what do you all consider to be too heavy? I am considering buying a Savage 10FP .308 as an all purpose target, deer and occassional elk rifle. Stripped, the rifle weighs 8.5 lbs. Add another pound or so for scope, base and rings and she's getting a bit "cumbersome" for humping over hill n' dale. In your hunting experience, what do you consider to be too heavy for a field carry rifle?

Alan,
with a reasonable scope, rings, sling, and a magazine full of ammo that rifle will go a good 10lbs unless you buy a very compact scope. Eight pounds feels like a ton at the end of a long day. If you're a stand hunter and just walk in to your stand I would say it's no big deal, but you're not going to want to drag that rifle up and down hills all day unless you're a glutton for punishment. I've got a Savage scout rifle in .308 which you could carry all day long, but it's a totally different type of rifle than the 10FP. The advantage of the 10FP would likely be for extreme long range shooting, the ballistics would not be any greater than the scout type rifle as a result of the same length barrels. Overall, the accuracy with my Scout rifle has been excellent. I usually shoot it with the factory peep sight, I occasionally put a 2x scope on it and can print groups into an inch with that scope and some targets that are tailored to low power scopes.

A rifle, ready to hunt with optics, sling, ammo, etc is really nice at 7 lbs, less would be nicer but 7 is pretty easy to attain with off the shelf rifles.

I would say that Savage is too heavy for elk hunting! Admittedly, I'm not a spring chicken, nor am I in the best of shape, but my heaviest rifle weighs 8.25 lbs with scope, sling, and three rounds, and that feels like too much at the end of the day.
I'm beginning to think 7 lbs. is about right, based on carrying my Marlin 336A some last year. But to be honest, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it weighed a little less, even.

Someone young and athletic (or just tougher than me!) may be fine with a heavier rifle, but I'd prefer something lighter.

Gentlemen - I appreciate your input. You are correct....extra weight, whether carried in a rifle or around my middle, does not do a body good :D

Tangent subject....I was at a local gunshop this afternoon and there was one Savage on closeout sale - a 111 30-06 with a detachable magazine and a cheapie scope. Out the door price is $319. Ugly cuss of a rifle. When the literature says free-floated barrel...I didn't realize it was that free from the forearm of the stock! I can get the std. wood model for $345 sans scope (generic looking but nicer than the plastic stocked model). Choose either/or or keep looking for a better price?

Thx.

Alan,
I wouldn't expect much of a piece of wood on the Savage one way or the other. I'd buy the synthetic and sell the scope and mounts on Ebay, you'll get something for them. All Savages are ugly, but all that I own or have owned have been accurate. If you're set on a wood stock, you could replace the synthetic with a laminated stock down the road for a modest fee if you do the bedding yourself.

Thanks kciH -

Regarding the synthetic stock...should the forearm of the stock show such a sloppy fit? I can place my thumb on the barrel and three fingers on the belly of the forearm and squeeze the barrel into the stock simply by squeezing my thumb and fingers together.

Thanks for the heads-up on the wood stocked models. The 114U looks nice but I have yet to see one stocked in any of my local stores. Any reason to pass on the 111FC due to the detachable magazine? In reading archived threads, it sounds like you have a lot of experience with Savage rifles.

Thanks and God Bless,

Alan

Alan,
I've played with a few of their rifles, but I'm sure there are folks on here who have a lot more knowledge about them. The only downsides to detachable magazines on the Savage would be aftermarket stock availability, if that is a concern for you, and the obvious problem that you can lose the magazine. The rifle is still usable should you lose a magazine while on a hunt, and you really only need one shot anyway, right? :) I really like the Scout rifle, it's my favorite rifle to just go shooting with, the recoil is rather stout for being "just" a .308, but that is the price for having a light rifle. At a little over 6lbs, if gives you a pretty fair pop. The scout is not a bargain gun, it's really pretty pricey for a Savage, but it's the only thing out there like it that cost under $1000 so it's not too bad a deal if that's what you're after. As far as the synthetic stocks being flimsy, most of them are from the factory, including my Weatherby. If you don't put a ton of forend pressure or sling pressure at a strange angle, it doesn't seem to do much. On the same note, wood stocks can cause you more problems than the one listed above, so don't think you'll elimnate any problems by going with wood.
I'm of the opinion, in contrast to many here, that if you're going to buy and ugly Savage, or Salvage as some refer to them, that is should have an ugly black stock to complete the package. When you take it to the range and outshoot your buddies rifle that cost twice as much, they look much better.

Since I don't know, are after market stocks difficult to find for any DM action? I like the idea of a DM...seems it is a love/hate relationship for a lot of shooters.

Curious...what are your thoughts on your Weatherby Vanguard - and - have you any experience with Howa rifles?

One word of warning on the Savage, not from first-hand experience but information from the guys at the gun shop in town. The bolt head is pinned to the bolt with a roll pin, and they have seen a couple break, leaving the locking lugs engaged even though you move the bolt handle up and down. You can't get the bolt to open without surgery.
I also heard similar comments from a guide over in Hoback Junction, WY, so I suspect it must happen at least occasionally. Something to consider when calculating value.

I wouldn't say there is a problem getting aftermarket stocks for a DM rifle, you can get whatever you want if you want to pay enough for it. I was looking at some of the more economical laminated stocks, they look good and perform well, and didn't notice that the Savage DM rifles where included.

It seems to me the Weatherby rifles used to be made by Howa until the production was moved back to the US. I have a MK V, but I've never played with the Vanguards. I don't know anything more about Howa's other than that the fit and finish of the ones I've seen seemed pretty good for the money.

If your prime motivation on the deal is bottom dollar, the Vanguard might not be a bad choice, if I was going to buy a really inexpensive rifle it would be a Winchester M70 Super Shadow. You'd be limited to WSM cartridges though and it's got a blind magazine. The cartridges will be expensive for this and will require premium bullets for hunting. These Win rifles go for about $380 with a Simmons scope and mounts, but you're going to have to buy them from Wally World to get that kind of pricing. That means you will have no service or help from the dealer, of any kind, if everything is not right when it comes out of the box.

At one point Howa made the Vanguard, but I don't know if that is still true. Howa has made rifles marketed by Mossberg and Smith & Wesson, as well. They are a decent rifle for the money, I believe.

Depends on where you hunt...but considering elk are on the menu, you're hunting in areas where climbing is going to be part of the day's fun. Flat-landers can get away with some pretty heavy rigs...no climbing and a reasonably expectation of a ride to within a short distance of the hunt.

Won't say you can't do it...if you have the upper body strength and work out often enough, can carry that 10 pound rifle much easier. After all, many have humped a 40-80 pound pack up and down mountins and through swamps (it helps to have folks shooting at you...takes your mind off the weight).

How about this deal...work out, build strength, drop about 10 pounds of body weight, and carry a heavy rig?.....er...think I'll just watch TV, drink beer, and find a lighter rifle.

LOL Ribbonstone :D

My motivation is to purchase an accurate, reliable shooter. If money allowed, I'd purchase a M70 Super Grade....beautifully figured walnut and deep blue steel. But, money won't allow :( For glass, I have budgeted for a Leupold 2.5X8 VX-III. My father-in-law uses them on all of his M70's and I am flat impressed with how bright and clear this glass is.

Alan,
nice choice in glass, relativley light also. If you like the M70, and what's not to like, maybe you should take a look at the M70 Super Shadow. If Elk are a possibility, the 300WSM would be an excellent choice. The recoil in a light rifle might be a tad stiff, but I wouldn't think unmanagable.

No problem on the choice of glass...have been using two of the smaller/lighter 2-7X for a lot of years (but theya re out of style...they don't have mil-dots, adjustable objectives, or a lens large enough for today's hunters). Found a lot more use for the low end of the variable than the high...nothing really can replace field of view when game is moving (and if it isn't moving, please be sure it isn't already dead).

Have hunted with 11 pound rifles...but (1) was stand hunting (2) was young and hard headed.

Length has not been a problem...guess I spet too much time with full stocked flintlocks (one has 44" of barrel), 28" pump shot guns, and full sized long bows (the stick-and-string philosophy of bow hunting). Got use to that thype of hunting, so the difference between 22" and 26" of barrel on a modern rifle seems piddling.

ribbonstone,
I'm just the opposite. I've toted 10.5 pound rifles over mountains and glaciers for weeks on end. As long as they are well balanced and not too long, I don't seem to notice the weight (not too much anyway). However, get a rifle that isn't balanced well, or is too long and you have to fight with it to get it around rocks or if it keeps hanging up on the brush, and it is a pure misery. This last sheep hunt, I carried my No.1 in 338 with a 2.5-8x Vari-XIII. That rifle is an honest 9-9.5 lbs. I toted it for 2 weeks, climbed all over creation and it never bothered me one bit. I climbed at least 4,000 feet every day and covered about 20 miles in the mountians.

I had a Weatherby Mark V that I used to just fight with constantly. I wasn't balanced right, it was bulky, too long, always getting hung up in the brush or in the way when scrambling over rocks. It was a fairly light rifle, no more than 8 lbs loaded and ready to go, but it would wear me out in short order.

Granted, I'd much rather take the little No.1 RSI into the mountains, about 7.25 lbs scoped and slung and barely 36" long, its a real joy to carry.

I got rid of an Onieda Strike Eagle bow because it was so aggravating to carry. Not that it was too heavy, but that joker would hang up on everything in the brush. Started shooting a Great Northern Longbow Ghost Recurve and it is a pleasure.

just my opinion, but i believe in using the rifle you shoot best.
when you have that "perfect" rifle that you're confident in,
the one that will allow you to place that shot right everytime,
that's the one i'm carrying, and i don't give a **** how much it weighs.
be honest with yourself if you're recoil sensitive.
most lightweight rifles kick like ****, and the type of hunting you're talking about can require some long shots.

Uff Da! Alyeska, you da man! Me, I was born with a heart imperfection, grew up 60 ft about sea level, and didn't move to mountain country until I was 30 or so. My father-in-law, who is from this area, walks me into the ground come hunting season, despite being 23 years older than I. I need all the help I can get!

Bearpugh - what you say has a lot of merit. You really have to find a balance (and a rifle that balances well!).

Shotguns were always the heaviest guns for me - after a full day of tramping fields and briar patches bird or small game hunting, that 7 - 8 lb shotgun felt like a sack of bricks by nightfall.

Only real problem with rifles seemed to be the continual slippage of the sling off the shoulder and the constant hitching back on. Weight always seemed a minor consideration. As far as recoil, the heavier rifles absorb it far better than a featherweight, yet the only time that seem a bother is off the benchrest. In the field, and especially with hair in the scope, I never notice recoil, other than a slight push to the shoulder and the bothersome loss of sight picture in the rising scope.

Today, the horse or vehicle carry both my weight (ample) and that of the firearm, so I don't worry about it. If neither are being used, I'm on stand and glassing, so again - no problem with weight.

While I use to go far and wide to hunt, last years have seen me in the local areas. This area is at, and in some cases slightly below, se level and about as flat as land can get (have to drive more than an hour just to see rock that wasn't trucked in). No climbing (other than trees) and few places that can'be be gotten to by Jeep or flat bottomed boat.

Still prefer the middle wieght rifles...call it 8 pounds +/- 1/2 a pound. Short or long, so long as they balance and are responsive.

Tried the light weights...have some heavy weights....but as with anything that goes to extreams, the trade off in some areas is just not worth it.
-----
One old hunting buddy was looking for new boots last year...looking for lighter ones. He's been cussing his heavy weight gear progressivly through the last years...looking for weight savings. Of course, when we started hunting together, hew as 6'4" and 250 pounds....he's closer to 310 now. Somehow he never seemed to think that his search for lighter gear could be linked to the fact he's (1) 30 years oldeer than when we first walked the same fields (2) 60 pounds heavier (3) one knee replacement closer to being bionic.

I think I resemble all those remarks from everybody!!! :D

ID,
I go through times of irregular heartbeat. Mostly when I'm totally relaxed. So far the doctor's haven't been concerned enough for medication or activity restrictions. Never seems to happen when I'm working hard or climbing/hiking/scrambling in the mountains. Maybe its because it is beating so fast and hard from the exertion and dizzying heights I wouldn't notice it anyway!

Bear,
What you say about the weight and recoil is dead on. My 338 is a bit heavy, but it fits me and balances so well. Recoil in that rifle just isn't bad at all. Those No.1's were made for someone with my build, I guess.

kdub,
I use the most narrow sling I can find, military styled leather slings work the best for me. I hardly ever sling my rifle over my shoulder. Most of my hunting is done with a pack on my back and the rifle is carried in hand. Once I locate game, I'll ease the pack off, but the rifle stays in my hand. I use it ocassionaly to "center my gravity" by placing the rifle butt on the ground when on a really narrow knife edge ridge with nowhere to go but 1,000+ feet down. When walking back down to my pack, I have found the carry style of African PH's works really well (rifle over my shoulder, holding the barrel in my hand, muzzle forward - NO round chambered). When packing animals out, the rifle can serve as balance bar (like the tight rope walkers use) to keep your balance centered when the weight on your back shifts. Besides, carrying a slung rifle up here is never a good idea with the bears around. It's much better to have it in your hands. I do sling it when glassing with binoculars though.

I think the rifle's balance and its weight distribution has a lot to do with felt weight rather raw weight. Much like a proper fitting rifle will seem to recoil less, even though its a true thumper. Everybody is a little different and one size does not fit all. Pick the one you like best and enjoy!

Although I have some rifles for plinking and range fun, I really seem to only hunt with about four of them. The two that weigh about six pounds field ready are always the the first choice, and only get left behind in favor of the nine pounders if they are absolutely not up to the task at hand.

My way of saying the lighter the better.

Fireplug

No problem on the choice of glass...have been using two of the smaller/lighter 2-7X for a lot of years (but theya re out of style...they don't have mil-dots, adjustable objectives, or a lens large enough for today's hunters). Found a lot more use for the low end of the variable than the high...nothing really can replace field of view when game is moving (and if it isn't moving, please be sure it isn't already dead).

Have hunted with 11 pound rifles...but (1) was stand hunting (2) was young and hard headed.

Length has not been a problem...guess I spet too much time with full stocked flintlocks (one has 44" of barrel), 28" pump shot guns, and full sized long bows (the stick-and-string philosophy of bow hunting). Got use to that thype of hunting, so the difference between 22" and 26" of barrel on a modern rifle seems piddling.

You might investigate the EBERLESTOCK " Just One Pack" it has an excellent rifle carry feature. I hunt predators in the west a 100 days a year mostly with both a shotgun and a rifle. this pack is a dream to use. takes some of the rifle weight issue out of the equation.

I have a Tikka T3 Lite with Leupold VX-III 2.5 x 8 in 7mm-08.

It weighs 7.2 pounds total. I just return from using this set-up for the first time hunting some very high saddles while backpacking in the Trinity Alps and it really was easy to carry.

Geoff

Guys, do you realize this thread is from 2003, and is almost 4 years old to the day?

Guys, do you realize this thread is from 2003, and is almost 4 years old to the day?

The rifles have gotten lighter in these four years.

A nice hunting rifle weighs 5-6 pounds without a scope, regardless of caliber. E.g. Remington or Browning Titanium models, short barreled lever action carbines etc.

The rifles have gotten lighter in these four years.

No, my Model 70 still weighs about 8.25lbs all up. Sure feels heavier than it did 4 years ago, however...
:D

Shotguns were always the heaviest guns for me - after a full day of tramping fields and briar patches bird or small game hunting, that 7 - 8 lb shotgun felt like a sack of bricks by nightfall.

Only real problem with rifles seemed to be the continual slippage of the sling off the shoulder and the constant hitching back on. Weight always seemed a minor consideration. As far as recoil, the heavier rifles absorb it far better than a featherweight, yet the only time that seem a bother is off the benchrest. In the field, and especially with hair in the scope, I never notice recoil, other than a slight push to the shoulder and the bothersome loss of sight picture in the rising scope.

Today, the horse or vehicle carry both my weight (ample) and that of the firearm, so I don't worry about it. If neither are being used, I'm on stand and glassing, so again - no problem with weight.
I have to say that while getting ready for my New Mexico trip in the next few weeks, I've lost 22 lbs, hit the treadmill often and work my chest and arms with weights. All at the behest of the guide. It has made the 9-10 lbs rifles that I like to use much easier to carry.
The years do take their toll. I think that has a lot to do with the concerns about rifle weight. I just hope I can keep up with the exercizing. It help make hunting more fun than work.
I have trouble with the lighter rifles in keeping the cross-hairs steady so I prefer a heavier rifle like a Sako.
But I like the lighter ones too.

I'm not a tall person and for my later years (now 71) I bought this M70 Compact in 7mm-08 before they went out of production. With cold weather clothing the LOP is not excessively short. It has your 2.5-8 scope choice and as shown here it weighs 7.5 lbs. She is a beauty, but accuracy is not as good as some others of mine. When I finish working on it, it will be much better and hopefully on par with the others.
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/2488/m70ared1zl9.jpg

Edip - I too, reached the 70 mark and downgraded to a lighter rifle to carry. A Remington Model 7 in .308 Win that wears a Burris 2x7 compact scope. Still working up loads, but it shoots 1.5 to 2 MOA at the moment and that's Minute-Of-Deer. Don't think the lightweights were meant to be benchrest rifles with subMOA accuracy. If it becomes a MOA or 1.25MOA, I'll call it good enough.

This is a completely subjective subject. I know many have followed the trend towards lighter rifles but I have stayed more middle of the road. My rifles tend towards the heavy side but I also use well made slings that make carrying easy. I have often carried a Savage FP10 in a Boyd thumbhole varminter stock all day while walking abandoned railway tracks and farm fields while hunting groundhogs.

i forget how much a light machine gun weighs (thinking minimi 5.56) but she ain't light and if your carrying the radio and a wet sleeping bag, it ain't much fun, but you hump all day 'cause thats what your paid for.
you can lug the 10 lb rifle if you want to sweat for your deer(although you won't notice the weight if your carrying 200 lb of carcase).
i almost never use the sling on my kimber montana 'cause she weighs less than 6 lb with scope, but that's not practical for you, maybe get a light weight synthetic stock for when you go hunt'n with it.
i'm not really familiar with the rifle but i would draw the line at 8.5lbs 'total'.

I have this rifle and I wouldn't want to carry it any farther than to a shooting bench!!! (especially if it's like mine with the bull barrel and a Harris bi-pod and a 14" long scope) But if you buy a Savage 11FHNS in .308 then you can't go wrong. I'm sure that you will love the accu-trigger. It weights in at 6.5 lbs out the box.

I humped a M203 (approximately 11 pounds) as a 19D for quite a few years along with the rest of my field gear on the W German border. Any rifle that heavy without a decent sling is going to wear thin quickly. But with the slings available today I have no problem carrying my Choate stocked FP10 in the field. I use a gel padded neoprene and it just doesn't matter to me the rifle is close to 12 pounds. I will also use one of the backpack slings (JSI Mountain Climber Sling) for long treks to my varmint spots, if I make the full round trip through field and woods it totals about 7 miles. I guess it is just a matter of conditioning.

I use a gel padded neoprene and it just doesn't matter to me the rifle is close to 12 pounds. I will also use one of the backpack slings (JSI Mountain Climber Sling) for long treks to my varmint spots, if I make the full round trip through field and woods it totals about 7 miles. I guess it is just a matter of conditioning.
Can't agree there. Do a 50 mile rt sheep or goat hunt in a walk-in only area and I think you would change your mind. There isn't a serious sheep or goat hunter I know that doesn't seek the lightest possible rifle they can afford.

I do not shoot benchrest or 1000 yard groups, so I see no advantage in having any extra weight on a rifle. 2-3 lbs would be really nice, but 5-6 lbs is the best that's available.

The open soy bean fields where I hunt woodchucks, particularly in the spring, offer a lot of 300-400 yard shots. I split my hunting between three rifles, FP 10 in 308 (not too often) a FP 10 in .223 (favorite chuck gun), and my sporter weight Remington 700 in 22 CheetaH (coyotes). I have also taken coyotes in the very early morning and right at dusk with the .300 Whisper as to not disturb the neighbors.

Mountains (and age) did a lot to influence my preference for lighter guns. Back east, I carried my varmint-weight .223's and 22-250 all day without much notice. When I moved to Idaho I thought I was going to die my first hunting season, carrying a 9lb .338 and small pack. And that was quite a few years ago.