I happened to be in a large sporting goods store in Green Bay recently. They had several of the new left hand Tikka T-3 lites in stock. I was able to hold them and work the bolt. Nice rifle but I think it's really to light to hold on a target. Had they been heavier, I might have bought the 30-06 that day.
YooperJack

As I age (heading for 61) my rifles seem to gain as much weight as me. Most are in the 9 to 9.5 range complete with scopes and mag cartridges. I let the horse worry about hauling them around and none have even complained. I have found that invariably the elk or deer will be further up the mountain or on the other side of it whenever I locate them. This often causes an old man to attempt a quick trip up what is usually a significant vertical challenge. As a result the heart is racing and the lungs pumping. Nevertheless the 9.5 lb .338 will settle right down with the Leupold's crosshairs just about where I want them for a successful hit. I cannot say the same thing for my custom lightweights or even for the lamented Rem Mtn Rifle that I traded off years ago. As we all are quite aware shooting from the bench after a leasurely walk from your pickup or SUV is different in numernous ways from shooting from a windy hilltop when you are out of breathe and worn out from 4 or 5 days in the hills.
Given one gun give me the heavier one...sorry NULA and other lites fans, they are great rifles but usually that extra few pounds is beneficial when the reason you are hunting happens. Besides leave that ridiculous backpack (and whatever is in it) in camp, only take 6 Snickers instead of 12, don't haul around those extra rifle magazines, take only 2 knives and small flashlights, and on and on. Pretty soon you have more than made up for the difference in rifle weight that you are carrying. That's my side of the story, I do what works for me.

Dave, it seems the main argument against a heavy rifle is the one you mention - carrying it in rough country. A good sling that distributes the weight effectively and doesn't slide off of your shoulder could help here. Can you recommend any slings?

It's easier to take the weight off the rifle than off the hunter.

I'm disabled, so mostly hunt from a stand. I have a ruger 10-22 that is accurate but that short 2"x4" shape of it will not hold steady for me. I can shoot three times as good with a marlin bolt,or lever, a rem 552, or win 67. balance and fit(which the ruger doesn't have) has as an important part as weight inMHO.

I usually stick with Weatherby rifles for the magnum loads; they are heavier than most of the rifles being built today.

I always have believed that the M-14 was a better battle rifle than the M-16. The M-14 didn't have to be as heavy as it is either--a better stock configuration could remove a pound of wood from the stock. I carried 85 pounds of crap on my back in Vietnam with 1st Marine Division, plus the M-16. Today, the poor bastards still carry pack-mule loads. Funny someone hasn't figured out how to lighten things up. Troops would be more combat effective.

Nowadays with arthritic knees and a hip replacement, I am a "has-been" sheep hunter, but in nine sheep hunts from Arizona to Wyoming, B.C., NWT, the Yukon and Alaska, I carried a custom-stocked .270 with 22" Douglas barrel and Finnish Sako L-61 action. I had a 4X Redfield on it, then gave that scope to my wife and put a 4X Burris on the rifle. The .270 weighs about 8-1/4 pounds with sling. With today's ultralights I suspect one could find a .270 that is a couple pounds lighter, but I think it would be tough to shoot. My last ram (Stone in Y.T.) was shot in a gusty wind, uphill from about 150 yards. The sun, which I hadn't seen in a week, came out and was in my eyes...I don't know if I could have made the shot with an ulralight.

I own a couple Mark V Weatherbys--7mm and .300--which I treasure. Both are 45-50 years old, and on their second barrels--25" medium-weight Douglas and Weatherby brands. The .300 is custom-stocked, and each rifle weighs more than nine pounds. Not great rifles for scrambling on scree slopes, but for much big game hunting they are fine. Much of the recoil is absorbed by the rifles' weight. Also, there is nothing like squirming into a shooting position and seeing those crosshairs steady rather than bouncing all over the place as in the case of a too-light rifle!

My kid likes those black stretchy nylon type slings from Stony Point expecially for heavy rifles. He maintains that they are easier on your shoulders and don't constantly slide off. To some degree I have to agree with him. Personally the Murray that I have are much more practical, appealing and durable. It is a little pricy but you will never wear it out or tear it up. I swap it around on whichever rifle I am taking. Like Dave said other than the original mineral oil coating you don't have any upkeep on it. Murray's are not those silly cobra headed things with your initials on them and actually will fit into the rifle scabbard on your horse and slide out easily. They have a website.
A fellow who passed away last year used to make a sling he called and sold under the tradename of Wyoming sling. They came in both cordura and in leather. Their unique feature was a split down the center of the strap. You could slip each arm into the slit and wear the rifle up the mountain like a backpack leaving both hands free to hold onto tree roots and rocks. I am not certain that anyone is still making them.

Couple of weeks ago during spring break, my father and I pulled out his old 1886 Winchester chambered in .38-56 that he had obtained from a relative several years ago and never fired. Most commercially available .38-56 brass is fire formed from .45-70 brass, so before I fired it I was expecting similar levels of recoil.

However, since the .38-56 is a black powder cartridge, and the 1886 (manufactured sometime in the 1890's) weighed something on the order of 10-12 lbs (thanks in part to its heavy octagonal barrel), the recoil was nothing but a slight shove. It surprised the heck out of me.

Dave: Crazy talk! No reason to carry a 9-pound rifle, when gunmakers like Melvin Forbes make 5 1/2 pound pieces (I have a .338 and a .270)that are stocked so well that much felt recoil is just absorbed.

And it takes a little shooter technique, too, holding the rifle firmly into the shoulder and getting a snug spot-weld with the cheek. Mounting the scope with just the right eye-relief is part of it, so that stock 'crawling' is minimized.

In my four years in the Marine Corps, I learned to my regret theat the decimal point falls out of the M-1's 9.5 pounds after the first five miles. Now I'm old and fat and 70, and 2000 vertical feet with a 9-pound rifle will ensure that I arrive in the shooting position out of breath and shaky, while the same climb with a 5 1/2 pound burden has a better chance of seeing me arrive still able to shoot.

No brainer. Stop spreading this 9-pound nonsense.
Chuck B.

Ishawooa: That is an interesting concept that you mention--shooting all the "misses" out of a rifle. Yes, those .270s with Sako actions are excellent.

How is your snowpack in the Cody country this spring? Very good up here in southwestern Montana. We are above normal in many drainages, which is a revelation from almost a decade of drought.

Where did you apply for WY bighorn this year? Area 5 for me.

Bernie I assume that you were aware that the "misses" being gone is a joke. But also let me warn you not to shoot your rifle too far as it might strain the barrel. Another little known fact is that firing a small weapon, say a .243, into a large mammal, perhaps a rhino, could possibly damage the rifle. It is quite readily apparent that the speed of some of the bullets we shoot at deer and elk causes the bullets to self destruct before reaching the target, what else could account for the animal trotting off to live another day. Of course everyone knows that about half of the shells in a box intended for shooting doves obviously have no shot in them. Also approximately 5 shells in every box of AA trap are also missing the shot. Be sure to keep these facts in mind when in the field or on the range.
Snowpack in the Cody country mountains finally is about 110 to 125% depending on where and who you gather your info from. Last weekend there was over 3 feet of snow in the parking lot at Pahaska and the North Fork was frozen completely across. Of course here in Cody there is only brown and dry.
I applied for area 5 also. I have never drawn it for sheep (only area 3 has been successful) but love the country. It is easily transversed, difficult to get lost, and we have killed nice bulls there. As a matter of fact I have more than once watched 130-160 B & C rams intermingled with the elk herds on Venus and Eleanor Creeks and have ridden by bedded down rams who nonchalauntly watched me pass by. On Jack Creek the daughter of a friend had a cow permit and shot a big calf who was obviously living with about a dozen ewes and lambs. Walking up the sidehill for a couple hundred yards we encountered a dead and rotted cow elk which we assume was the mother of the calf. The point of all this jibberish is that area 5 is easier to move about when you are 60 years old than areas 2 or 3 which are mostly vertical. I still think 3 the best but my is it full of grizzlies and wolves.
So far there have been 3 wolves killed outside the trophy area in Wyoming and maybe a fourth since the person involved has ten days to report the kill. I also heard but cannot confirm that three more wolves were legally killed by ranchers on Heart Mountain and will be reported soon. Apparently there will be a wolf season in the trophy area this fall. It will be a quota system much like black bears and mountain lions in Wyoming.
Chuckb you are probably right about the NULAs in spite of my previous remark. Others have told me the same thing but it is hard for old farts like me to change. It took me from about 1978 to 1989 to ever accept a synthetic stock but after that time I rarely use anything else. Let's see what caliber should that NULA be? I think a .300 mag of some sort but I need to sleep on that one...good night.

Ishawooa, you have finally answered a lifetime of questions I have had about my hunting "gear". I have found in my experience that the shot shells manufactured with no shot are not limited to any particular ammo manufacturer. Additionally the Dove and Quail loads sold at a special price have a higher percentage of no shot than standard shotshell loads.
Seriosly that was pretty funny. You should consider writing a small column (they still call it that right?) for F & S or another premium hunting and fishing magazine. I'd bet my strained barrels you'd be successful.