On that note, we really NEED an aluminum BCG!
Ultralight Ultralight Rifles
- Thread starter Thegman
- Start date
packgoatguy
WKR
I would think a 2lb "bare rifle" weight would be "possible"...... based on the current weights of the solo300 upper and bolt, and the portless 16 inch shaw pencil barrel...... if there were an aluminum bolt carrier, ti bolt, a skeletonized/smooth version of the solo300 upper, a 10-12 inch portless pencil barrel, 3oz stock assembly, ti charging handle, TA carbon fiber lower, NFA poly lpk, etc...
That would get the final package into the sub 3lb range including a Scythe Ti (with non brake ti endcap) and a PA 5x microprism...or even the 2.5-2.75lb range with a simple red dot or open sights.
But a "full up" sub-3lb SBR 223 wylde capable of precise holdovers with the 77tmk out to 300/400 yards would be a game changer!
That would get the final package into the sub 3lb range including a Scythe Ti (with non brake ti endcap) and a PA 5x microprism...or even the 2.5-2.75lb range with a simple red dot or open sights.
But a "full up" sub-3lb SBR 223 wylde capable of precise holdovers with the 77tmk out to 300/400 yards would be a game changer!
Last edited:
C Bow
WKR
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2016
- Messages
- 847
I would take one
- Thread Starter
- #2,044
WTF! Do I have a say in this? This is spinning out of control...Ultralight, just not ULUL.
On that note, Backpackers have loose weight parameters for Lightweight, UL, SUL and XUL:
“Lightweight (LW) = base weight less than 20lbs.
Ultralight (UL) = base weight less than 10lbs.
Super Ultralight (SUL) = base weight less than 5lbs.
Extreme Ultralight (XUL) = base weight less than 3lbs.”
As fellow gear nerds I think we need similar parameters for rifles. Here are my thoughts for empty rifles but including all accessories and a magazine.
Lightweight= <9 scoped and suppressed
UL= <7 scoped and suppressed
SUL or ULUL= <5 scoped and suppressed
XUL= <3 scoped and suppressed? Maybe 4? Probably only attainable with an SBR or pistol and the lightest of sights unsuppressed.
Of course suppressors are optional, but they definitely need to be part of overall weight because they are a large factor in the system.
Ferrulewax
WKR
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2014
- Messages
- 870
I just wanted to start discussion, if you have thoughts the floor is yoursWTF! Do I have a say in this? This is spinning out of control...
BREAKCONTACT
FNG
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2024
- Messages
- 52
OK, I want to know, IS a sub 3lb rifle thats not an SBR even possible?
I have a 3lb 5oz rifle unloaded with a red dot. There are spots it could go on a diet, but 5oz worth could prove difficult.
To go really lightweight, you must do four things:
1. Luck out. Example: the polymer Blackthorne upper receiver I scored years ago is a rare find. Without that, going sub-3 would have been more challenging.
2. Get creative. Off-the-shelf parts won't cut it. You must modify and think outside-the-box on how to lose weight.
3. Be ruthless. Do you really need X or Y part on a build? If it's not essential, omit it. Easy weight savings.
4. Treat it like a game. Without much effort, a basic lightweight build is more than enough for our purposes. If you choose to go further, know that you're making an inferior hunting instrument. Going too low in weight is probably worse than adding unnecessary weight. Unless you're shooting a mountain lion out of tree after a 24-mile hike in feet of snow, a 4-, 5-, or 6-pound gun is far more useful than a sub-3-pound gun for every purpose.
That said, Thegman and I are working on a lightweight build that will likely get us Nobel prizes. We hope to unveil it early next year. How light will it be? Stay tuned....
1. Luck out. Example: the polymer Blackthorne upper receiver I scored years ago is a rare find. Without that, going sub-3 would have been more challenging.
2. Get creative. Off-the-shelf parts won't cut it. You must modify and think outside-the-box on how to lose weight.
3. Be ruthless. Do you really need X or Y part on a build? If it's not essential, omit it. Easy weight savings.
4. Treat it like a game. Without much effort, a basic lightweight build is more than enough for our purposes. If you choose to go further, know that you're making an inferior hunting instrument. Going too low in weight is probably worse than adding unnecessary weight. Unless you're shooting a mountain lion out of tree after a 24-mile hike in feet of snow, a 4-, 5-, or 6-pound gun is far more useful than a sub-3-pound gun for every purpose.
That said, Thegman and I are working on a lightweight build that will likely get us Nobel prizes. We hope to unveil it early next year. How light will it be? Stay tuned....
- Thread Starter
- #2,051
Well, my 2c would be to always start with a rifle’s bare weight as a baseline, the all-up rifle weight can go in a thousand different directions after you start adding options. To me, an all up rifle that weighs 4# with a 1# scope + 4oz mounts is more interesting than one that weighs 3# 14oz with just a 2oz red dot on top.
The 4# all-up rifle can be a lot lighter if one wants, the 3# 14oz rifle can't. ...but then again, I'm not the boss of the world either so don't let me spoil all the fun!...
The 4# all-up rifle can be a lot lighter if one wants, the 3# 14oz rifle can't. ...but then again, I'm not the boss of the world either so don't let me spoil all the fun!...
- Thread Starter
- #2,052
This one is a few ounces heavier than StupidLightweight's, but would still be under 3# with the same sight and a PMag.
As StupidLightweight says though, I'm not sure going any lighter would be very practical for an all-around rifle. Maybe kind of a special purpose woods carry rifle but not sure about longer ranges. So far this one hasn't had to shoot in the field further than about 120 yards (one of the black bears). So far so good, but still in the testing phase, and I'm running a 12oz scope and Aero rings, so not running it as light as possible either.
“Ulul R. 1985” sounds like the name of a future president
Many lessons in federal governing could be learned from the ULUL endeavor.
What's a good "clamping tool" that you all have used successfully on these composite lowers for tightening the barrel nut? First AR build and I don't want to Crack my Tennessee arms...
The whole operation looks pretty sketchy even if all of the force is on the ALUMINUM upper. And, not sure if online jigs will fit the solo upper.
I have a whole auto/wood workshop, so I'm guessing some wood blocks could be used, but not wanting to damage the cerakote as well. Please let me know how you did this, and if I need to remove the lower to make this happen. Thanks!
*jag composites nut 30 ft/lbs IIRC
The whole operation looks pretty sketchy even if all of the force is on the ALUMINUM upper. And, not sure if online jigs will fit the solo upper.
I have a whole auto/wood workshop, so I'm guessing some wood blocks could be used, but not wanting to damage the cerakote as well. Please let me know how you did this, and if I need to remove the lower to make this happen. Thanks!
*jag composites nut 30 ft/lbs IIRC
Last edited:
Do you or a friend have an aluminum lower you can slap it on while installing a barrel?
I would use an
Man I don’t have a polymer lower in my possession yet, but regardless I wouldn’t do anything besides use an upper receiver rod.
If you’re going to build AR’s, it seems like a must have.
Man I don’t have a polymer lower in my possession yet, but regardless I wouldn’t do anything besides use an upper receiver rod.
If you’re going to build AR’s, it seems like a must have.
Similar threads
Featured Video
Stats
Latest Articles
-
YETI Tundra 210 Cooler Review
-
Rifles for Hunting Big Mule Deer
-
T&K Gen 3.1 Bino Harness Review
-
Seek Outside Twilight 3P Tent Review
-
Montana Knife Company Culinary Set Review
-
Get Better Mule Deer Hunting
-
KUIU Upland Field Vest Review
-
WE WON!
-
Mule Deer Rut Update & Buck Story
-
Sitka Gear HyperDown Sleeping Bag Review