-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky
- Thread starter TomS308
- Start date
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky
When I turned 30 I started listening to people talk about how much their gear weighed. When I turned 40 I started noticing how much gear weighed. When I
turned 50 I quit buying shit that was too heavy.
When I turned 30 I started listening to people talk about how much their gear weighed. When I turned 40 I started noticing how much gear weighed. When I
turned 50 I quit buying shit that was too heavy.
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky
Well said bigwheeler!! I used to pack a heavy tactical rifle around too. After a couple of years at the D&L shoot in Wyoming at near 5000ft elevation and 100+ degree heat I decided that heavy rifle wasn't so cool after all. I did just as well with a varmint weight barrel as I did with a #7 and it sure as hell was a lot nicer to carry and handle esp off hand.
Well said bigwheeler!! I used to pack a heavy tactical rifle around too. After a couple of years at the D&L shoot in Wyoming at near 5000ft elevation and 100+ degree heat I decided that heavy rifle wasn't so cool after all. I did just as well with a varmint weight barrel as I did with a #7 and it sure as hell was a lot nicer to carry and handle esp off hand.
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky
Cartman has a way of simplifying even the most complicated issues. Hats off to him.
I do a lot of road biking. For instance I got in 600 miles in August alone. I regularly climb hills that are anywhere from 2.5 miles to almost 4 miles in length. In September, I competed in a race that saw two riders lifeflighted to the hospital and 7 others evacuated by ambulance. I write all of this to illustrate that I'm a pretty active kind of person. I'm not the toughest guy in the world but I figure at my age (over 50) I'm doing pretty good.
Now some of you instantly (and condescendingly) suggested Gold's Gym or buy a sling. Well, my opinion is that these rifles ARE too heavy. I've got two 15 pounders and they go nowhere except groundhog hunting where I'm pretty static. If I could find a lighter rifle that I was confident was just as accurate, I'd buy 'em in a heartbeat.
And if the only terrain I had to hump was flatland, I'd probably put up with a 14+lb rifle. But try climbing up hills and going down into the holler's. Oh, it's a different story all of a sudden.
Maybe when some of you he-men get older and your body starts wearing out, you'll start posting threads to online forums that say "Man, the weight of this rifle is KILLING ME" Hope I'm around to say I told you so.
Cartman has a way of simplifying even the most complicated issues. Hats off to him.
I do a lot of road biking. For instance I got in 600 miles in August alone. I regularly climb hills that are anywhere from 2.5 miles to almost 4 miles in length. In September, I competed in a race that saw two riders lifeflighted to the hospital and 7 others evacuated by ambulance. I write all of this to illustrate that I'm a pretty active kind of person. I'm not the toughest guy in the world but I figure at my age (over 50) I'm doing pretty good.
Now some of you instantly (and condescendingly) suggested Gold's Gym or buy a sling. Well, my opinion is that these rifles ARE too heavy. I've got two 15 pounders and they go nowhere except groundhog hunting where I'm pretty static. If I could find a lighter rifle that I was confident was just as accurate, I'd buy 'em in a heartbeat.
And if the only terrain I had to hump was flatland, I'd probably put up with a 14+lb rifle. But try climbing up hills and going down into the holler's. Oh, it's a different story all of a sudden.
Maybe when some of you he-men get older and your body starts wearing out, you'll start posting threads to online forums that say "Man, the weight of this rifle is KILLING ME" Hope I'm around to say I told you so.
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky
On the technical side experienced shooters would calculate the weight that the rifle needed by using 1 pound in rifle weight for every 200 foot pounds of bullet energy at the muzzle for optimizing the rifle's potential. Thus a 300 Win Mag with a muzzle energy of 3549 foot pounds equals a weight of around 17 1/2 pounds.
On the technical side experienced shooters would calculate the weight that the rifle needed by using 1 pound in rifle weight for every 200 foot pounds of bullet energy at the muzzle for optimizing the rifle's potential. Thus a 300 Win Mag with a muzzle energy of 3549 foot pounds equals a weight of around 17 1/2 pounds.
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky
despite my earlier post, I found myself "shimmying" across a fallen tree over a flooded creek to go hunting the other day. I was thinking, " if I fall off this thing this rifle is going to drown me" so to each their own. but the other 9 months out of the year I am shooting steel and varmints, so my rig is set that way.
It makes you wonder, when your stock maker offers a sling with "backpack" straps on it.
despite my earlier post, I found myself "shimmying" across a fallen tree over a flooded creek to go hunting the other day. I was thinking, " if I fall off this thing this rifle is going to drown me" so to each their own. but the other 9 months out of the year I am shooting steel and varmints, so my rig is set that way.
It makes you wonder, when your stock maker offers a sling with "backpack" straps on it.
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky
Durability is more important than weight. While yes it sucks to haul a 14lb rifle, at least itll work when it gets there. An if the MG and Karl Gustav gunners can do it, well than so can I
Durability is more important than weight. While yes it sucks to haul a 14lb rifle, at least itll work when it gets there. An if the MG and Karl Gustav gunners can do it, well than so can I
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marshallwk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Durability is more important than weight. While yes it sucks to haul a 14lb rifle, at least itll work when it gets there. An if the MG and Karl Gustav gunners can do it, well than so can I </div></div>
Equating weight and durability is.... wrong.
Is the 19 ounce Nightforce scope less durable that the 34ounce version: not according to Nightforce. Just got a lot more glass and more metal. You could argue the smaller scope is more durable for a couple of reasons.
Is a Kevlar/graphite stock that weights 1.75 lbs less durable than a 2.5 lb fiber-glass stock? Not according to McMillan and they stand behind that with a lifetime warranty.
Is a #7 barrel weighing 7 lbs more durable than a 3.5 lb light palma or 3 lb sporter contour. Not unless you are using the barrel as a crow-bar. Granted you may want a thicker barrel for extended shooting sessions with many shots in a row. But that has nothing to do with durability and a 3.5# light palma barrel will easily let you shoot 20 shots in a row without walking them.
Weight simply does not equate to durability or performance. Look at modern cars. They are MUCH lighter than cars from 30 years ago....and better in just about every way to include safety.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marshallwk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Durability is more important than weight. While yes it sucks to haul a 14lb rifle, at least itll work when it gets there. An if the MG and Karl Gustav gunners can do it, well than so can I </div></div>
Equating weight and durability is.... wrong.
Is the 19 ounce Nightforce scope less durable that the 34ounce version: not according to Nightforce. Just got a lot more glass and more metal. You could argue the smaller scope is more durable for a couple of reasons.
Is a Kevlar/graphite stock that weights 1.75 lbs less durable than a 2.5 lb fiber-glass stock? Not according to McMillan and they stand behind that with a lifetime warranty.
Is a #7 barrel weighing 7 lbs more durable than a 3.5 lb light palma or 3 lb sporter contour. Not unless you are using the barrel as a crow-bar. Granted you may want a thicker barrel for extended shooting sessions with many shots in a row. But that has nothing to do with durability and a 3.5# light palma barrel will easily let you shoot 20 shots in a row without walking them.
Weight simply does not equate to durability or performance. Look at modern cars. They are MUCH lighter than cars from 30 years ago....and better in just about every way to include safety.
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky
I weigh 180 pounds and I am 58.
I can do one chin up.
I can pick up a 150 pound tool and carry it around the shop.
I can do a 300 vertical feet loop on a mountain bike in 15 minutes.
When I start out hunting with a rifle that weighs 9 pounds with scope, sling, and bi pod, it does not seem to weigh anything.
After 3 hours, 6 horizontal miles, 1000 vertical feet and back, I am switching the rifle from shoulder to shoulder every few minutes.
I have built a number of 20 pound rifles that have only gone from my car to the bench at the range.
The M14 was replaced by the M16 because the rifle + ammo of the same weight meant more ammo.
I know someone who wants to buy a 50BMG, but he only weighs 110 pounds. I am telling, "Lift one before you order one. They weigh 20 to 40 pounds!"
I know he can lift a shaper vise of his own weight, and put it in his car, but how far can you carry your own weight?
I tried to drag a deer in November, but I only got it 50 feet in 1/2 hour. I went and got help.
The Roman soldier carried 66 pounds.
The American soldier is carrying 91 pounds.
What does it all mean?
You can drag around as heavy a gun as you want.
"How far can you get with it?" is what you must ask yourself.
I weigh 180 pounds and I am 58.
I can do one chin up.
I can pick up a 150 pound tool and carry it around the shop.
I can do a 300 vertical feet loop on a mountain bike in 15 minutes.
When I start out hunting with a rifle that weighs 9 pounds with scope, sling, and bi pod, it does not seem to weigh anything.
After 3 hours, 6 horizontal miles, 1000 vertical feet and back, I am switching the rifle from shoulder to shoulder every few minutes.
I have built a number of 20 pound rifles that have only gone from my car to the bench at the range.
The M14 was replaced by the M16 because the rifle + ammo of the same weight meant more ammo.
I know someone who wants to buy a 50BMG, but he only weighs 110 pounds. I am telling, "Lift one before you order one. They weigh 20 to 40 pounds!"
I know he can lift a shaper vise of his own weight, and put it in his car, but how far can you carry your own weight?
I tried to drag a deer in November, but I only got it 50 feet in 1/2 hour. I went and got help.
The Roman soldier carried 66 pounds.
The American soldier is carrying 91 pounds.
What does it all mean?
You can drag around as heavy a gun as you want.
"How far can you get with it?" is what you must ask yourself.
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scooter-PIE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Equating weight and durability is.... wrong.
</div></div>
I agree. For non-mil work (hunting and ranges) I think weight is personal preference. If the gun goes from truck to firing line back to truck, and does what you want it to do, then let it weigh 20lbs. If you're humping it through the mountains, I would think you would prefer a bit lighter of a weapon. Reliability and accuracy do not directly correlate with weight. If you gun does what you want it to do and you do not find the weight to be a limiting factor then you are probably ok.
As for mil applications (and to some extent leo) weight is an issue. Vehicles and aircraft can only carry so much weight. Just like with body armor, you have to strike a balance between pros (protection level, mobility) and cons (weight, cost). I would not argue that civilian "heavy" rifles are hands-down better than a lighter-weight mil precision rifle.
In the civie world, IMHO weight is a personal preference. If the weight of your system doesn't bother you and you get acceptable results in your application, then drive on and who gives a shit what someone else says. Just don't let them shoot your gun.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scooter-PIE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Equating weight and durability is.... wrong.
</div></div>
I agree. For non-mil work (hunting and ranges) I think weight is personal preference. If the gun goes from truck to firing line back to truck, and does what you want it to do, then let it weigh 20lbs. If you're humping it through the mountains, I would think you would prefer a bit lighter of a weapon. Reliability and accuracy do not directly correlate with weight. If you gun does what you want it to do and you do not find the weight to be a limiting factor then you are probably ok.
As for mil applications (and to some extent leo) weight is an issue. Vehicles and aircraft can only carry so much weight. Just like with body armor, you have to strike a balance between pros (protection level, mobility) and cons (weight, cost). I would not argue that civilian "heavy" rifles are hands-down better than a lighter-weight mil precision rifle.
In the civie world, IMHO weight is a personal preference. If the weight of your system doesn't bother you and you get acceptable results in your application, then drive on and who gives a shit what someone else says. Just don't let them shoot your gun.
