Lightweight Rifles

[Kkwebb]

I’ve been working hard to reduce the weight of ll my equipment because of mobility issues in the steep stuff. The rifle is one component of that.

I haven’t given up accuracy in the ranges I shoot going from 9# to 7#.

 

[Choupique]

The only issues with light weight rifles are price and recoil. If it were possible to have a 3 pound 338 win mag that shot tiny groups, cost $1000 and didn't kick, I'd have one.

 

[prm]

I hate it when my barrel walks away. It’s always the light ones, can’t trust ’em.


But when they come back, they shoot fine. Seriously, I do think it’s harder to shoot a very lightweight rifle. However, the difference in accuracy means nothing for the purpose of hunting (Insert caveat about typical ranges, blah, blah).

 

[gbflyer]

I don’t know where these rifles get so light. I put a mountain rifle contour barrel and a McMillan Hunters Edge on my last one and the sucker is still a little over 7lbs with a scope. Maybe my scale is off. It does shoot good though.

 

[Liftman101]

I am not a Western Hunter who hunts, hikes and camps. I just like walking around with a nice light rifle. Not a need like some people on this site, just for fun. I must admit, there are a lot of compromises to get super light. The Weatherby has a Titanium action with a very small bolt and a barrel so thin it looks ridiculous next to a normal rifle. The Titanium action does not seem to run as smooth as the stainless one in the regular Backcountry and I am not sure I will ever shoot it enough to break it in. I added a Leupold VX-2 3-9x33 Ultralight scope that weighs only 9.2 ounces and is no longer made. Its not a great scope but it works for shots less than 200 yards. In the lightweights like the Barretts, Kimbers, NULAs and the Weatherbys, the .308 weighs less than the smaller calibers because the hole in the barrel is larger. Mine ends up being 5 lbs 6.25 ounces. Even adding a pic rail with regular rings adds several ounces. I do have an even lighter 2-7 ultralight scope but I like the 3-9 better.

The one thing being mentioned that I will agree with is that I am not good enough with a rifle to shoot off of a shooting stick and spot my impacts with this lightweight gun. It moves too much. My heavier long range guns off a bipod on a bench or prone, I can accomplish this. I am not sure I could spot impacts even with a heavy gun off of a shooting stick.

 

[Happy Antelope]

The internal temperature of a barrel is the same or so close as to be meaningless whether it’s 1” in diameter or .5”. And, no, unless talking true BR I have seen no difference between thin barrels and thick barrels in functional average group size. The last three barrels I had chambered were all T3 lite contour dupe and the largest 10 round group from any of the three at 100 is .92”. All three average .7 to .8” for ten.

This isn't really true, the internal temp is only 1 factor, a barrel warps when it heats up, there is a reason the most accurate rifles in the world have very thick barrels. Even Cooper did not guarantee their model 92 as 1/2 MOA. The first shot should be the same, but the more you shoot the more the thin barrel will slip on accuracy.

Not to mention barrel Harmonics are amplified on thin barrels and affect accuracy.

 

[Formidilosus]

This isn't really true, the internal temp is only 1 factor, a barrel bends when it heats up, there is a reason the most accurate rifles in the world have very thick barrels. Even Cooper did not guarantee their model 92 as 1/2 MOA.

What are the group size differences in large, statistically relevant sample sizes (30 round groups) between a .6 diameter at the muzzle and .8 at the muzzle from your experience?

 

[Happy Antelope]

What are the group size differences in large, statistically relevant sample sizes (30 round groups) between a .6 diameter at the muzzle and .8 at the muzzle from your experience?

Not data I keep, but I have read enough on the basic physics, experts data they keep, and gun makers knowledge to know that a pencil thin barrel will be less accurate than a bull barrel. Lot of factors go into making a barrel accurate. Steel quality, barrel to chamber alignment, thickness, taper, etc. Everything makes a difference. I am no expert, but of course a thin barrel is less accurate on follow up shots. My Cooper 92 becomes almost worthless to shoot after say 5-10 quick rounds.

 

[Formidilosus]

Not data I keep, but I have read enough on the basic physics, experts data they keep, and gun makers knowledge to know that a pencil thin barrel will be less accurate than a bull barrel.

They don’t know either. There are no barrel makers that have taken ten sporter barrels and ten bull barrels and shot them each for 30 round groups. There are places and people that have done that. The difference in groups size between identical quality sporter and varmint weight barrels averages less than bullet diameter for ten round groups.

Lot of factors go into making a barrel accurate. Steel quality, barrel to chamber alignment, thickness, taper, etc. Everything makes a difference.

If you’ve never done it, and none of the “experts” have either, why do you believe it?

I am no expert, but of course a thin barrel is less accurate on follow up shots.

No it’s not.

My Cooper 92 becomes almost worthless to shoot after say 5-10 quick rounds.

Does it? Or is it just that 5-10 shots are showing you the true cone versus 3 shots?

 

[Happy Antelope]

They don’t know either. There are no barrel makers that have taken ten sporter barrels and ten bull barrels and shot them each for 30 round groups. There are places and people that have done that. The difference in groups size between identical quality sporter and varmint weight barrels averages less than bullet diameter for ten round groups.




If you’ve never done it, and none of the “experts” have either, why do you believe it?





No it’s not.




Does it? Or is it just that 5-10 shots are showing you the true cone versus 3 shots?

Physics like math are not really debatable in the universe. And yes there are tests that have been done all over the place, do a google search. Not to mention thick barrels also last longer as the heat does less damage over time.

heavy rifle barrel have better and more repeatable harmonics, that's simple physics and not even debatable.
The thicker a barrel is the less warp possible, again this is measurable by physics.
The heavier the rifle the less recoil will affect or disturb the rifle movement

Do you have a photo or a bench rest shooter using a 5 pound hunting rifle? Some of most accurate rifle in the world below. They all look like this, I am not going to debate anyone who made a rifle that looks like that....

Thick, heavy, short barrels always.

 

[Formidilosus]

Physics like math are not really debatable in the universe. And yes there are tests that have been done all over the place, do a google search. Not to mention thick barrels also last longer as the heat does less damage over time.

heavy rifle barrel have better and more repeatable harmonics, that's simple physics and not even debatable.
The thicker a barrel is the less warp possible, again this is measurable by physics.
The heavier the rifle the less recoil will affect or disturb the rifle movement

Do you have a photo or a bench rest shooter using a 5 pound hunting rifle? Some of most accurate rifle in the world below. They all look like this, I am not going to debate anyone who made a rifle that looks like that....

Thick, heavy, short barrels always.

I don’t need to google. I have done what you are theorizing. I don’t give two flips about short range BR. The difference between a thin barrel and I thick barrel is less than .25 MOA for statistically relevant shot group sizes- for short range bench rest that is unacceptable- for long range field shooting it is noise and has no effect.

None of these are cherry picked, I went through and screen shot whatever grouos came up with a variety of rifles. All are 10+ round groups at 100 yards. What contour barrels shot these?

 

[Happy Antelope]

I don’t need to google. I have done what you are theorizing. I don’t give two flips about short range BR. The difference between a thin barrel and I thick barrel is less than .25 MOA for statistically relevant shot group sizes- for short range bench rest that is unacceptable- for long range field shooting it is noise and has no effect.

None of these are cherry picked, I went through and screen shot whatever grouos came up with a variety of rifles. All are 10+ round groups at 100 yards. What contour barrels shot these?

View attachment 515956

View attachment 515957

View attachment 515958

View attachment 515959


View attachment 515962


View attachment 515963

I'm not sure how this disproves physics?, Looks like you shoot well, I imagine with a more accurate rifle you could have punched them all in 1 hole. I think the world record for 1000 yards is something like 3.5 inches. Not done with a 6 pound rifle.

 

[BjornF16]

I'm not sure how this disproves physics?,

Just what physics are you referring to…specifically?

 

[Happy Antelope]

Just what physics are you referring to…specifically?

Just what physics are you referring to…specifically?

Everything

Just what physics are you referring to…specifically?

How steel reacts when heated

 

[BjornF16]

Everything

How steel reacts when heated

“Everything” and “how steel reacts when heated” isn’t specific.

Specific would be something like Young’s Modulus.

So, once again, what physics specifically are you referring to?

 

[PathFinder]

How does it react when heated? What factors is it directly proportional to?
Probably research it first, there's gonna be a test. We can walk through the math if anyone's interested.
There's been a lot more work lately (from Applied Ballistics specifically) on the amount a rifle moves before the bullet exits the muzzle vs the effect of supposed "barrel harmonics." That is the factor that Form, Ryan, and others have been exploring with lighter calibers and their effect on hit rate. There is a correlation between recoil energy, rifle weight, and the field "shoot ability" of the system. What we need to understand as hunters is not just what the mechanical system can do, but how the shooter interacts with it in field conditions.
From an engineering standpoint, Form is right about barrel diameter. Changes resulting from a larger diameter barrel will be unmeasurable in relation to changes resulting from shooter error. It's probably a factor at some order of magnitude, but will be manifest as statistical noise in comparison to shooter error.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Reburn]

Does it? Or is it just that 5-10 shots are showing you the true cone versus 3 shots?

Serious question.

Can it be that the barrels aren’t properly made and prone to stringing when heated?
Do manufactures make as many bad barrels that aren’t properly stress relieved as they do scopes that don’t work?
Or is bad barrels not a common thing anymore?

 

[DangerRanger]

It becomes a liability when:

you can’t spot your shots

It causes fundamental technique issues (flenching)

The recoil makes you shoot/practice less


While I think there may be some merit to thickness at the ultimate levels of BR record setting, it’s a different world to practical shooting. Look at the intoruction of palma contours in that venue, they reduced barrel thickness for extra length. Most positional comps favor extra weight for recoil reduction and balance. I do know there is work being done on optimal contours in long range benchrest, but it takes a long time to make real data on this stuff.

Here’s a sub 5 pound ultralight 6 creed shooting dimes at 1k. This was built by one of the best Br smiths in the world for one of the best Br shooters… and (un)surprisingly it still hammers

Tom Mousel « Daily Bulletin

Content tagged with Tom Mousel.

bulletin.accurateshooter.com

 

[redneckbmxer24]

It’s always the same excuses too guys swear up and down they can shoot and they know what they are doing. It’s actually pretty entertaining.

If you think a lighter rifle is the same as shooting a heavier one you are sadly mistaken. Lighter rifles are harder to shoot accurately, there’s no arguing it. They just aren’t as planted and stable in whatever you’re resting them on. Can they be shot accurately though? Yes, but not as easily.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

If you think a lighter rifle is the same as shooting a heavier one you are sadly mistaken. Lighter rifles are harder to shoot accurately, there’s no arguing it. They just aren’t as planted and stable in whatever you’re resting them on. Can they be shot accurately though? Yes, but not as easily.

I think the recent high speed footage from Bryan Litz of the barrel moving from recoil before the bullet exits the barrel is pretty telling as to possibly why most people have issues shooting lightweight rifles.