• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Lightweight hunting rifle “build”

Adkhunter3

Sergeant of the Hide
Minuteman
  • Jun 16, 2020
    264
    78
    Earth
    Looking to build or buy a true lightweight rig in 6.5 creedmoor or 308win for mountain hunting. Like to have it under 8pounds (7 would be perfect) with a scope and bipod. Not sure what scope I’m going with yet maybe something along the lines of Bushnell LRHS. I’d like to stay under $2000 but if I get it closer to $1000 that’s just more money for better glass. Here’s what I’m thinking in no particular order:

    *Buy a Tikka T3x superlite bed it in the factory stock. Not really a fan of their factory stocks but maybe bedding would help?

    *Put the above tikka in a manners or McMillan or some other stock but I’m not sure what that would put me at for weight

    *Buy kimber Adirondack. Really light and I like the idea of a 18” barrel for this purpose. It is on the upper end of my budget and my local dealer just said he asked for wait time and they said April 2024…. I hope he’s joking.

    *Barrett Fieldcraft. I never really hear much about this rifle but it fits the criteria.

    *open to any other idea.
     
    To stay on budget my vot would go to tikka and order one of there stocks that works with factory bottom metal. For glass I picked up a vortex razor lht and love it
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Chickentoast
    My vote would also be a Tikka some type of lightweight stock.

    My buddy had a Kimber rifle (forget the model) but we were both thoroughly unimpressed with the fit and finish and the accuracy out of it. He sold it and bought a Tikka and had $400 left towards some glass
     
    That weight and price combo is not realistic in my opinion. The bipod and that scope together are probably around 2.5-3lbs with rings and bipod mount. Less weight means more money.

    Most light-ish guns are 6.5lbs. Getting lower probably means getting a Kimber or a custom build. I'd personally use a lighter scope and accept a little more weight and a whole world of options opens up to you. Tikka Lite/Superlite (Make sure to account for suppressor mounting if you're running one), Sig Cross, Browning Hells' Canyon, etc.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Jigstick
    there are adds for almost just that price range of lightweight rifles Springfield armory model 2020 que the angelic music I'll take 1 % of the sales lol at least it's something to look at at the least . best of luck finding exactly what your looking for and even better luck finding ammo .
     
    I built this one on a model 70 classic stainless featherweight. Cut the barrel to 20”, blind mag McMillan edge, tally lightweights and a Leupold 2.5-8x36. It’s 6.6 pounds as shown so you’re gonna be quite a bit heavier with the configuration you’re looking at. The fieldcraft would be my choice if you can find one in a cartridge you like
    26C1E33D-1950-4027-BCC6-DC58510AA26E.jpeg
     
    • Love
    • Like
    Reactions: Twinsen and SQ54
    More than you want to spend but it would make 8#s

     
    Tikka Lite or Superlite in whatever flavor you want. Buy carbon fiber stock or lightweight chassis. Buy whatever hunting scope you like and mounts. Will be light enough to carry anywhere you need to go unless the goal is a weight goal for storytelling. I have experience with Mesa Altitude stock and XLR 3.0 chassis. Both are awesome and light enough for this flatlander to carry up the hills in Montana. Chassis may be pretty cold during rifle season. I wouldn't mind trying out the Waypoint Carbon setup though. The weight of the rifle won't be what breaks you down unless you are carrying a full setup PRS rifle for hunting.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Bakwa
    Kimbers have been hit or miss for me. Hence the term... Kimber Roulette. Sold them all.

    Owne(d) a few Barrett Fieldcrafts. Perfect for what you want, but be prepared to pay at least $2K for a used 6.5CM. I know someone who has possibly the last NIB Fieldcraft in 6.5CM sitting in his safe unfired. Not sure if he wants to part with it though.

    Tikka T3x is the best lightweight bang for the buck. Got mine thinking like you that I would replace the stock, but after shooting it.... how much can you improve on 1/2 moa. I learned to like the Tupperware.

    Talley lightweight 1 piece rings/bases. Skip the bipod. My NXS 2.5-10x32 sits perfect on the Tikka and Barrett. SHV 3-10x42 would work well also.
     
    Last edited:
    If you're really trying to go light weight, you have to recognize that your three biggest areas to lose or gain weight are:
    - Barrel
    - Stock
    - Scope

    I've watched a couple guys locally try to do "light weight" builds with nice light barrels, but then drop them in a heavy stock and mount a 25 oz scope and wonder why their "light weight" gun weighs 9-10 lb. If you're really going for light weight there are trade-offs to be made for losing weight; just have to decide where that compromise works for you.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 300zx_tt
    Tikkas shoot fine out of the box. That stock actually works well for what it is. I'd leave it in the factory stock and hunt. The scope is going to depend on the ranges you'll be hunting, but I think that realistically a 4-12 or 3-15 is more than enough for 98 percent of the average hunting situations.

    As an afterthought, that Barrett will bust your budget. And the Kimber is close. You'll be buying a Quigley Ford scope to stay within your budget.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Yondering
    Tikka in a mesa precision stock would be your best bet. Just put one together for a buddy with a proof research prefit. Skip the prefit and get the mesa stock with the barrel inlet for the factory barrel profile.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Bakwa
    I have a tikka lite in 6.5 with a nightforce 2.5-10 on it and it is 8 lbs 10 Oz. It is very nice and light.

    This is an example of what I was talking about above. A light rifle with a heavy scope, ending up heavier than a lot of common hunting rifles. A 6 lb rifle is “nice and light”; an 8.5+ lb rifle is not, by most standards.

    To each their own and if a guy is used to 15-20 lb bench guns then anything under 10 lb probably seems light, but for those looking for a rifle that is actually light weight, you have to pay attention to the weight of every piece on it, including the scope and mounts.
     
    This is an example of what I was talking about above. A light rifle with a heavy scope, ending up heavier than a lot of common hunting rifles. A 6 lb rifle is “nice and light”; an 8.5+ lb rifle is not, by most standards.

    To each their own and if a guy is used to 15-20 lb bench guns then anything under 10 lb probably seems light, but for those looking for a rifle that is actually light weight, you have to pay attention to the weight of every piece on it, including the scope and mounts.
    The rifle istelf isn't 8.5+lbs. The finished product is. Which is a fairly light system.
    The rifle itself is 6.6lbs. Which is light. The NXS is also pretty light for a field ready durable optic at 20oz. That means the owner has ~1lb of rail/rings and accessories on the gun. You could cut that down a bit if you really needed to.

    If you had to save every ounce then you could buy a Kimber Adirondack which is just under 5lbs. But they cost $1700+ if you can find one. Then use something like a SWFA 2.5-10 ultralight which is under 10oz. Buy some super light weight rings/mounts... Then you'll have spent over $2500 for something that's about a pound less than the Tikka setup above, but with inferior optic, probably harder to shoot, etc...
    I don't think ~1lb matters that much on a complete rifle system. Just buy a lighter hatchet, field knife, camp chair, tripod, jacket, etc.. and save the weight there.

    I hike in/hike out too. I understand that ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain. I just think that people unnecessarily obsess over ounces on their rifle setup way more than they should. And certainly way more than they probably obsess over the same weight savings in the rest of their gear setup.

    Cheers
     
    Last edited:
    Tikka compact, Talley one piece aluminum rings and one of the Leupold light weight offerings. It will more than get the job done.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Yondering
    This is an example of what I was talking about above. A light rifle with a heavy scope, ending up heavier than a lot of common hunting rifles. A 6 lb rifle is “nice and light”; an 8.5+ lb rifle is not, by most standards.

    To each their own and if a guy is used to 15-20 lb bench guns then anything under 10 lb probably seems light, but for those looking for a rifle that is actually light weight, you have to pay attention to the weight of every piece on it, including the scope and mounts.

    My Barrett Fieldcraft in .308 destroyed 2 Leupolds (Vari X-II and VX-III), Zeiss Conquest, Maven RS.2, Swarovski 3-9x40, and the SWFA was a no-go because of short eye relief. NF at 20 oz is the lightest optic I have that hasn't shit the bed. That's not to say that those mentioned WILL shit the bed, but I have read, and experienced too often how lightweight rifles have destroyed lightweight scopes that I won't take the chance again.

    OP... there are some great suggestions and information here for you to make an informed decision. Please keep the thread updated and add pics of the completed rig.

    Will
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Bakwa
    Tikka in a mesa precision stock would be your best bet. Just put one together for a buddy with a proof research prefit. Skip the prefit and get the mesa stock with the barrel inlet for the factory barrel profile.
    i have both, tikka 300wsm with mesa altitude and factory barrel, and tikka 6.5 creed with mesa altitude and proof carbon prefit barrel. love both.

    although i am thinking about swapping out the 300wsm barrel to a proof carbon prefit but not sure how much hassle it would be to hog out the stock for the fatter barrel?
     
    Drop the bipod, just find your best "bones only" position. Not a lot of level ground in the mountains anyway !

    Ruthlessly strip away weight !

    ==
    As to scope mount/rings, try to find some rings that mount directly to the receiver, bypassing the weight of a scope base.


    ==

    So then for the scope and the bipod, you've got 3.2 oz tied up in the rings, then if the scope can be kept under 12.8 oz then you've only spent 1 LB on the scope. So that leaves 6.5 lbs for the rifle. With a featherweight barrel, 2 maybe 2.5 lbs for the barrel and something for recoil lug. Featherweight gives about 3 shots, so I hear, though I've never had one.

    That would leave you with about 4 lbs for the action and stock !
     
    My Sig Cross is right at 6.5lbs for the base rifle in .308. Haven’t taken it out hunting yet but very pleased with it so far.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Average guy
    Remington used to make a short action Model 7 in a SS and AWR Custom Shop version in 308.
    With a Leupold 1&3/4-6 scope and Leupold mounts the combo is less than 7&1/2#.
    I have Model 7 SS in 7mm-08 and the AWR in 300 SAUM.
    I should have purchased the Model 7SS in 308 because the 300 kicks like hell.
    The 7mm-08 is a pussy cat compared to the SAUM.
    But a one shot on deer and two shot on bear, hence the 300 SAUM.
    Accuracy is more than sufficient for hunting.
    I saw an AWR Model 7 in 300 Win Mag show up on GB a month or so ago.
    So they are around.
    -Richard
     
    i have both, tikka 300wsm with mesa altitude and factory barrel, and tikka 6.5 creed with mesa altitude and proof carbon prefit barrel. love both.

    although i am thinking about swapping out the 300wsm barrel to a proof carbon prefit but not sure how much hassle it would be to hog out the stock for the fatter barrel?
    Short section of a dowel or sockets wrapped in sandpaper. Sockets are easier so you can adjust size as needed. Start with heavy grit then work your way down. Takes a while but works well.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Yondering
    Get one of the tikka superlight and bed the factory stock. the proof won't save you any weight in that case and may actually cost you some. those factory super light barrels are generally very good and already about as light as you can get. A non adjustable carbon stock will cost a lot and save a few ounces over the factory stock, so that's your choice. talley light weight mounts and a razor LHT 3-15 and you'd be right about where you want. Tikka has done a very good job of making those rifles very light and still very accurate. you'll spend a whole bunch of money trying to beat their recipe and maybe only end up ounces ahead and thousands of dollars behind.
     
    The rifle istelf isn't 8.5+lbs. The finished product is.

    Obviously.

    But no, 8.5 lb finished is not “very light”. It’s funny that some of you think it is, but that’s a matter of perspective. The average bubba wandering the woods with a Ruger American or Tikka and cheap Cabelas scope has a lighter setup than that; you can do better with smarter weight conscious choices.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Twinsen and Bakwa
    You said up to 2k, if you can stretch your budget the Christensen Ridgeline Ti 22" 6.5cm or 308 is 5.8 lbs.

    A 308 is on gunbroker for $2395 no cc fee. 6.5 at 2500.

    Maybe there is a commercial supporter on here that can match that for you.

    https://www.gunbroker.com/item/910268021


    Christensen Mesa Ti is 6.1 lbs and can be had for $1659 no cc fee free shipping.

    https://www.gunbroker.com/item/912699442
     
    Last edited:
    You said up to 2k, if you can stretch your budget the Christensen Ridgeline Ti 22" 6.5cm or 308 is 5.8 lbs.

    A 308 is on gunbroker for $2395 no cc fee. 6.5 at 2500.

    Maybe there is a commercial supporter on here that can match that for you.

    https://www.gunbroker.com/item/910268021
    A tikka supper super light is about the same weight, mine came in at 5.87lbs in 7 mag -- but no brake.. Good scopes are what add the weight in most cases.
     
    Euro has a 308 Ridgeline (not TI) in stock.


    ==
    I think we all see the value of a FFP is fairly proven. I'd add a good FFP over pure weight.
    For me, SFP for pure weight AND for fast aiming on low powah [/quote]

    I've seen a lot of hunters totally get screwed on partial zooms

    I haven't :)

    I lilke 3x powah ration SFPs, since I can even use the hash marks (if there are any) on low powah (at 3x value). I like the previously mentioned L&S mk4 2.5-8x TMR Illum, for instance, though I'd want a little more on a 308. Not much more. This one's a little on the heavy side, but it's also light on the cost side.


    But when hunting, inside 300yds, I'm using the critter as the reticle.
     
    For me, SFP for pure weight AND for fast aiming on low powah

    Every time I hear this I think. Well, I guess that just doesn't matter what I think, but if you choose your FFP wisely you'll click on daylight illum and have a fully functional duplex or in some ways a functional red dot hybrid. How is an SFP or duplex faster than that?

    Now, we don't need to come back with "I lose my wind holds" or such, as min power is primarily for closer ranges and spotting. Why not have the best of both worlds with modern tools. Obviously, they is a time where a shotgun is better, or a duplex is just fine; but it seems most guys needing a really lightweight rifle are usually mountain hunting with cross canon shots a real possibility.
     
    For my wife’s ultra lite build (204 ruger) I went with a manners ultra classic, Defiance anTI, Talley mounts, S&B ultra klassik 3-12 FFP, Benchmark featherweight 19”. I’m also getting a 7mm-08 bartlein 2B spun for a switch barrel. Should be below 7.5 lbs with optic.

    For a budget build - tikka superlite barreled action, Wildcat ultra light Tikka t3x stock and call it a day. Or even just a straight Tikka superlite.
     
    I've got a running Excel spreadsheet with component weights from an ultralight hunting rifle project I put together at the tail end of 2019, and have been keeping my eye on things ever since. I personally ended up with a Savage Axis cut & threaded to 16" for a suppressor, but if that's not in your cards, then all the advice for "Tikka and be done with it" is solid.

    On the optics side of the house, it might be worth a look at the Leupold VX-3HD - at 13.4oz, it would pair well with the 1 peice lightweight Talley mount/ring combos already recommended for a solid and lightweight optics package. Even better on the Tikka, which has an actual short action (compared to the Savage Axis, which is a universal long action, makes for less room for adjustment fore-to-aft for your scope eyebox). Also, this new-ish Leupold is pretty reasonable at right around $600.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Yondering
    Another great low weight hunting scope is the Accupoint 3-9x40 mildot on a 1" tube. You can still dial (I think 12 moa per turn) or use the mil dot holdovers. It weights nothing (12oz I believe) and still has good low light glass, fiber optic illum and fairly rugged.

    My wife's friend who has an original Savage Axis had issues because of the stock and the direct mount rings wouldn't allow the scope to be all the way aft so I had to install picatinny rail to allow her 50$ 3-9 Banner scope to have ok eye relief (still a terrible scope with terrible parallax and terrible everything - but she gets her deer every year with it so she's happy). That being said, I was immensely impressed at how accurate they were when I mounted my Accupoint just to test, and did the 3.5 lbs trigger spring mod (the original pull was 7lbs - unbelievable in a bolt gun) - Had no issues shooting 3/4-1" with Federal 140 gameshock. Did even better with Hornady 120 SST lite recoil. For a budget build, with a bit of TLC ... they do fine. I do think it's possible with heavy bipod loading that the stock might flex enough to rub on the barrel and cause a poi shift but it could also be me not being used to such a heavy trigger.
     
    Another option, but I do like the Tikka SL / Vortex LHT combo...

     
    Now, we don't need to come back with "I lose my wind holds" or such, as min power is primarily for closer ranges and spotting.

    You answered your own question right there. Why settle for the additional weight and cost of a FFP optic if the low power isn’t used for holds anyway? That’s why SFP is still popular for some applications; it’s not ‘cause people choosing SFP are dumb or something. In those applications, there’s no real advantage to FFP, and definitely some disadvantage.

    Obviously in other applications FFP is superior. It just depends what the rifle is being used for, and how, and by who. Plenty of room there for different situations than yours. Thinking one or the other is always superior to the other just points out a limited range of experience.
     
    Last edited:
    Browning Hells Canyon Speed 6lb 5oz
    SWFA 3-9 20oz
    I have Warne steel bases and rings but could use Aluminum to save some ounces. I really like this setup.

    8573E7C3-F44B-4DB8-B9DE-FD724EBBC7F3.jpeg


    I also have a Howa Alpine but they don’t make them anymore but their Carbon fiber series would be worth a look. My Howa puts factory 120NBT ammo into 1/2 to 5/8 MOA groups for 5 shots With a 6x SWFA.
     
    Tikka T3, Talley LW, LRHS.

    Works every time.

    4 friends use the same rifle/rings with 2 using different scopes.

    All have many mtn miles. All bang out sub moa groups with zero and dope checks. Many many dead critters.

    And if that set up is too heavy, well, stay home.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 260284 and st1650
    Another good data point for the OP, who was also looking for a bipod in the sub-8lb finished weight: The B&T BT-22297 only weighs like 8oz. I see them specced out on various contract rifles, allegedly on the French adoption of the HK416 and some B&T offerings, which I mention due to the VERY light weight compared to the other options I would otherwise consider. Given the rifles we're talking about here, you'll probably also need a small section of pic rail on the front of your handguard, which will add some more weight but might also be a welcome hunting feature if you ever go for a carbon fiber tripod as part of your kit.

     
    Those bringing up Kimber “issues” that is a thing of the past. It was over a decade ago now that they were putting out rifles that didn’t shoot and it was isolated to a few calibers. They got some bad barrels and they got put on guns over a period of time. What they have been making for the last decade has been as solid as anything else, I’m sure from time to time a dud still comes through just like any manufacturer, but it’s not a problem.

    They are very accurate rifles. You also have to consider that the Kimber Montana was kind of the OG ultralight rifle and light rifles are not easy to shoot accurately as a heavier gun for multiple reasons. Lots of people bought them and there’s a lot of people that suck at pulling a trigger. I actually got a 7WSM Montana (my first Montana) second hand for $500 that the seller claimed didn’t shoot. That fucker shot sub MOA with cheap Winchester power point and 1/2moa with hand loads... It was the Indian, not the arrow but that guy I got it from probably still believes to this day that the rifle was a POS when it wasn’t. FWIW I’ve had 4 Montana’s (223, 243, 7WSM, 308) and all of them have been exceptionally accurate. My only complaint about them is the blind box magazine, it’s not the Kimbers that’s bad, I just don’t like any of them because they’re a PITA to unload. That’s to save weight though and a lot of the ultralights have blind mags so it is what it is.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Yondering
    You answered your own question right there. Why settle for the additional weight and cost of a FFP optic if the low power isn’t used for holds anyway? That’s why SFP is still popular for some applications; it’s not ‘cause people choosing SFP are dumb or something. In those applications, there’s no real advantage to FFP, and definitely some disadvantage.

    Obviously in other applications FFP is superior. It just depends what the rifle is being used for, and how, and by who. Plenty of room there for different situations than yours. Thinking one or the other is always superior to the other just points out a limited range of experience.
    That’s exactly what I posted ie “shotguns” are better in some situations.

    Refecting on what the OP stated "Looking to build or buy a true lightweight rig in 6.5 creedmoor or 308win for mountain hunting."

    But let’s be honest, 100% of the people I ever talked to in person that is trying to build a pricey true lightweight rifle and willing to put up with the extra felt recoil are doing so because they are packing it and usually in the mountains where the ranges tend to be longer, cross canyon shots are probable, etc., dealing with sun-induced lens flair and wind or similar situations in the plans. Most of these combinations require the user to be lower than max power but nowhere near minimum zoom. In these cases, SFP and BCD drop scopes are clearly handicapped. Sure you can set this rifle up for a jump shot, but these lightweight somewhat pricy builds usually are not purposefully built for super dense areas.

    I'd encourage someone building a lightweight rifle to consider the extra 8oz or so a good light FFP adds for the benefit it delivers if the gun is being used to hunt in the West or in the Mountains; well any place longer shots are a possibility. You can lose more than the 8-10oz somewhere else be it by going to a combination of lighter items and often just one item in your total pack out. You can sub a sling for a gun bearer, lose the bipod altogether and use the same tripod you do for spotting, changing out your pack to something like the modern high-tech uber light load carrying bags like from Stone Glacier or KUIU and others - you name it. There are a lot of ways to lose weight, hell, I need to stop drinking beer.

    My point remains the same, it's wise to build the gun so it hits what you're aiming at with the minimum effort rather than just chase 100% numbers on paper. As an example you might want to add a Ti brake for a couple of ounces so you can shoot and see your impact, that's incredibly useful; maybe it's a better scope. Just food for thought -- again during Elk season I see horrible longer shoots by guys using SFPs and BDC, almost always people forget what zoom they are on in the adrenaline-induced moments. I'll be the first to say that this is more to do with the fact that so many hunters still use SFP than the equipment itself, I am probably just seeing less practiced individuals; either way, it's very sad.

    OP be careful because a lot of people are talking bare rifle weight. I think with the GAP suggested Bushnell LRHS FFP you mentioned, you're on to a good scope choice except it does not feature illumination and is a hair tighter in FOV that I personally like. At 28oz you can shave a lot of weight by going to the Razor HD LHT 4.5-22FFP at 22oz; Illuminated with a similar FOV 23.5' @ 100. In the same weight as your LRHS, you can do a genII 3-15 illuminated with 41' FOV. Again in the mountains, high FOV is not a huge issue for most people. I am running an MK5HD 3.6-18 illuminated at 26oz with 28+' FOV @ 100. The March is lighter at 24oz, but I do not like the reticle or the illumination and the eye box is a hair more finicky.

    My impetus for typing so much is to provide something to think about. I've seen a lot of my friends do as I did at one point or another and think they needed the very lightest of the light, only to find they struggled truly shooting it well long-range and just couldn't practice enough with them. For me balance of features and shoot-ability in building a lightweight mountain rig is key.

    Here is one of my hunting guns it's a magnum for Elk, in general, magnum rifles with their longer action and longer barrels tend to have higher base weights, I'll share my compromises: I added weight in these areas, I am running a big Ti brake at 1.3oz, 26oz FFP with illuminated reticle, Ti action rails vs hard mount, a longer carbon barrel (more weight). 3oz 10" 1.5 Dovetail (shooters better off a backpack and of course is tripod ready, 2 oz Sidewinder dope card, 1.5oz SAP 2 round holder (this is not always used), more robust scope rings. The Manners Carbon Elite came in below (lighter) than specs, the carbon bold knob, skeletonized bolt, and fluted bolt save only maybe 2oz, and most was in the bolt knob over my badger. I find that between my rifle that sits at 7.8lbs in the same caliber with a shorter pencil barrel, no brake, and this one at 8lbs-14oz. One I can shoot ragged holes, see animal flesh move when hit, and the other I can barely practice with. Both guns seem equally heavy when tired, one gun inspires confidence the other I need someone to tell me where I hit, especially if off a tripod. I added a lot of features for that 1 pound penalty. My pack choice alone gained me back that and then some, just as my rain gear and other items do. It's the full system you want to consider. It's my entire system that lets me carry lighter than a lot of people, even though my preferred rifle choice is not Uber light, However, it is very light for what it is.


    7mag in tree.jpg
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: rickp and MCHOG
    That’s exactly what I posted ie “shotguns” are better in some situations.

    Refecting on what the OP stated "Looking to build or buy a true lightweight rig in 6.5 creedmoor or 308win for mountain hunting."

    But let’s be honest,

    I'll be honest, I don't have much time or patience for people who can't see any perspective except their own.
    There are times to use a FFP optic, and I have plenty of them myself, but there are some very good reasons to use a SFP optic when building a light weight rifle. Some of the same reasons dictate not using a big 18x optic as well; plenty of animals have been killed successfully with a SFP 3-9x or 4-12x, etc. If you get away from the huge magnification ranges, there's a lot less reason to argue for FFP anyway, and way too many people try to compensate for lack of skill with high magnification.
     
    Kinda depends on the hunt. What type of terrain, how much walking you'll be doing, how much climbing, will it be a day trip or a several day trip. What's the typical distance that a shot will be taken. And of course what game. There are a zillion variables.

    It seems most hunters today are choosing their rifles based on different criteria and I credit modern marketing for that.

    What do we really need? Tough, durable, MOA accurate would be nice but overkill (I mention it because I can't think of a hunting rifle made today at any price point where 1moa isn't achievable with todays great ammo or handloads), a sighting device appropriate for the distance. And a sling. Anything else? I carry a pack with field dressing equipment, survival equipment, first aid, food water, etc.. it makes a great bipod substitute. I have several packs equipped for different hunts. They're my life line and appropriately they cost more than the rifle I'll end up pairing with it. Quality lightweight field gear is where my money will go before anything more than basic for a rifle. Don't get me wrong, I have expensive hand built rifles, but not for hunting. When I'm sliding down a 15-20% slope trying to stay on my feet while using my "hunting rifle" dug in to keep me upright, I don't want to be thinking or even caring what cosmetic damage my hunting rifle is taking.

    My fathers rifles I think are the epitome of what constitutes a practical hunting rifle. Three field grade Savage 110's with very smooth crisp triggers at roughly 5lbs. He maintained those triggers to be silky smooth and crisp, not lightweight. Leupold 3-9x42mm early 1960's vintage scopes with duplex reticles, SFP, with heavy steel rings. There is a single well broken in sling for all three rifles, since he could only shoot one at a time that worked out. One was his Elk and bigger gun in .300winmag, a .243win for medium deer down to a large critter like a coyote. And a .30-06 Springfield for everything else. Pretty sure the last two years excepted, you could find ammo for these just about anywhere. Even garage sales. With a sling the heaviest is 6.25lbs.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: canineteeth
    I'll be honest, I don't have much time or patience for people who can't see any perspective except their own.
    There are times to use a FFP optic, and I have plenty of them myself, but there are some very good reasons to use a SFP optic when building a light weight rifle. Some of the same reasons dictate not using a big 18x optic as well; plenty of animals have been killed successfully with a SFP 3-9x or 4-12x, etc. If you get away from the huge magnification ranges, there's a lot less reason to argue for FFP anyway, and way too many people try to compensate for lack of skill with high magnification.
    FWIW I was addressing the OP's direct comments as he also choose a FFP with "maybe something along the lines of Bushnell LRHS" and the majority of the people showing and suggesting low-cost SFP scopes to keep the weight down. While I seldom compete above 12x and probably have not shot above 10-12x on an animal even nearing 1K, I don't mind having extra magnification to look at Tines or even when doing load-workup.

    I am not saying SPF is stupid for every use, but rather, suggesting one look at the entire build as part of your pack in pack out for Mountains. Chasing weight blindly in the rifle is NOT always the best solution, If you have an issue with the information I've provided, I am really sorry. Again, I was addressing the Ops questions with real information, so maybe my perspective and answer to his question weren't even talking about your use.

    Yes, many animals have been killed with SPF, but it's probably worth noticing that the range of animals are being taken in the Mountains has jumped drastically in the least 3-4 seasons with practiced skill-sets, better ammunition, and scopes.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Dobermann