7shooter
Member
Savage has a light weight version of it’s creedmore 6.5 which is quite expensive. When would a lighter version be worth it ?
Light Weight rifle versions
- Thread starter 7shooter
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
If it’s expensive, what ever that is, I’d buy a better gun to start with, like a Ruger Hawkeye. The heart of any bolt action is the action and there are guns out there with much better actions than the pieced together Savage.
It’s worth the extra cost if you’re covering a lot of ground on foot, especially at elevation.
I’m a flatlander and we hunted elk for 5 year in Colorado. I took a Remington 700 KS Mountain rifle chambered in .300 Weatherby that I picked up used. It came with an older 2.5-10x50 Schmidt & Bender, but I swapped that out for a much lighter scope after the first trip. It’s great piece of glass, but I’ll bet it weighs between 2 and 3 pounds. I also quit carry a handgun after the first day on the mountain. Every little bit of weight savings helps.
I put the S&B on a deer rifle that I use in Michigan. The weight doesn’t matter very much when you’re hunting in a blind that’s only 300 yards from the truck!
I’m a flatlander and we hunted elk for 5 year in Colorado. I took a Remington 700 KS Mountain rifle chambered in .300 Weatherby that I picked up used. It came with an older 2.5-10x50 Schmidt & Bender, but I swapped that out for a much lighter scope after the first trip. It’s great piece of glass, but I’ll bet it weighs between 2 and 3 pounds. I also quit carry a handgun after the first day on the mountain. Every little bit of weight savings helps.
I put the S&B on a deer rifle that I use in Michigan. The weight doesn’t matter very much when you’re hunting in a blind that’s only 300 yards from the truck!
Last edited:
StrawHat
Member
That is the answer! If you are actually hunting, carrying extra weight makes no sense.
I am not familiar with current Savage offerings but every Savage rifle I have owned or shot has had acceptable or better accuracy. The Model 110 series and the shorter version were both well known for their accuracy.
Kevin
rockquarry
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,686
- Reaction score
- 10,681
If you're hunting in rough, steep, mountainous terrain and doing a lot of walking, a light rifle is certainly worth having. However, inexperienced shooters will often find light rifles are more difficult to shoot well, even from a benchrest at the gun range. In the field, this may become even more challenging if it's necessary to use an improvised rest or shoot offhand.
Most hunters are probably better off with a standard weight rifle. Consider also the fact that there is a big difference in scope weights. The high magnification scopes that are popular these days are often heavy scopes whereas a very practical (for most purposes) straight 6x scope of good quality can be much lighter.
The weight difference between a fully equipped "light" rifle and a standard weight rifle may be anywhere from two - four pounds. Worth it to some, but not everyone.
Murdock
Member
This may be a contrarian view.
I'm old enough to remember when sporterized Mausers and Springfields were popular and common. Most were easily in the 8-to-9 pound range without scopes or slings. At the same time writers with mountain experience like O'Connor were willing to pay for beautiful custom rifles that were a pound or two less, which at the time was a big deal.
Then Ruger came along with the M77. Winchester also had a Featherweigt M70 back then which usually was a bit more expensive than the Ruger. They were game changers that altered the concept of what constituted a lightweight rifle. Today they are mundane items that are no longer considered lightweight because modern technology has reset the bar, and sub 5-pound rifles are to be had. And most seem to produce amazing accuracy. They are technically fascinating.
Personally I found that living and working near sea level then traveling out to hunt with my Wyoming resident brother at 6,000 to 9,000 feet, my Ruger 1B's weight helped to dampen the pounding of my pulse after hurrying to get to a ridge top and trying to keep crosshairs steady on fur.
If a lightweight rifle works for you, great. Have at it. But please consider that given the cost of non-resident tags, travel, lodging, etc, you want a rifle that's going to do the job at the single most critical moment of your hunt. So I'm willing to have a bit more weapon mass to help me. At the same time it's undeniable that unnecessary weight is a curse in the mountains, so save every ounce on your rucksack, boots, cold- and foul-weather gear, knife, first aid kit, binocular and spotting scope. If practical use a water filter to collect water on the hunt for hydration in preference to several liters of water being carried all at once on your person. Conserving weight on those items won't be as glamorous as a space age rifle, but you will save a lot more weight than on the rifle alone.
Not to mention that most of us can shave much more weight off our increasingly ample backsides that the weight of an entire rifle.
I'm old enough to remember when sporterized Mausers and Springfields were popular and common. Most were easily in the 8-to-9 pound range without scopes or slings. At the same time writers with mountain experience like O'Connor were willing to pay for beautiful custom rifles that were a pound or two less, which at the time was a big deal.
Then Ruger came along with the M77. Winchester also had a Featherweigt M70 back then which usually was a bit more expensive than the Ruger. They were game changers that altered the concept of what constituted a lightweight rifle. Today they are mundane items that are no longer considered lightweight because modern technology has reset the bar, and sub 5-pound rifles are to be had. And most seem to produce amazing accuracy. They are technically fascinating.
Personally I found that living and working near sea level then traveling out to hunt with my Wyoming resident brother at 6,000 to 9,000 feet, my Ruger 1B's weight helped to dampen the pounding of my pulse after hurrying to get to a ridge top and trying to keep crosshairs steady on fur.
If a lightweight rifle works for you, great. Have at it. But please consider that given the cost of non-resident tags, travel, lodging, etc, you want a rifle that's going to do the job at the single most critical moment of your hunt. So I'm willing to have a bit more weapon mass to help me. At the same time it's undeniable that unnecessary weight is a curse in the mountains, so save every ounce on your rucksack, boots, cold- and foul-weather gear, knife, first aid kit, binocular and spotting scope. If practical use a water filter to collect water on the hunt for hydration in preference to several liters of water being carried all at once on your person. Conserving weight on those items won't be as glamorous as a space age rifle, but you will save a lot more weight than on the rifle alone.
Not to mention that most of us can shave much more weight off our increasingly ample backsides that the weight of an entire rifle.
Last edited:
Stevie
Member
I own a Winchester M70 'Feather Weight' in .270 Win and a Tikka T3 Lite .308 Win. These the only 'light' rifles I own. The Tikka is synthetic stocked and both are long actions....both 22" barrels with the Winchester equipped with a skinny profile barrel
The Tikka is fairly light weight...the Winchester by virtue of some nice wood isn't all that light in weight.
The two 'light weights' compared to two other standard 22" bolt action rifles I own...a short action S&W 1500 .308 and a Remington 700 ADL .30-06 in factory plastic....just not that much difference in perceived weight really. The wood stocked S&W and the Winchester Feather-Weight weigh close to the same....The plastic stocked Remington ADL is a bit lighter than the wood/walnut stocked rifles...but heavier than the Tikka
Lots of manufacturer advertising touting 'light weight' guns and such....however too light and too heavy for a high powered rifle in normal cartridges has less importance for me than how good the rifle shoots!
The Tikka is fairly light weight...the Winchester by virtue of some nice wood isn't all that light in weight.
The two 'light weights' compared to two other standard 22" bolt action rifles I own...a short action S&W 1500 .308 and a Remington 700 ADL .30-06 in factory plastic....just not that much difference in perceived weight really. The wood stocked S&W and the Winchester Feather-Weight weigh close to the same....The plastic stocked Remington ADL is a bit lighter than the wood/walnut stocked rifles...but heavier than the Tikka
Lots of manufacturer advertising touting 'light weight' guns and such....however too light and too heavy for a high powered rifle in normal cartridges has less importance for me than how good the rifle shoots!
As Murdock pointed out, a heavier rifle is easy to hold steady. They also recoil less. I don't hunt anyplace where a light weight rifle would make any practical difference, but I could see where it could for some folks.
I'm not a huge Savage fan or Ruger bolt actions, but we all have our favorites which we feel is best, so I'd buy whatever brand tickled my fancy.
I'm not a huge Savage fan or Ruger bolt actions, but we all have our favorites which we feel is best, so I'd buy whatever brand tickled my fancy.
The Norseman
Member
Light Rifles do matter.
I think a Light Rifle is always worth it. My suggestion
is to look into the, hardly ever talked about Remington
Model Seven in their Synthetic version.
The Model Seven is a just a smaller version of the
Remington 700 BDL/ADL rifle.
My Rem Model Seven is the all black synthetic version
in the nice, accurate, and if need arises easy to find
.308Win cartridge.
With the awesome Leupold VX-III 2-8 scope on it.
I have never weight it but it feels like just under
7 pounds.
Since must of my shooting is under 300 yards it is
my go to Rifles. Every Hunter I show it to is
impressed with it. When they see it shoot they
want it.
A lot of the options shared above are true, but a
Light Rifle is always worth it.
I think a Light Rifle is always worth it. My suggestion
is to look into the, hardly ever talked about Remington
Model Seven in their Synthetic version.
The Model Seven is a just a smaller version of the
Remington 700 BDL/ADL rifle.
My Rem Model Seven is the all black synthetic version
in the nice, accurate, and if need arises easy to find
.308Win cartridge.
With the awesome Leupold VX-III 2-8 scope on it.
I have never weight it but it feels like just under
7 pounds.
Since must of my shooting is under 300 yards it is
my go to Rifles. Every Hunter I show it to is
impressed with it. When they see it shoot they
want it.
A lot of the options shared above are true, but a
Light Rifle is always worth it.
This is the answer. ^^^^^^^^^^^
Here in Pa. my "walking in Penn's Woods" guns are a 16" Ruger Am Ranch in .223 at 6.1lb or a Ruger 18" 77/357 at 5.5lb..... both with small light 1-3/4 X20 scopes and good slings. Both are carried for "varmints".... 4 or 2 legged.
Last edited:
LVSteve
Member
If you are a flatlander, anywhere above 4000' is where you'll bless any reduction in weight.
One of the reasons so many milsurps got butchered back in the day was to remove weight and/or length. The Mauser 98k, the CZ-24 in most forms, and the Turk Mausers are all horribly muzzle heavy, SMLEs, No4s and the M1917 are just plain too long and heavy, only the 03A3 is a reasonable weight because of its thin wood. The Brazilian 08/34 is one of the best balanced milsurps, and 7mm Mauser from a 22" tube should take care of most business.
Just read a review on the Savage 110 Ultralite in the Jan. 2022 issue of American Rifleman. Yep ain't cheap at $1,595 M.S.R.P. Carbon fiber wrapped barrel, cutouts in receiver, and spiral fluting on the bolt to lower weight of 5 lbs 13ozs. Frankly I would seek a Remington Model 7. Can't believe some of these prices. Glad I bought my stuff 40 years back!
If I’m walking a long ways, climbing, at higher altitudes, and/or in adverse weather conditions, etc, I’d prefer the lightest rifle I can shoot accurately - within reason. A five-pound .300 magnum may not be within reason, but one in .243, 6.5 CM, or 7mm-08 might be. When things get too far out of balance, my shooting will probably suffer.
My older model Remington Model 7KS in .308, with scope and cover, weighs 6.38 pounds. My also older model Mark V Ultra Lightweight .300 Weatherby weighs 7.87 pounds, so roughly a pound and a half difference. Neither is burdensome to shoot and carry, but the Mark V certainly has more capability than the Model 7, if you need it. A 8.5 to 9 pound rifle seems noticeably heavier to me, and a 10 pound rifle that balances poorly can be a real burden. I guess the tipping point on the value of a lightweight rifle depends on a lot of things, most notably to me is what actually is “lightweight”? For me, generally it sets in around 7.5-pounds for a bigger boomer and 6.5 for a short-action model (in both cases, with scope). When I start to think about whether I want to spend the extra bucks to shave another pound from those figures, I come to the same conclusions Murdock mentioned. Shaving 10-pounds off the shooter would likely do a lot more good than a pound off the rifle.
If you’re reluctant to pay the full price for one of the newer generation of “super lightweights,” you might track down an older model lightweight rifle that’s only half-pound or so heavier, but for a LOT less money.
My older model Remington Model 7KS in .308, with scope and cover, weighs 6.38 pounds. My also older model Mark V Ultra Lightweight .300 Weatherby weighs 7.87 pounds, so roughly a pound and a half difference. Neither is burdensome to shoot and carry, but the Mark V certainly has more capability than the Model 7, if you need it. A 8.5 to 9 pound rifle seems noticeably heavier to me, and a 10 pound rifle that balances poorly can be a real burden. I guess the tipping point on the value of a lightweight rifle depends on a lot of things, most notably to me is what actually is “lightweight”? For me, generally it sets in around 7.5-pounds for a bigger boomer and 6.5 for a short-action model (in both cases, with scope). When I start to think about whether I want to spend the extra bucks to shave another pound from those figures, I come to the same conclusions Murdock mentioned. Shaving 10-pounds off the shooter would likely do a lot more good than a pound off the rifle.
If you’re reluctant to pay the full price for one of the newer generation of “super lightweights,” you might track down an older model lightweight rifle that’s only half-pound or so heavier, but for a LOT less money.
Lightweight or "ultralight" rifles have their place but I think it's most important in rugged mountain type hunting for sheep or goats. You're packing gear AND a rifle and climbing and maybe breathing high altitude "thin" air. Eminently sensible to carry a light rifle. Meandering around on the plains of Africa or America, or similar locales, or the deer woods, I don't see the necessity. YMMV
For years, my go-to saddle gun was a little Ruger Hawkeye Compact in .243 with a 3x-10x Leupold scope. Light weight. Easy to pack. And capable of taking down good-sized mule deer, as witnessed in this photo taken about four years ago where my grandson Brig used that little rifle to take down his first mule deer buck with one shot.
A couple years before, when he was living in Arizona, he shot this Coues deer buck with that gun. Again, one shot. That evening he called me and said, "Grandpa, you're never going to see that rifle again."
A few years after Brig shot that mule deer, his younger sister used that same rifle to take down her first buck.
Well, I felt that I needed to replace that rifle, so I found a Ruger M77 Mark II Compact in 7mm-08. Exact same size as the Hawkeye Compact but in 7mm-08. Put a Leupold Vx II on it. Again, perfect saddle gun size with a little bit more punch than the .243.
Light weight? Sure, but big enough to handle the job.
A couple years before, when he was living in Arizona, he shot this Coues deer buck with that gun. Again, one shot. That evening he called me and said, "Grandpa, you're never going to see that rifle again."
A few years after Brig shot that mule deer, his younger sister used that same rifle to take down her first buck.
Well, I felt that I needed to replace that rifle, so I found a Ruger M77 Mark II Compact in 7mm-08. Exact same size as the Hawkeye Compact but in 7mm-08. Put a Leupold Vx II on it. Again, perfect saddle gun size with a little bit more punch than the .243.
Light weight? Sure, but big enough to handle the job.
Last edited:
StrawHat
Member
Mel Forbes, NULA, still makes the ultimate lightweight rifle. Expensive, maybe, but his rifles are second to none.
Kevin
Kevin
My light rifles are Remington Mohawks. 223, 6mm, 308 and 350 Remington mag. The 350 demonstrates what happens when light and power go a bit to far.
Exactly that. Take a look at exploded drawings of various bolt action rifles and you’ll see what I mean. Any real bolt action rifle fan should have a copy of the Frank De Hass book, “Bolt Action Rifles” in which he describes and evaluates a variety of both military and commercial bolt actions. Best designs like the 98 Mauser, pre 64 Winchester mod 70 and Ruger 77 MKll have one piece forged or investment cast bolts and receivers. He rates various bolt actions and the 110 Savage just ain’t one of the good ones folks. The bolt alone is a pieced together abomination of over 20 small pieces, many of which are little sheet metal stampings.
Similar threads
