-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
How Heavy is Too Heavy, Rifle Weight
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
Interesting article.
I agree with a lot of it - with the proper fundamentals, there's less for the recoil to exploit.
I do think these new heavy PRS rifles with feather triggers are a crutch, and have diminished applications in "real world" applications.
I love how Chris experiments and places a heavy emphasis on fundamentals. I would think many PRS shooters would be surprised at big of a crutch their rifles are - you can get away with A LOT with a 25 lb 6mm. I once had a top tier PRS shooter (who helps/helped train at a big time precision rifle training center) shoot my unbraked TacOps .308 rifle, and he couldn't produce groups less than 1 MOA with it.
I agree with a lot of it - with the proper fundamentals, there's less for the recoil to exploit.
I do think these new heavy PRS rifles with feather triggers are a crutch, and have diminished applications in "real world" applications.
I love how Chris experiments and places a heavy emphasis on fundamentals. I would think many PRS shooters would be surprised at big of a crutch their rifles are - you can get away with A LOT with a 25 lb 6mm. I once had a top tier PRS shooter (who helps/helped train at a big time precision rifle training center) shoot my unbraked TacOps .308 rifle, and he couldn't produce groups less than 1 MOA with it.
Very similar to USPSA where 'gamer guns' dominate, big heavy 5 inch barrel guns shooting light loads because that's what top guys do. But give those top guys a standard glock and they still smoke you because their 'handgun' fundamentals are top notch.
And the we all carry glock 19 clones for ccw, because who wants to carry that hunk of steel all day.
And the we all carry glock 19 clones for ccw, because who wants to carry that hunk of steel all day.
Excellent read!
I mainly shoot NRL22 and no CF yet and seen some of these guys with top gear that very heavy rifles struggled to shoot on many stages due to their weights. One shooter had a 22lb set up that was ridiculous for a rimfire. Haven't seen him shoot anymore. I been on it for 3 years and still working on fundamentals but learning fast.
I mainly shoot NRL22 and no CF yet and seen some of these guys with top gear that very heavy rifles struggled to shoot on many stages due to their weights. One shooter had a 22lb set up that was ridiculous for a rimfire. Haven't seen him shoot anymore. I been on it for 3 years and still working on fundamentals but learning fast.
For a minute I thought my blue ATX had been stolen. But then I saw he had the full bridge. I haven’t been home for a month on vacation. 
I worried about this too until I started toting around a 45lb ELR rig. Now I kinda look like the hulk and carrying a 26lb rifle all day across terrain is no problem!
Kidding, I kid.
Kidding, I kid.
I just watched a clip of a guy shooting a 175# rifle like this Anzio 20mm 
An issued MK20 with scope and suppressor is 16 lbs on the nose.
Seems to be a happy weight to me.
Seems to be a happy weight to me.
Too heavy?
No such thing!!
Too long, maybe…
Sirhr
No such thing!!
Too long, maybe…
Sirhr
My br is around 24 lbs. Ive had it as low as 16. The only difference i ever noticed is carrying it around all day.
You know, if you just implemented a stroller or a little red wagon....you could run a heavier rifle and gear. And then expend energy fighting it up and down the mountains and prairies thereby building up that elite level of fitness you desire while not sacrificing your your ability to sham the stages. 
IMO, heavy guns take away the competitiveness of the sport. I like the fact that they now have NRL hunter. It’s a practical application.
Speak for yourself, I hate glocks and their clones and wouldn't touch one for carry if you paid me.
The article is good, though. Fundamentals are necessary. I learned and still train with either a pellet rifle and tiny targets or .22s and tiny targets because it's cheap and easy, and they're unforgiving on the fundamentals.
My rifles get heavier as they get older, I’m pretty sure it has something to do with the metal.
Holy shit... I wanna distro this article just to hurt people's feelings at this point. Missed it when it came out - but, man, the "you don't need a 25 lb gun, and they suck to carry" is a really bitter pill for a lot of folks out there.
For years I've shot the Sporting Rifle Match at Whittington in Raton. Recently I attended my first NRL match- I was the ONLY GUY there with a sling on his rifle. Very eye opening- my focus has always been on practical, useful field marksmanship....Don't think I'll go back to the NRL event even though it is local to me.
What's this got to do with the weight of a rifle? If you can't hump it in the field, I'm not much interested in it. Might as well shoot benchrest where you "caddy" your rifle from the trunk of your car with all it's associated junk to the bench, "Wow, we shooting now!".
What's this got to do with the weight of a rifle? If you can't hump it in the field, I'm not much interested in it. Might as well shoot benchrest where you "caddy" your rifle from the trunk of your car with all it's associated junk to the bench, "Wow, we shooting now!".
<The M240B has entered the chat>
The only thing worse than humping the pig was getting stuck as the AG. I guess jumping the base plate would be worse. I can tell stories about how hard I was as a younger man, but that doesn't change the fact that if I hit the woods of my own accord with 29+ lbs in my arms and/or 120+ lbs in my ruck sack I'm an idiot... and I deserve to suffer.
The only thing worse than humping the pig was getting stuck as the AG. I guess jumping the base plate would be worse. I can tell stories about how hard I was as a younger man, but that doesn't change the fact that if I hit the woods of my own accord with 29+ lbs in my arms and/or 120+ lbs in my ruck sack I'm an idiot... and I deserve to suffer.
I was always the gunner seems,one of the guys that could carry it all day and not bitch as much the other guys were smaller.
Glad to hear some others voice what I've thought. I suppose its like top fuel dragsters, nothing practical about it.
That huge vise your BR gun is in isnt going to do any good if youve got to run across the field.
That huge vise your BR gun is in isnt going to do any good if youve got to run across the field.
I would gladly hump the semi auto pig out deer hunting,probably not so great at snap shooting,but a real winner in a tree stand on a rest ! Watch the belt length in NY! I can’t afford $18,000.00 ( used ,good condition)though.
Like anything, it is the right tool for the job.
Even the blue rifle above in the picture Frank took at the February 2023 PALA training right next to me was supercool to shoot with...all that free Berger 6.5 Creed Lapua brass he gave us....out of the price range for some of us, and just another tool in the box for others of us.
PRS has its class of right tools; hunting has it class of right tools; bench rest and F-class have theirs, etc. Comparing one to the other sometimes is like saying which is faster: using a school bus or a supercharged corvette to get a class of kids to school on time? Bus does in one go, but slower; corvette does much faster, but has to make many trips, and probably not in as short a time. One gets you one and done, and the other makes you look good, doing it. Sound familiar? Who cares other than those we share a similar mindset with? Opinions here seem to be based on a one-gun-fits-all premise, and I get that.
When we were young, how many of us used just one color of crayon from a new box on the construction paper? Only difference now is that the blue crayon above and below is a lot more expensive, but in this Golden Age of high velocity target golf, it sure is nice to have lots of choices....
Even the blue rifle above in the picture Frank took at the February 2023 PALA training right next to me was supercool to shoot with...all that free Berger 6.5 Creed Lapua brass he gave us....out of the price range for some of us, and just another tool in the box for others of us.
PRS has its class of right tools; hunting has it class of right tools; bench rest and F-class have theirs, etc. Comparing one to the other sometimes is like saying which is faster: using a school bus or a supercharged corvette to get a class of kids to school on time? Bus does in one go, but slower; corvette does much faster, but has to make many trips, and probably not in as short a time. One gets you one and done, and the other makes you look good, doing it. Sound familiar? Who cares other than those we share a similar mindset with? Opinions here seem to be based on a one-gun-fits-all premise, and I get that.
When we were young, how many of us used just one color of crayon from a new box on the construction paper? Only difference now is that the blue crayon above and below is a lot more expensive, but in this Golden Age of high velocity target golf, it sure is nice to have lots of choices....
Last edited:
Nice article. I really appreciate Chris taking the time to look at things from different perspectives. I could write a long reply citing how IPSC lost its practical roots and F-TR went from Harris bipods to Cattle Grates on the front of their rifles, but I won’t. It’s just human nature.
You can either accept that you have to go down the equipment rabbit hole to be competitive or you can dismiss it completely and shoot for your own individual purposes.
If the powers that be wanted to keep competition close to real world and practical, the solution is simple - make the competition as real world as possible also. That will force the equipment to follow suit. One easy example, what if PRS routinely had 5 sec. pop-up targets that you had to shoot offhand or kneeling? The equipment would change to accommodate unsupported shots. There’s 10 other things like this that could be done so stages weren’t so choreographed.
You can either accept that you have to go down the equipment rabbit hole to be competitive or you can dismiss it completely and shoot for your own individual purposes.
If the powers that be wanted to keep competition close to real world and practical, the solution is simple - make the competition as real world as possible also. That will force the equipment to follow suit. One easy example, what if PRS routinely had 5 sec. pop-up targets that you had to shoot offhand or kneeling? The equipment would change to accommodate unsupported shots. There’s 10 other things like this that could be done so stages weren’t so choreographed.
It occurred to me that PRS is the rifle equivalent of USPSA Open Division... there's not a shred of practicality in the equipment (unless you look really hard) for anything but that specific game. I wouldn't carry a PRS gun any more than I would carry a 1911 race gun in .38 Super. That doesn't mean I can't use a comp gun to build transferable skills though (or that they don't make a decent test bed for equipment, because comp guys are running their shit harder than just about anyone else not doing it for a living).
Interesting how the best military units in the US continue to hire certain USPSA Grand Masters (most of which have zero military experience) to teach them how to be the most effective shooters they can be.
Practicality lost, indeed.
They understand that the skills to run a pistol or a rifle to a high level transfer from sport to war. The only change is the context, and that's where tactics come into play.
Shooting sports that emphasize "tactics" never actually drive improvement in tactics and always end up being a contrived simulation of nothing that can actually be used in the real world. I give you IDPA as exhibit #1.
Practical does not mean "using the same shit I carry day to day in scenarios that are identical to real life". Such has almost no marksmanship training value and zero entertainment value. Because in case you missed it, sports have to be entertaining or no one would do them or watch them.
My fundamentals are weak, weight is my small crutch, and Tripod rear is the big crutch! I hit lots of targets, but I'm just playing the game. I build good positions, have pretty decent natural point of aim, but my body is never still and I always have a fn wobble zone bigger than the target, if I'm physically driving the rifle. I don't like free recoil, but the reticle is mostly still for that. Low positions are okay but one its high kneeling or standing, goes to shit. Have to time my trigger press, which I know is garbage. Bottom line, I need to get better! Currently building a nrl hunter heavy rig(2 barrels), that'll become the new training rig to fix my crap. Should probably take some classes from quality instructors.
Sounds like PRS and NRL are helping you identify your weaknesses and are providing you a place to work on them to get better. We all need more training, so I agree with you on getting more. I need to also.
Why not go with the light rifle (12#) for NRL? Then when you do use a heavy rifle for competition, it’ll be cake.
Babysteps my friend! I'm having my smith cut me two barrels, 6# heavy palma for heavy hunter, and 4# light palma for light hunter. I've got quite a few rifles to play with.
They do hire Grand Masters etc...Why? Because when you are at that level of performance- SF, Delta etc...the TINIEST of things can be an advantage. That doesn't mean that they use ALL of the Gamer techniques on the battlefield, it might be something as simple as a slight grip adjustment- that makes the difference to them in ONE specific scenario, it's a tool.... At the "bleeding edge" of performance tiny, tiny things can matter. Somehow I don't think that applies to most of us, speaking for me and most of the shooters I know anyway.
Which bolsters the point I'm making
Pistol shooting is pistol shooting. There aren't any "gamer" techniques when it comes to shooting a handgun. There is low performance and high performance.
Playing the practical pistol sport involves many other skills besides shooting. Tactics, if you will, to be more effective in a particular context that is not fighting.
That depends on how far along the skills road you are and how much further do you want to go.
The best part of the military using civilians to teach shooting is when the argument gets turned around
Having taught the military from a civilian facility, I can tell you on any given day someone will use it as a positive, and someone will use it as a negative.
The reality is, that it gets them out of the incestuous training cycle the military uses. It opens up minds and gets them outside of the box. You can create training scars with any type of instruction, but by mixing it up you break those scars down to the smallest possible amount.
Some train equipment, some train marksmanship, and some will dabble in tactics, but in most cases, it's just about thinking differently. In military schools, the instructors are nothing more than someone put in the position because they are available. They might have deployed as X, but they never taught before and have no instructor credentials but are there to repeat the course of instruction. How they interpret that course of instruction is debatable too. Some see their job as someone to fail students, and others see their job to pass students, a small but important difference.
Also, there is the payoff aspect too, who pays off the decision-makers with hunts, trips, and equipment so the guys under them will attend courses. That is very real too. That doesn't mean it's right, but it is real.
Having taught the military from a civilian facility, I can tell you on any given day someone will use it as a positive, and someone will use it as a negative.
The reality is, that it gets them out of the incestuous training cycle the military uses. It opens up minds and gets them outside of the box. You can create training scars with any type of instruction, but by mixing it up you break those scars down to the smallest possible amount.
Some train equipment, some train marksmanship, and some will dabble in tactics, but in most cases, it's just about thinking differently. In military schools, the instructors are nothing more than someone put in the position because they are available. They might have deployed as X, but they never taught before and have no instructor credentials but are there to repeat the course of instruction. How they interpret that course of instruction is debatable too. Some see their job as someone to fail students, and others see their job to pass students, a small but important difference.
Also, there is the payoff aspect too, who pays off the decision-makers with hunts, trips, and equipment so the guys under them will attend courses. That is very real too. That doesn't mean it's right, but it is real.
Now if they could just get folks to understand that PsyOps instruction is no different.
Just 'sayin!
Sirhr
PS. Well said!
I'd rather have aloud effective brake than a 2x or 3x the weight gun, but then again I'm used to carrying lots of weight for my size (not body weight wise). Grew up on a ranch that required lots of lifting and throwing calves 4x my weight and some 10x's. Feed sacks weighed 100#, not like these OSHA bags of 50#. When I was in 3rd grade I carried my dad 100 yards on my back and he weighed 220#. That's because he didn't want to get stickers (sand burrs) on his feet. I think he really wanted to see if I could carry him? A balanced 30# gun can feel lighter than an unbalanced gun 1/2 the weight (to me that is, ymmv).
^ Ever do any concrete work or bench presses?
Too heavy for me is when it starts to impede with how I'm hunting. No point in sacrificing stealth/maneuverability.
Too heavy for me is when it starts to impede with how I'm hunting. No point in sacrificing stealth/maneuverability.
Similar threads
