Dollars per ounce

[judders87]

What is the most you'll pay per ounce of weight saved on a new product? At what point is it not worth it?

 

[taskswap]

Depends on the quality of the item and its purpose. Binos cost a ton of money. Last year I invested in new glass that cost $500 more but was 2oz lighter. Is that $250/oz? Not really, because the quality was also significantly better.

I also use a River Country tent that at 2lbs 14oz is significantly lighter than a lot of what I see others carrying. It's not quite "ultralight" but I like a tent with a floor so that's a wash to me. But it's also only $70, so if somebody else pays $250 for something a pound heavier... was that -$11.25 per oz?

I don't think there's a formula here that's going to consistently reflect the needs of hunters. Even if you tried to factor in additional elements like "quality" there'd be no way to consistently account for differences in hunting style for everyone. A mountain hunter has different needs and problems than a tree-stand hunter. Somebody who prefers run-and-gun cares about different things than a spot-and-stalk'er.

What I can say is I think most folks will consistently pay more for features than anything else. I'd be more likely to buy a water filter at the same weight as my current one if it was easier to clean, more freeze-resistant, or had better fittings, than one that was 2oz lighter but had the same features. But that's just me.

 

[judders87]

Depends on the quality of the item and its purpose. Binos cost a ton of money. Last year I invested in new glass that cost $500 more but was 2oz lighter. Is that $250/oz? Not really, because the quality was also significantly better.

I also use a River Country tent that at 2lbs 14oz is significantly lighter than a lot of what I see others carrying. It's not quite "ultralight" but I like a tent with a floor so that's a wash to me. But it's also only $70, so if somebody else pays $250 for something a pound heavier... was that -$11.25 per oz?

I don't think there's a formula here that's going to consistently reflect the needs of hunters. Even if you tried to factor in additional elements like "quality" there'd be no way to consistently account for differences in hunting style for everyone. A mountain hunter has different needs and problems than a tree-stand hunter. Somebody who prefers run-and-gun cares about different things than a spot-and-stalk'er.

What I can say is I think most folks will consistently pay more for features than anything else. I'd be more likely to buy a water filter at the same weight as my current one if it was easier to clean, more freeze-resistant, or had better fittings, than one that was 2oz lighter but had the same features. But that's just me.

Yeah I believe performance/features should matter way more depending on your type of hunt. If you had two items that had the same performance but one was heavier but cheaper and vice versa where do you draw that line?

 

[35WhelenAI]

My thought is find the most useful products for the need at hand from the choisces of said products. Decide which works best for the job for you. It's about function, and doing its purpose.

The posts above slid in as I was typing, and we seem to concur.

One place I would spend a bit more for lighter weight, or shop pricing and find the lightest within a given range of products that will work is footwear. Every step you lift the foot (non weight bearing) is weight that can't be lightened in a pack. One ounce, no. 4, 5, 6 ounces per foot, makes me think.

 

[S.Clancy]

If you are really going to do this calculation correctly you have to factor in that lightweight products generally have a shorter life due to lighter materials. That is why I generally don't go with the lightest option, especially depending on what it is. My sleeping pad is probably 1.5-2x the weight of what most here use, but mine is 75D material, significantly decreasing chance of puncture. But, you could prob get away with 10 or 20D in a sleeping bag.

 

[5MilesBack]

I'm more frugal, stubborn, and picky than I am weak, so it's not that big of a deal to me to carry extra weight at a cheaper price. But if you hunt hard enough during the offseason, you can normally find high quality, lightweight, and much cheaper than retail of what you use. But in the end, I know what I like and I'm gonna carry it because I like it........not because of how much it weighs. I have a BA Copper Spur UL4 that weighs almost 6lbs. I like it and my space, so that's what I carry.

 

[taskswap]

Where I save my ounces is in multi-use gear. I've used my poncho for rain cover, as a ground sheet, and as a tarp when field dressing. My walking stick has a V-style rifle rest on top that I use as a monopod. My Havalon Talon has "bushcraft" and saw blade attachments so I don't carry a separate saw. My BotPot carries water during the day, is my cook pot for dinner, and my heat source in my sleeping bag. Etc. I spend more on multi-use items.

 

[Dos Perros]

I did an analysis one time of current gear and potential purchases to prioritize by weight savings value. That assumes function is held equal. I think I stopped actually making purchases around $10/oz. There were options between $10/oz and $100/oz. People talk about $100/oz sometimes, like ultralight backpacking folks. That seems crazy to me.

 

[S.Clancy]

I did an analysis one time of current gear and potential purchases to prioritize by weight savings value. That assumes function is held equal. I think I stopped around $10/oz. There were options between $10/oz and $100/oz. People talk about $100/oz sometimes, like ultralight backpacking folks. That seems crazy to me.

Yea, at a certain point you just become the "Ranch Fairy" of light gear.....shit don't matter

 

[Elkangle]

Efficiency is more important then strictly weight but I've been guilty of paying alot per ounce..often to afford packing weight in another category

It's hard to use a big brush when justifying if the cost is worth it..some hunts yes...some hunts no..some gear yes il spend 100s per ounce while some gear the cons of ultralight are way to great irregardless of the price

Hope this helps

 

[Grassymike]

It all depends, how strong is your back and how thick is your wallet ? I think once you have cut your biggest offenders weight wise it pays more to figure out how to leave more behind (take only what you need) and get in shape. Like really work at losing pounds off your body. I know that I have 10 pounds extra to lose. Just thinking how much cutting 10 pounds off my very reasonable current pack weight would cost makes my new treadmill cheap.

 

[fngTony]

I think if you’re already committed to buying high end stuff then then it’s not that much more to cut weight. An example would be buying a down bag from western mountaineering vs a kifaru slick bag.

 

[ramsdude47]

Too complex to just say item A costs this much more than item B and then run the $/oz.

Sometimes lightweight gear is only expensive because it’s light, but more often than not it’s also better gear (and sometimes significantly better).

 

[thinhorn_AK]

I’m getting a new rail for one of my rifles, the titanium one is ~ 85 dollars more and a few Oz lighter than the steel one.

 

[Marbles]

Efficiency is more important then strictly weight but I've been guilty of paying alot per ounce..often to afford packing weight in another category

It's hard to use a big brush when justifying if the cost is worth it..some hunts yes...some hunts no..some gear yes il spend 100s per ounce while some gear the cons of ultralight are way to great irregardless of the price

Hope this helps

Hard to say it better.

I've spent over $100 per ounce because I was replacing something I already had. I have also gotten expensive replacement gear that added weight to my pack.

 

[jhm2023]

The only place I'm truly willing to fork out money for saving weight is in my rifle. Everything else is a balancing act of functionality, multipurpose and what best serves my needs.

A good example of weight vs function, I've sheep hunted with guys that carried super thin 3/4 length sleeping pads that were very light. I carried a full length thicker and more comfortable pad. My pad was a good bit heavier but the increased quality of sleep far outweighed the slight reduction in weight on my back giving more energy for each day's hike.

The best way to save weight in my opinion, is to make as many things as possible that you carry, have more than one purpose. At the end of that hunt, if there is something you did not use, don't pack that item the next time. Obviously there are exceptions to this, such as first aid items.

 

[Dos Perros]

Someone needs to come out with ultralight water. That shit is heavy.

 

[gilby]

I have a spreadsheet with cost per ounce on various upgrades. I feel as though it's saved me quite a bit of money since you don't end up chasing high dollar items without much weight savings.

 

[OutHeavy]

Yeah I believe performance/features should matter way more depending on your type of hunt. If you had two items that had the same performance but one was heavier but cheaper and vice versa where do you draw that line?

Another way to look at this is how much the item contributes to your success. If performance was equal I'd probably spend $100 (or more) per ounce to save weight on my rifle but there's no way that logic applies if I'm buying a headlamp.

 

[eyeguy]

I agree with one of the other posters. I could loose 5-10 lbs and I could gain more muscle and endurance. So pay attention to weight, find multi use items, improve your list each time you go. Trial and error is the best teacher. I am not sure I agree with the savings in ounces in footwear add up to more than ounces in your pack. If you work out enough in your hunting boots in preparation for your hunt the lifting of a few extra ounces weight would likely pale by the problems of wearing the wrong type/quality of boot for your hunt.