Sub 6 pound 1000 yard rifle?

[Vulture]

There hasn't been much discussion on chambering here. I would be interested to hear what the OP wants to kill at 1k; antelope, deer, elk, moose, elephant? Then hearing the seasoned experts here propose a MINIMUM round to harvest that animal at 1k. From there, discuss opinions on minimum rifle weights. I recently went through a simililar hunt for a light/mid weight long range capable rifle, and this is what I came up with. My goal was to be completely confident out to 600 yds in field conditions, very different from range conditions. This was for my first Elk hunt, DIY in CO.
Savage 110 .300RUM factory gun, no brake. Restocked with an ultra lite fiberglass, bare rifle down to 6.5lbs. Lightweight Talley's and a Leupold VX3 4.5-14 CDS wind plex put it at around 7.5lbs total.

Most people will say I'm crazy for going with that round, and rifle weight, with that distance goal. My logic was I wanted to have the fastest, highest BC I could handle in a light rifle. As a flat lander in West MI, not only did I want something light to haul around at 9k elevation, the better the performance in the wind, the more confident I would be if I had an opportunity. I achieved my goal, there isn't a 1k range within 2 hrs of me, maybe someday I'll find I'm capable further than that.

What I learned, when you get down to those lass few ounces, weight starts to make an exponential difference. I did my load development with a 20moa rail, 28oz scope, and heavy burris tactical rings. The rifle was very manageable from a bench position. Shedding all the weight to go with Talley's and the VX3, 40mm the rifle became a completely different animal. Shooting form had to be absolutely perfect. If I wasn't set up just right, accuracy would suffer, or worse, 2-3 shots into a range session I would tweak my shoulder (already badly damaged) and my day would be done. I have a fair amount of trigger time on a Krieghoff, 8lb .500 nitro and can tell you that the light 300RUM is worse. BUT, it is manageable with practice. I would liken it to becoming proficient with a snubnose .357. It is definitely doable, but many a handgunner has been humbled in the process. Different setup, different form and factors to consider. I love my setup for a very specific purpose, however I did just order a new stock, so I can switch the rifle into a much heavier setup for practice. My next build will probably be almost identical to Timber338's mid weight setup. If I were you, I would go ahead and build what you want. If it proves to be too light, you can restock, put on heavier steel bases, heavier scope, etc. you will be amazed at how even a 1lb difference will change the behavior of your rifle.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Why no brake? I don't understand. There are very good brakes with horizontal slot so you don't blow dust or snow up.

 

[Vulture]

I'll preface my opinion by stating I have little experience shooting braked. I think that if someone can accurately shoot a given hunting rifle without, it would be advisable. It adds cost, length and weight. Most importantly, sound and muzzle blast. I prefer to hunt without hearing protection (I do some whitetail hunting with a 6" ported .44mag and ear protection is necessary with that). On a gun shooting targets, or a heavy dedicated long range rifle, where shots will take some setup time, I think they're a no-brainer. This rifle wears a 26" barrel, adding 1.5-2" would have made it even more cumbersome in the brush and timber I backpacked through. I know they have come a long way, and are more prevalent on rifles than ever, but this 34 yr old chooses to be a little close minded on this innovation. I will buy a thunderbeast titanium supressor before I put a brake on that particular rifle. That being said, my next rifle will most likely be a .338 RUM or EDGE, mid weight and I know I wouldn't be able to go without a brake. The only rifle that would come before that is if I find a deal on a .458 Lott.

 

[Timber338]

... This rifle wears a 26" barrel, adding 1.5-2" would have made it even more cumbersome in the brush and timber I backpacked through. I know they have come a long way, and are more prevalent on rifles than ever, but this 34 yr old chooses to be a little close minded on this innovation. ...

I also only backpack hunt, and one thing to keep in mind is when you shoot any rifle without hearing protection, braked or unbraked, you are doing hearing damage. Period. And in the timber it's worse because the noise reflects off all the trees and bushes right back to your ears just like a brake.

The other benefit of a muzzle brake, even in the timber, is the extra weight at the muzzle brake acts like a stabilizer the same way they work on a bow. They steady your off hand shots considerably.

Vulture, the way you are thinking about brakes is exactly how I used to think about them, so I completely understand where you are coming from. No right or wrong answer here, only personal preference. Just passing along how I came to using brakes... because about 3 years ago you couldn't have paid me to go with a brake. But now you couldn't pay me to go without one.

And just because you have a brake doesn't mean you can't get up close and personal in the thick stuff. I shot two elk last year with my 27" + brake 338 RUM. One elk at 15 yards and the other at 35 yards.

 

[Rich Coyle]

It adds cost, length and weight. This rifle wears a 26" barrel, adding 1.5-2" would have made it even more cumbersome in the brush and timber I backpacked through.

The idea they add weight is true, but negligible. My "big' rifle is a .300 RUM neck down to 6.5mm with the shoulder pushed back about .100". The barrel without the brake is 26". The brake added 2 1/2 ounces. It did add $225 to the cost.

The other argument holds no water. I did a test with one of my rifles. I had it barreled at 28" and installed a brake. The whole Western Oregon season is about five weeks long. I hunted almost every day on the coast side and carried that rifle. There was no extra effort made to miss limbs or brush. In all that time I noticed one time only when, if the barrel was 24" it would have cleared a limb on a bush. No other time did it hit something.

 

[Vulture]

And just because you have a brake doesn't mean you can't get up close and personal in the thick stuff. I shot two elk last year with my 27" + brake 338 RUM. One elk at 15 yards and the other at 35 yards.

Agreed, on the length. Like I mentioned earlier, I think your setup, including the 3-18 leupold is about as close as it comes to a do it all rifle. Low magnification for short range, light enough to handle offhand comfortably, enough weight to shoot steady at longer ranges. Enough killing power for just about any game animal. I've been enamored with it since you first posted your build.

Before we get too far off from the thread topic, I do have a question regarding brakes. I had a conversation with someone who guided Elk hunts for several years, and he insisted that he had seen time and time again, when someone shot at a group with a rifle wearing a brake, it had almost a disorienting affect on the Elk, like it wasn't as easy for them to locate where the shot came from, and thus were less likely to run instantly, trying to determine the source of danger before flight. He said he never would have believed it if he hadn't witnessed it so any times. Anyone else witness anything like that? From my experience shooting whitetail, without a brake, there's plenty of times that animals just freeze, or run a few yards and stop anyway.

Another thought I have for Pontoon to consider is your stock design. It seems to me that a lot of the weight in heavier rigs comes from the stock, and for good reason. High comb, longer length of pull for prone and uphill shots, wide forends, more vertical grips with palm swells that help position trigger finger with repeatable consistency. I know that the sacrifice I made for a 22oz stock was very slim, thin wrist, etc. It may be worth considering where the trade offs are in that regard. For example, maybe you want to consider a really lightweight profile barrel that only gives you a couple shots before heating up, or a round that will work out of a shorter barrel, in order to be able to sport more of a hybrid stock like the game scout that Timber338 went with. Going ultra lite in every other aspect of your build, in order to dedicate a little extra weight towards your stock may help with your long range goals.

 

[pontoon]

Agreed, on the length. Like I mentioned earlier, I think your setup, including the 3-18 leupold is about as close as it comes to a do it all rifle. Low magnification for short range, light enough to handle offhand comfortably, enough weight to shoot steady at longer ranges. Enough killing power for just about any game animal. I've been enamored with it since you first posted your build.

Before we get too far off from the thread topic, I do have a question regarding brakes. I had a conversation with someone who guided Elk hunts for several years, and he insisted that he had seen time and time again, when someone shot at a group with a rifle wearing a brake, it had almost a disorienting affect on the Elk, like it wasn't as easy for them to locate where the shot came from, and thus were less likely to run instantly, trying to determine the source of danger before flight. He said he never would have believed it if he hadn't witnessed it so any times. Anyone else witness anything like that? From my experience shooting whitetail, without a brake, there's plenty of times that animals just freeze, or run a few yards and stop anyway.

Another thought I have for Pontoon to consider is your stock design. It seems to me that a lot of the weight in heavier rigs comes from the stock, and for good reason. High comb, longer length of pull for prone and uphill shots, wide forends, more vertical grips with palm swells that help position trigger finger with repeatable consistency. I know that the sacrifice I made for a 22oz stock was very slim, thin wrist, etc. It may be worth considering where the trade offs are in that regard. For example, maybe you want to consider a really lightweight profile barrel that only gives you a couple shots before heating up, or a round that will work out of a shorter barrel, in order to be able to sport more of a hybrid stock like the game scout that Timber338 went with. Going ultra lite in every other aspect of your build, in order to dedicate a little extra weight towards your stock may help with your long range goals.

Interesting. My thought process was to cut weight everywhere as much as possible except the trigger and barrel. I wouldn't be able to get a really nice thick barrel on a rifle like this but I would basically add up all the weights, add the trigger I want, and then give the barrel as much as I can after that. Possibly a sendero light from Proof Research. That's just my thought process. I have the gun more or less designed in a spreadsheet but I'm going to wait a year before dropping such coin on a gun. Right now my 270 and Swarovski Z5 (with zero stop installed) should have similar max range so it's a decent fit for now and gives me a year to learn to reload and get more experience so I don't regret getting the wrong expensive custom rifle. Still thinking 6.5 SAUM. Brass isn't even available for it at the moment so there's really no hurry.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Interesting. My thought process was to cut weight everywhere as much as possible except the trigger and barrel. Possibly a sense to light from Proof Research. That's just my thought process.

If you get the Proof Research ask them to use a Hastings Micro-cell recoil pad. The one they normally use weighs about six or seven ounces. I have their stock but replaced the pad with the light one. It took four ounces off. I don't know if I posted in this thread or another, but I used Twisted Barrel to flute mine. That took another seven ounces off. That is almost 3/4 of a pound with two things. Another thing was to replace the squeaky metal sling swivels with plastic ones that don't have a squeaky hing and the factory sling. They weighed five ounces. I went to the fabric store and purchased a 1" wide slightly lighter material, but the same kind, and installed them on the plastic sling things. My home made sling with attachments weighs one ounce. Now I reduced the weight by fifteen ounces.

If you have the facility, you can make your brake from aluminum instead of steal. I replace the three and a half ounce steel one with a once ounce aluminum. The total reduction was one pound two and a half ounces. I also switched from Burris Signature rings that weighed five ounces to the Talley lightweight which weigh two and a half ounces. That brought the weight savings to one pound five ounces.

 

[Timber338]

Before we get too far off from the thread topic, I do have a question regarding brakes. I had a conversation with someone who guided Elk hunts for several years, and he insisted that he had seen time and time again, when someone shot at a group with a rifle wearing a brake, it had almost a disorienting affect on the Elk, like it wasn't as easy for them to locate where the shot came from, and thus were less likely to run instantly, trying to determine the source of danger before flight. He said he never would have believed it if he hadn't witnessed it so any times. Anyone else witness anything like that? From my experience shooting whitetail, without a brake, there's plenty of times that animals just freeze, or run a few yards and stop anyway.

I have noticed this on both braked and unbraked rifles. I think in the thick aspens and timber the sounds bounces around so much it confuses them either way. I guess if I think back they might be a bit more confused with a brake up close since it's is so freekin loud. On long shots it also might be tougher to locate an exact location, not sure if it's any different than unbraked. In most every close and long range shot I would have had plenty of time to shoot two or three elk in a hypothetical situation. Interesting to get this feedback from a guide that sees more elk shot than any of the rest of us.

 

[Timber338]

Interesting. My thought process was to cut weight everywhere as much as possible except the trigger and barrel. I wouldn't be able to get a really nice thick barrel on a rifle like this but I would basically add up all the weights, add the trigger I want, and then give the barrel as much as I can after that. Possibly a sense to light from Proof Research. That's just my thought process. I have the gun more or less designed in a spreadsheet but I'm going to wait a year before dropping such coin on a gun. Right now my 270 and Swarovski Z5 (with zero stop installed) should have similar max range so it's a decent fit for now and gives me a year to learn to reload and get more experience so I don't regret getting the wrong expensive custom rifle. Still thinking 6.5 SAUM. Brass isn't even available for it at the moment so there's really no hurry.

This was basically my approach to building my rifle ... choose as light of components as possible to allow the barrel to take up the rest of my weight budget. The theory holds up regardless of the total goal weight. Overall this is a pretty cool thread to see that big picture we are all taking similar approaches to a light rifle build even if we have different goal weights in mind.

Been thinking about how I would approach a new build, if I were to try and go lighter than my 338, I would need to drop at least a full pound to make it worth it to me, and I think this would put me right at 8.5 pounds.

Custom action (not titanium, just standard stainless pick your favorite make/model)
26" #3 contour, probably straight fluting maybe interrupted fluting
Terminator T2 brake
Manners MCS-EH3 or McMillan Game Scout 13.5 LOP, blind magazine (adl style) if possible, have not researched that.
Jewell Trigger
Vortex Razor HD LH w/ Talley rings
chambered in 30 Nosler to shoot the 212 ELD-X ~3000 fps

I have the Terminator T2 on a 300 win mag that I own and it's a very impressive brake. The design is very good in that all of the wall thicknesses around the brake are relatively thin... there are no areas of thick/bulky material so it is very light. I really cannot even notice it on the end of the barrel despite the fact all of the Terminator brakes are fairly long. For reference, here's a pic of the brake, and the barrel is #4 contour with a .650 muzzle diameter, and the T2 has a .830 diameter.

 

[Rich Coyle]

My Proof Research and MPI were made like ADL.

 

[Nieko]

Pontoon, how did you do a zero stop on your swarovski z5?

 

[pontoon]

Pontoon, how did you do a zero stop on your swarovski z5?

The scope is in the mail but I'm receiving the BT version which I understand has a removable zero stop. With the zero stop installed as it is from the factory it has approx 13 MOA in one turn elevation available assuming the scope doesn't hit the max elevation adjustment before one full rotation. If you don't have a zero stop maybe you have BRX or BRH?

 

[Rich Coyle]

The zero stop on the z5 is resetable for whatever range you sight it in.