I recently watched a video within this section of a completion (good video by the way) and noticed that there were a few stations where one would have to run with their rifle before shooting as well as shoot off hand. With this in mind I started to wonder what their rifles weighed on average since this would be a pretty large factor in a completion like this. I've recently expressed interest in competing in matches like the one in the video but my rile weighs about 14 pounds, is this too much?
- Thread starter komifornian
- Start date
Don't quote me, but I am sure most rifles being used at 10lbs+. So you can either A) lift weights, or B) build a lighter rifle. I personally would not want to lug around a 14lb rifle no matter how strong I was.
My rifle weighs 16.2lbs. wouldn't mind it a bit heavier for 600 BR comps.
I can carry the rifle without any problem. I just wondered if these guys were using lighter guns for this sort of comp. to gain an advantage.
I doubt they are. Like I said, I can handle a 14lb gun, I just don't want to.
Shit my fattie is 18lbs with optics. That Steiner is heavy and the Mcmillan heavy fill adds up too.
This is my .308...
With the scope, bipod and suppressor it is just over 17#. I've humped it through two Mammoth Cave 3-day matches and other local matches without any problems. I'm a beefy guy though; not in the best shape but I walk every day rain or shine, hike frequently on weekends and do lift weights.
This is my 6.5 Creedmoor...
It isn't much lighter than the .308 rifle. Both rifles have Sendero contour barrels.
I don't think these rifles are too heavy, but they certainly aren't light weight. Like everything in this game, you need to find what works for you. If you go really light weight, look hard at a good brake.
Mark
With the scope, bipod and suppressor it is just over 17#. I've humped it through two Mammoth Cave 3-day matches and other local matches without any problems. I'm a beefy guy though; not in the best shape but I walk every day rain or shine, hike frequently on weekends and do lift weights.
This is my 6.5 Creedmoor...
It isn't much lighter than the .308 rifle. Both rifles have Sendero contour barrels.
I don't think these rifles are too heavy, but they certainly aren't light weight. Like everything in this game, you need to find what works for you. If you go really light weight, look hard at a good brake.
Mark
Personally, I run a nice 'n heavy rig for longer range stuff where I ain't moving around, hence why my big guy is around 18 lbs. with optics. However, I'm with CrazyDonkey on the comp gun as I run a little lighter rig in the 13.5 lb area on the rare occasion I go to a tactical comp. It's not that I can't huff the big boy around (I'm 6'2" 300lbs), it's just that I don't see the point in the extra weight. Besides, I usually run a smaller, lighter caliber, so I don't need the extra poundage to wind me that little bit more. Bein' my size is hard enough as it is.
Yep all my rifles are in the 13-16 pound range without optics. I prefer a heavier rifle but its all about what your accustomed to.
If you've got a good pack, a few pounds more won't make much difference...
a plane prepares to fly off airport.
stewardess makes an announcement:
"Ladies and gentelman. I'm happy to welcome you aboard our Boing 979.
We have 4 floors, bar, disco, restaurant, 2 swimming pools, 1 gym and a food court.
Now, please, switch off your mobile devices and we'll try to take off with all that shit"
mine .308 weights 8.7 lbs (with optics). and i think it's heavy - could shave 5-7 oz more. But again - it's all about your personal perception.
stewardess makes an announcement:
"Ladies and gentelman. I'm happy to welcome you aboard our Boing 979.
We have 4 floors, bar, disco, restaurant, 2 swimming pools, 1 gym and a food court.
Now, please, switch off your mobile devices and we'll try to take off with all that shit"
mine .308 weights 8.7 lbs (with optics). and i think it's heavy - could shave 5-7 oz more. But again - it's all about your personal perception.
I'm 6'1" 230 of muscle. I am in shape. I hump my gear.
I can't speak for the competition guys, but in my circles we are of the belief that most of these "tactical rifles" are getting stupid heavy. And I choose that word specifically....stupid. Especially when you see the rifle is 7.62/308. To me, 14# is not knocking, but seriously kicking in the door, of being too heavy.
I understand why people like them super-heavy. Volume shooting. And each person is different, so it's difficult to put a hard rule on the subject. So my advice would be to get a rifle that is crazy accurate since we are all snobs in that regard. Then position shoot with it. If you can't achieve reasonable accuracy shooing standing and perhaps a tree-squeeze, it's time to start cutting some serious weight.
My justification? Because in the real wold, you will very rarely get a chance at A prone shot. Especially tactical.
I would like to see some of these training courses require the student to hump his rifle back and forth to the target stands.
TTR
I can't speak for the competition guys, but in my circles we are of the belief that most of these "tactical rifles" are getting stupid heavy. And I choose that word specifically....stupid. Especially when you see the rifle is 7.62/308. To me, 14# is not knocking, but seriously kicking in the door, of being too heavy.
I understand why people like them super-heavy. Volume shooting. And each person is different, so it's difficult to put a hard rule on the subject. So my advice would be to get a rifle that is crazy accurate since we are all snobs in that regard. Then position shoot with it. If you can't achieve reasonable accuracy shooing standing and perhaps a tree-squeeze, it's time to start cutting some serious weight.
My justification? Because in the real wold, you will very rarely get a chance at A prone shot. Especially tactical.
I would like to see some of these training courses require the student to hump his rifle back and forth to the target stands.
TTR
To add to this, I only have one rifle now (well it's being put together right now) and it's going to be 9lbs or less with optics and loaded.
No it is not too much, Average is 14-18 pounds. Most of that weight is due to the heavier contour barrel which allow longer strings of fire before accuracy starts to suffer. A 10 round course of fire is pretty common at tactical matches. Some guys use their rifles to do double duty in F class matches where 2 sighters and 20 shots for score is the course of fire. Go shoot 22 rounds with a sporter contour barrel and in the same time frame, same caliber, same bullet, same speed shoot 22 rounds with a heavier "tactical" contour barrel and your groups will be better all other things equal.
Another benefit to a heavier rifle is less recoil. M1 V1 = M2 V2.
Light weight rifles are the norm for hunting where volume fire is not expected. Rifles are tools and should be purpose built and selected for the intended use. I can hammer a screw into a board with a crecent wrench but neither is fit for purpose. Select the proper tool for the job. Trying to cover "all bases" with one tool there will be compromises.
People cheer leading for light guns want to either hunt with them or only shoot a few rounds at a time where long strings of fire with maintained accuracy is not needed.
Guys saying heavy rifles are great, have the need for that volume fire with maintained accuracy and have seen the benefit of the reduction in recoil by carrying a heavy possibly braked or suppred gun.
Truth is that they are both right as both are specific tools geared for specific task. The threads saying I want a hunting gun I can compete with, or a light weight competion rifle, they do not understand it really is not possible. Go get A or B, if you are going for A and B it really will be C with compromises going both ways.
Another benefit to a heavier rifle is less recoil. M1 V1 = M2 V2.
Light weight rifles are the norm for hunting where volume fire is not expected. Rifles are tools and should be purpose built and selected for the intended use. I can hammer a screw into a board with a crecent wrench but neither is fit for purpose. Select the proper tool for the job. Trying to cover "all bases" with one tool there will be compromises.
People cheer leading for light guns want to either hunt with them or only shoot a few rounds at a time where long strings of fire with maintained accuracy is not needed.
Guys saying heavy rifles are great, have the need for that volume fire with maintained accuracy and have seen the benefit of the reduction in recoil by carrying a heavy possibly braked or suppred gun.
Truth is that they are both right as both are specific tools geared for specific task. The threads saying I want a hunting gun I can compete with, or a light weight competion rifle, they do not understand it really is not possible. Go get A or B, if you are going for A and B it really will be C with compromises going both ways.
Last edited:
That is a good point you bring up about strings of fire and the barrel contour. The contour of your barrel is where you will gain or lose the most weight. I don't ever plan on firing over 10 rounds back to back so I have a #3 contour.
I'm 5'11" and weigh 165 pounds. I'm about 6% body fat so I'm mainly muscle and Penis 
My last gun was around 14.5 lbs and it was a delight to carry, this due to the fact that it was balanced well, it definitely felt lighter then 14.5lbs. My new match gun is going to be a few pounds heavier due to my set up. I went Manners folder, M24 fluted, and Leupold Mark 8. It's definitely not going to be light BUT I really prefer a heavier gun because I am so light. It reduces recoil and when positional shooting I (personal opinion) feel that it balances better and provides a more stable shooting position. The only thing that is harder for me is off-hand and that's it. Considering off hand is only 10-20% of my shooting, I go with what works for me the majority of the time. If I want to practice off hand I just shoot my SPR.
My last gun was around 14.5 lbs and it was a delight to carry, this due to the fact that it was balanced well, it definitely felt lighter then 14.5lbs. My new match gun is going to be a few pounds heavier due to my set up. I went Manners folder, M24 fluted, and Leupold Mark 8. It's definitely not going to be light BUT I really prefer a heavier gun because I am so light. It reduces recoil and when positional shooting I (personal opinion) feel that it balances better and provides a more stable shooting position. The only thing that is harder for me is off-hand and that's it. Considering off hand is only 10-20% of my shooting, I go with what works for me the majority of the time. If I want to practice off hand I just shoot my SPR.
Last edited:
You would certainly have more to offer on the subject. And I agree with the general statement of what you are saying. But you would at least have to concede that too many civilian consumers of the tactical rifles don't even consider the subject. They purchase, use and think about these rifles in very similar ways as Bench Rest Shooters. Camouflage bench rest rifles? Not kidding.
I am merely saying get the most accurate rifle you can put together. Put the weight in the barrel and the action. Maybe think twice about the fiberglass stock? Maybe think twice about the 3 feet of un-used 1913 rail? Do you really need that butt-spike? Are you purchasing QD mounts because they are the cool thing to have or do you actually use the QD part daily? Is there a lighter non-QD option? Steel vs alloy rings? Not just talking optics, but bi-pods as well. Maybe even ask the question, "Are you over-glassed?".
There is more than one way to skin a cat. Am I am not saying that an 18# 7.62 rifle is wrong. Far from it. I am not against 18# rifles. And I can even be convinced that an 18# 7.62 rifle can be justified for certain applications. I just would like to see the civilian consumer to have better flushed out thought process on such things.
Some of my co-workers would never use a call-out rifle to hunt. But they are making that decision from an informed place. Personally, I am a HUGE fan of civilian shooters taking their "tactical rifles" hunting. Is it the right tool for the job? No. It's great experience. And eventually, that user will take that bug-hole shooter and start to look at it with a critical eye. "How can I make this bug-hole shooter handier?". Note: It will still be a heavier rifle after some changes. And it will still be a bug-hole shooter. So...............
People say 7.62 is "Shootable". Ditto on the 6mm rifles. Supposedly the are more "shootable". Does it need to be 18#? Maybe it does? But I would like to see the question at least be asked.
TTR
I am 6' 5", about 200lb. I can clearly recall telling others here that they need to work out more if they find their implements overly massive.
That was before I had my bouts with cancer and heart disease. I think differently now, and am far more inclined to give heed to such questions about whether a rifle needs to be as heavy as many are. Personally, I think a lot of the thinking about heavy rifles is less about experience and more about expectation. At the same time, I am faced with the simple fact that heavy rifles usually win.
I see rifle mass as having value in at least two areas. First, massive rifles are usually more rugged. Then, they use that mass to absorb the heat generated when firing.
So the next question is, should we build more rugged implements and treat them with impunity, or should we take better care of less rugged ones?
And the one after that is, why do we need to be able to contain the heat of sustained fire when we profess to be able to achieve our goals with a minimum of repetition.
Given the current norms, I would not feel confident in my own ability to compete in, say, the SH Cup. I'm just not up to it. I'll go further and gladly concede that reducing the average winning rifle's weight by a large fraction would not change that conclusion.
But that does not make said reduction so undesirable for others.
So, if one were to apply that weight reduction, how might it be accomplished in a productive manner?
Let's look at the barrel. A massive barrel can absorb much heat and retain it without losing accuracy, as long as the thermal cycle does not allow internal stress to distort its aim. Unfortunately, barrel steel conducts that heat away less freely than other materials, so that heat, once accumulated, takes time to dissipate.
A barrel with a considerably lesser profile will heat up faster and attain a higher peak temperature from the same overall heat input, and will retain it for about a similar duration, mainly because the barrel metal's thermal conductivity is not as good as others, and also because the skinnier barrel's lesser surface area contacts less air into which that thermal energy can be redirected.
Well obviously, we could shoot less, and that's not a completely unreasonable approach. It's just that in the times when that's not an option, not having the option could be unpleasant, perhaps even lethal. So that's not always such a desirable approach.
I have a rifle with a sporter barrel that hold its zero unusually well as it heats and I treasure it carefully, but I'm not going to offer it up as a solution here.
An extension of its utility could exist, however. If one were to encase that narrow barrel in an intermediate medium that redirects that heat more quickly to a far greater area in contact with the air, that extension could be realized.
Such a barrel exists, it is far lighter than the massive barrel, yet retains its accuracy and stability in a very similar manner.
This is that barrel. It weighs less than half of what an equivalent varmint weight barrel would. It also sheds comparable amounts of thermal energy a lot faster. I have been told personally that testing has demonstrated that after firing five rounds, it has no infrared signature.
It's not the only thing that can be done to reduce rifle weight, and it ain't cheap, but it's a large step in a useful direction.
Lighter rifles recoil harder, no arguments. The .260 Rem and the .280 Rem recoil less than say, a .308 or a .300WM, but they can still get the job done at comparable distances.
Greg
That was before I had my bouts with cancer and heart disease. I think differently now, and am far more inclined to give heed to such questions about whether a rifle needs to be as heavy as many are. Personally, I think a lot of the thinking about heavy rifles is less about experience and more about expectation. At the same time, I am faced with the simple fact that heavy rifles usually win.
I see rifle mass as having value in at least two areas. First, massive rifles are usually more rugged. Then, they use that mass to absorb the heat generated when firing.
So the next question is, should we build more rugged implements and treat them with impunity, or should we take better care of less rugged ones?
And the one after that is, why do we need to be able to contain the heat of sustained fire when we profess to be able to achieve our goals with a minimum of repetition.
Given the current norms, I would not feel confident in my own ability to compete in, say, the SH Cup. I'm just not up to it. I'll go further and gladly concede that reducing the average winning rifle's weight by a large fraction would not change that conclusion.
But that does not make said reduction so undesirable for others.
So, if one were to apply that weight reduction, how might it be accomplished in a productive manner?
Let's look at the barrel. A massive barrel can absorb much heat and retain it without losing accuracy, as long as the thermal cycle does not allow internal stress to distort its aim. Unfortunately, barrel steel conducts that heat away less freely than other materials, so that heat, once accumulated, takes time to dissipate.
A barrel with a considerably lesser profile will heat up faster and attain a higher peak temperature from the same overall heat input, and will retain it for about a similar duration, mainly because the barrel metal's thermal conductivity is not as good as others, and also because the skinnier barrel's lesser surface area contacts less air into which that thermal energy can be redirected.
Well obviously, we could shoot less, and that's not a completely unreasonable approach. It's just that in the times when that's not an option, not having the option could be unpleasant, perhaps even lethal. So that's not always such a desirable approach.
I have a rifle with a sporter barrel that hold its zero unusually well as it heats and I treasure it carefully, but I'm not going to offer it up as a solution here.
An extension of its utility could exist, however. If one were to encase that narrow barrel in an intermediate medium that redirects that heat more quickly to a far greater area in contact with the air, that extension could be realized.
Such a barrel exists, it is far lighter than the massive barrel, yet retains its accuracy and stability in a very similar manner.
This is that barrel. It weighs less than half of what an equivalent varmint weight barrel would. It also sheds comparable amounts of thermal energy a lot faster. I have been told personally that testing has demonstrated that after firing five rounds, it has no infrared signature.
It's not the only thing that can be done to reduce rifle weight, and it ain't cheap, but it's a large step in a useful direction.
Lighter rifles recoil harder, no arguments. The .260 Rem and the .280 Rem recoil less than say, a .308 or a .300WM, but they can still get the job done at comparable distances.
Greg
Last edited:
Mine is right at 17lbs loaded. I hump it, plus additional rifle(semi) gear and water on a weekly basis. So running around during a comp is not an issue.
Wow I didn't expect this thread to last or to get this much quality insight. To be honest, the "humping" the rifle around part isn't really what concerns me as I'm in great shape. However, in the video one of the shooting stations required a run to the shooting position and then to shoot multiple targets out to I think 600 meters off hand. If you're breathing hard and you have to make ten shots (timed) off hand, the weight of your rifle is going to be a huge factor. This is the only reason I brought this up. I was just wondering if experienced tactical match shooters factor this in when the get a rifle built. It also made wonder if anyone has built a rifle where the action, bolt, and barrel were made out of titanium. Or is Titanium not conducive to an accurate barrel?
I don't know about barrel, but there is one or two makers of a titanium action.
Clay, you are misleading him
Post a picture of yourself and they will understand why you can lug a million pound rifle around all day.
Here is my experience and input... I have read from others (Kirby Allen at APS) who have built hundreds of lightweight rifles for long range shooting. A rifle under 9 lbs requires a very skilled shooter to shoot it well at distance. To have a rifle that light requires a small contour barrel and lighter optics. Both are not ideal for long range shooting and being consistent at long range. Most long range hunters prefer a rifle between 9-11 lbs and then the second most desired weight is 11-13 lbs.
Here's a poll... I think you have to vote to see the results.
Long Range Hunting Gun Weight - Long Range Hunting Online Magazine
Most of your weight is in the barrel so to cut weight and get to the desired end result you can reduce your contour. It all depends on what your rifle is intended for, but a rifle over 13lbs is overkill and simply not needed unless you are shooting a big 338 lapua or 338 edge then a 15lb gun is nice to deal with the recoil. Idaho has a 16lb limit for hunting. You can't hunt with a rifle heavier than 16lbs, this includes the entire rifle, scope, tripod, mag, everything.
Here's a poll... I think you have to vote to see the results.
Long Range Hunting Gun Weight - Long Range Hunting Online Magazine
Most of your weight is in the barrel so to cut weight and get to the desired end result you can reduce your contour. It all depends on what your rifle is intended for, but a rifle over 13lbs is overkill and simply not needed unless you are shooting a big 338 lapua or 338 edge then a 15lb gun is nice to deal with the recoil. Idaho has a 16lb limit for hunting. You can't hunt with a rifle heavier than 16lbs, this includes the entire rifle, scope, tripod, mag, everything.
The 308 I carry around is 18lbs fully loaded.
Not bad when you consider the 98lb asian hooker I have on the other shoulder.
Not bad when you consider the 98lb asian hooker I have on the other shoulder.
Pictures of the asian hooker, you can leave the rifle out.
Curious, why do the folks in Idaho care how much a rifle weighs when hunting? I guess what I'm asking what purpose does this law serve?
I'm pretty sure its just to prevent someone from trying to hunt with a big 50 cal. Personally I won't shoot at animals past 1k unless conditions are really sweet. When in the mountains and shooting over canyons if the wind is blowing at all it can be really tricky for any caliber. I've had a 338 edge and shot out to a mile with it. I sold it cause I felt its just too much gun. It was 18lbs and a pain in the ass to haul around. I have a 12lb 7mm Dakota that will put down anything in North America at 1k, and its probably a little too much gun at that. Working on a 10-11lb 6.5 Saum that will do it all.
I usually hunt whitetail with a .243 and all in it weighs just shy of 10lbs.
If you carry it around often, it doesn't feel so heavy. Keep it in the safe most of its life, and a 10-pound rifle will be a beast. I personally think it's easier to hold a heavier rifle steady.
Sort of like archery- I shoot every week with a 70# compound bow, and I can shoot 50+ shots no problem. The average "fit" guy can barely pull the string back, and get maybe 2-3 shots tops. Train how you plan to compete/fight and the weight disappears.
Sort of like archery- I shoot every week with a 70# compound bow, and I can shoot 50+ shots no problem. The average "fit" guy can barely pull the string back, and get maybe 2-3 shots tops. Train how you plan to compete/fight and the weight disappears.
This is exactly where I am, working on making my TRG .260 a mountain hunting rifle. Definitely at least half of that goal involves changing me, the rest is the rifle. The barrel is cut to 20", with a relatively light scope (4.5-14x50 Zeiss with target turrets). A Harris instead of a Sako bipod. It's not light but its not heavy either at about 12.5 lb. and its still a hammer. Ironically the first mule deer I took with it last year was an offhand shot from about 80 yds.
Last edited:
well also you have to get use to shooting a bow to be able to do that. if you don't shoot a bow for a while you'll have to get use to it then its easy. (not saying 70lbs is really easy but I'm 14 and I can do 65 but Idk about 50+ shots, and to be honest I'm not really that fit) I agree if you train it doesn't become that hard to carry heavier stuff, like the soldier who carry barretts that must be a pain. I don't like carrying heavy rifles hunting but I'd like to build a super compact, super light weight hunting rig. (carbon fiber wrapped barrel, carbon fiber stock folding, titanium action, titanium suppressor)
My deer rifle 308 is a feather compared to my 6 Creed comp rifle, 7.8 vs 16lbs, for competitions I'll take the heavy rifle.
my dad runs a 5.75lb gun for his hunting rifle (thats the weight w/o scope) the thing needs a break a little heavier barrel for sure since its a 270wsm it kicks pretty good, and the barrel is too hot to touch after 3-4 shots.
You are bringing up a point I addressed in my post. The humping is one factor....10 miles to position? But position shooting is another factor. Prone shooting is the beginning. The most stable. And the last common shooting position.
There is a world of difference between 9 and 18# rifles. There is a world of difference between 14 and 18# rifles IMO. And how many 18# rifles quickly end up at 20#? Quite a few I'm seeing. And it needs to be stated again....I am ONLY referring to 308 caliber weapons. 18-20# 308 rifle. Wow. And the same rifle could still shoot exactly the same, including the rate of fire, and probably drop 2 pounds if the user made a semi-serious attempt.
I want to make this clear. I am not whacking 18-20 308 rifles. I just would like the civilian user to at least be taught a trip-weight. At what weight will the educated, sophisticated civilian consumer start to ask, "Whoa! Am I too heavy?"
For me it's around 14#. Why? 14 is quite manageable. But it seems 14 hits 16-18 exponentially faster than 13 does. So at 14 I start to really watch it. Even go so far as to weigh with a luggage scale.
TTR
My 26"varmint contour is about 12.5lb with optic & mag sans ammo. My 22" LV with heavy fill/adjustable cheek stock weighs the same...the LV balances *way* better.
I totally agree with Archer762 last statement!
Ounces equal pounds, pounds equal pain.
Ultra light rifles can be difficult to hold steady for long shots, too heavy can be difficult to hold UP.
Compromises are unavoidable, gotta work to find the balance that suits your style of shooting best.
Ultra light rifles can be difficult to hold steady for long shots, too heavy can be difficult to hold UP.
Compromises are unavoidable, gotta work to find the balance that suits your style of shooting best.
and the lighter the rifle the more recoil.
Yep. Put a big brake up there and get a nice kick to the face. Part of the fun of shooting for me, and I always wear ear protection.
What do you have to mount on the rifle, what can go in the pack, what can be left at home, what are you willing to carry for convenience /comfort even if it isn't absolutely necessary? Questions you have to answer yourself.
Part of the fun of shooting for me, and I always wear ear protection. What do you have to mount on the rifle, what can go in the pack, what can be left at home, what are you willing to carry for convenience /comfort even if it isn't absolutely necessary? Questions you have to answer yourself.
Sir if you're in "great shape" as you say(puts you ahead of the game), then you just need to practice aiding your body to return it'self to a reasonable heartbeat. It's a challenge, that's what makes it fun. Bottom line, give it a shot and see what changes you might need to make to yourself or weapon. This is my third season competing, Multi-gun and Tactical long range matches.
Any suggestions on how to get the heartbeat down more quickly? I know being fit inherently helps in this regard but to actually train to reduce heart rate/control it poses an interesting challenge. It's the exact opposite of what you want to do to get fit. I've always wondered how elite snipers can control their heartbeat since it's controlled by the autonomic nervous system. Perhaps it's more mental rather than physical?
While you are correct to a degree, the ANS does affect your heartbeat, among other functions at a subcouncious level. That being said, there are several techniques (breathing and as simple as thoughts) which can affect your heart rate. I wouldn't agree that its mental or physical but a combination of the two. My apologies if I offended or by choice of wording, appeared to question your state of physical fitness. Neither were my intention. Good luck and sincerely hope you find the answers you were looking for.
As a tool for deer hunting, that rifle is less likely to encounter long strings of fire in a short period of time, even in a no-limit population-control doe season. Bring a couple extra rifles along to cycle through when sighting it in, and try wearing a heavy vest or jacket to help manage recoil.
ETA- Guess I assumed it was a deer rifle, but I think the theory still stands. Large game that would require a .270 are less likely to provide a target rich environment that would overheat a barrel.
Last edited:
