A lightweight 300 Magnum.
- Thread starter Why not?
- Start date
I've got a passel of .300s, the lightest of which is a Montana 1999 in a MPI stock; 7 1/2 pounds with VX3 4.5-14. It is a little pushy with stiff loads. My Kimber in .338 Win isn't much worse if at all with bullets in the low 200s, with 275 grain A-Frames it gets bumped up a level.
I have (had) a straight pull Mauser Model 96 in .300 WM. It weighs a little over 6 lbs bare. With a Swarovski 3-9x36 it is just about 7lbs. My pet load was H1000 + 220gr Partitions which cronographed somewhere around 2850fps. It has a fairly thin stock and the recoil pad was basically a hockey puck. I had Dennis Sorrensen put a 1" Decelerator on it and that made a big difference in felt recoil.
Interesting replies. Thanks for being part of the discussion.
Seems we have come a long way over the past fifty years or so, when a nine pound rifle afield was okay, and if you had one that was eight pounds that was light.
Well do I remember taking my little Husqvarna featherweight out of the case on a trip up here in 1971, and everyone was amazed at how light it was.
My father-in-law used it when we went sheep hunting in 1976. It had a Leupold 3X on it for that trip, and he whacked a great ram at over 300 yd with that dinky scope.
Ahhh, the olden days. We didn't need high magnification, and routinely killed big game at such ranges. That is another discussion, of course.
Ted
Seems we have come a long way over the past fifty years or so, when a nine pound rifle afield was okay, and if you had one that was eight pounds that was light.
Well do I remember taking my little Husqvarna featherweight out of the case on a trip up here in 1971, and everyone was amazed at how light it was.
My father-in-law used it when we went sheep hunting in 1976. It had a Leupold 3X on it for that trip, and he whacked a great ram at over 300 yd with that dinky scope.
Ahhh, the olden days.
We didn't need high magnification, and routinely killed big game at such ranges. That is another discussion, of course. Ted
Last edited:
Interesting replies. Thanks for being part of the discussion.
Seems we have come a long way over the past fifty years or so, when a nine pound rifle afield was okay, and if you had one that was eight pounds that was light.
Well do I remember taking my little Husqvarna featherweight out of the case on a trip up here in 1971, and everyone was amazed at how light it was.
My father-in-law used it when we went sheep hunting in 1976. It had a Leupold 3X on it for that trip, and he whacked a great ram at over 300 yd with that dinky scope.
Ahhh, the olden days.
Ted
Yes, I remember reading a book from the early '60's where they noted a 6x scope is only needed for long range varmint hunting!
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
My father-in-law used it when we went sheep hunting in 1976. It had a Leupold 3X on it for that trip, and he whacked a great ram at over 300 yd with that dinky scope.
Ahhh, the olden days.
Ted
Yes, but that was the old days before the metric system. Now a shot at "300" is in metres and that's much further than any old 300 yard shot.
bigborefan
Regular
- Location
- Kawartha Lakes, ON
I've owned 8 different .300 Win Mags. In my view it's one of the very best to handload and as a one-gun-for-everything in N.A. it's hard to beat.
The best of the bunch was a Browning A-Bolt LH in SS syn. All were accurate, except one, but that A-Bolt would shoot anything and everything into MOA or better! I actually liked the 26" tube because of the increased performance and lessened muzzle blast. It was never weighed, but I'd guess about 8.75 lbs ready to go. My longest shot was on a jack rabbit at a paced off 285 yards. I leaned my body against a tree and fired offhand using a 180gr "something" at close to 3200 fps. Yes, the jack never knew what hit it.
I like ".300s", especially the .300 Win Mag. A "cheap" syn Savage with a 24" was light and superbly accurate at 1/2 MOA!
Bob
www.bigbores.ca
The best of the bunch was a Browning A-Bolt LH in SS syn. All were accurate, except one, but that A-Bolt would shoot anything and everything into MOA or better! I actually liked the 26" tube because of the increased performance and lessened muzzle blast. It was never weighed, but I'd guess about 8.75 lbs ready to go. My longest shot was on a jack rabbit at a paced off 285 yards. I leaned my body against a tree and fired offhand using a 180gr "something" at close to 3200 fps. Yes, the jack never knew what hit it.
I like ".300s", especially the .300 Win Mag. A "cheap" syn Savage with a 24" was light and superbly accurate at 1/2 MOA!
Bob
www.bigbores.ca
sharp shooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Essex county (Ontario)
I love the 1-5 power range scopes. Funny, I can shoot a group just as well with a 4x scope as I can with the same rifle with a 9x scope at the range.
Interesting replies. Thanks for being part of the discussion.
Seems we have come a long way over the past fifty years or so, when a nine pound rifle afield was okay, and if you had one that was eight pounds that was light.
Well do I remember taking my little Husqvarna featherweight out of the case on a trip up here in 1971, and everyone was amazed at how light it was.
My father-in-law used it when we went sheep hunting in 1976. It had a Leupold 3X on it for that trip, and he whacked a great ram at over 300 yd with that dinky scope.
Ahhh, the olden days.
Ted
Ted - is this a 1600 carbine/lightweight - the one with aluminum bottom metal? And that is an old steel tube Redfield, isn't it? That rifle must weight somewhere around 6lbs without the scope.
troutseeker
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Prince George, BC
Your .300WM will be just fine, great chambering! I have a Remington Titanium that weights 6.5 pounds with scope, but I fancy myself a mountain climber...
It is indeed an old Redfield, and the rifle is a Model 4000 Featherweight. The floorplate is blued steel, and the rifle bare weighs just a tad over six pounds.
I think I have a picture of it on the scale alone.
Ted
pisces-guy
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- West Kelowna, B.C.
Unless you're one of those guys that is oblivious to recoil, a .30 magnum rifle should come in at 8 lbs. or a bit more, with scope. I know a few guys that bought lightweight mountain rifles in .30 magnums and they sighted them in once and that's it! Not good. The average hunter looking to build a very lightweight mountain rifle should look at the 6.5X55, .270 Win, .308, or similar caliber.
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
Sound like a very similar to the set-up I inherited when my Dad passed away.
A Husqvarna, 30-06, model 4000 light weight, but with an old Weaver Micro-Trac 2.5-7 wide angle. As shown, it comes in at 7 lb 12 oz. As a 'family' thing, I did use it a few years back on a Mule Deer hunt on draw with my Daughter in Alberta.
I think on my last Moose hunts with Dad, that was the rifle he was using when I got my first Moose 'back home' at the Bowron Lake area since having recently moved to the coast.
