very close to the same price. SO I think it is a toss up. I have had both done, and would take the montana everytime. My Kimber Adronidak is under 5lbs bare, and would cost a pile of cash to do that with a model 7
Click to expand...

$1100 for the Mountain SS, sold B&C for $300 = $800 for rifle. $400 for Wildcat filled and sanded blank and $350 for bedding, install and paint = $1550.
 
I have been watching this ultralight mountain rifle debate for 30 years, and it is amazing as to what lengths guys will go to in order to shave mere ounces from their rigs.
Seen rifles down to the 4lb range range (remember the Kifaru?).
One of the most common results is that people find how hard it is to steady an ultralight rifle in order to make that shot on a ram at the end of the climb when they are breathing hard and their heart rate is up. Most of the guys I know personally ended up selling those early ultralights and building another rifle with a little more weight, ending up with scoped rigs closer to the 7 lb +/- range as indicated by the OP. Made the rifle more shooter friendly, under all circumstances.
Personally, the rifle I carry in the mountains most is a custom lh Sako AV in 7mm STW with a 24" barrel in a Fajen laminated stock that weighs 7lbs bare. It's Leupold VX III 4.5-14x40 B&C is in steel Leupold rings. Never have weighed the scoped rifle with shells in it, but it has served me well and never felt overweight. It has accounted for sheep, mountain goat, elk, deer and moose over the past 20 years, and been on many more climbs for sheep and goats than any other rifle I own.
The biggest factor, I believe, is how it handles and balances; a slightly heavier rifle that balances well and handles easily is a joy to use, and may not feel as heavy as the scale indicates.
Other weight savings or trimmings can come from your other gear you are using/packing to lighten your overall load. Then there is your own weight.
If I dropped another ten pounds, I can carry an extra pound quite handily! LOL
 
I like all light weight rifles, whether it's a custom remington, ULA, or a kimber, as long as they're accurate. Bottem metal or blind mag I have no real preference but I don't see an advantage with bottem metal over a blind mag on a rifle thats meant to be packed around all day. jmo. I agree with the last sentence in BlackRams post about dropping 10lbs in weight. We could all benefit from being in better shape regardless of how heavy our rifle's are. Beer bellies and mountains don't go hand in hand :)
 
While I disagree with you BlackRam on rifle weight while respecting your experience, I totally agree on losing the weight off the body before worrying about the rifle. We’ve got a culture in the West, particularly the USA, where people assume they’re naturally heavy and would be stunned to know what their fit weight would actually be without losing an ounce of strength- in fact they’d gain strength. Losing that will make everything about the hunt better, I can’t tell you have many clients, predominately American, have told me they’re “heavy framed” or “naturally big” when they should weigh 150-180lbs at 6’ and under. A truly fit individual (less than 10% body fat) over 200lbs is much a rarer specimen than many think.
 
Over the years, Iv learnt compactness is more desirable then weight in a mountain type rifle, just my experience.

My current,

Tikka t3 in 6.5x55 - $800
Wildcat stock 19 oz finished - $500 (the first stock I ever finished myself, was easy peasy)
Barrel chop to 20” and fluted and cerakote - $450

Not sure the bare rifle weight, but topped with the z3 3-9, talleys and 3 rounds, 6 1/2 lbs on the dot.

Minus the optics, I’m not sure you can get lighter and compacter for cheaper.
 
Re: gear weight vs. Fat weight

Yep, losing 10 lbs of fat is more important than obsessing over ounces on a rifle. A fit person with a 50 lb pack will be able to go further than a chubby guy with a 40 lb pack.

However -> light gear helps you go longer and further no matter your weight.

So try to get as fit as you can and try and cut your pack as much as you can as both are important.
 
No wishing will make a 9lb rifle weigh 8lbs. Nor will it make an 8lb rifle weigh six. If you want a light rifle buy a light rifle but make sure you know what flavour of light you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom