@ 01:21 pm (GMT)
Hey Ian. A group of us had a talk about this last year. See link to disscusion below. I guess that part of the hunting and shooting scene is being, keeping or getting fit enough to carry and shoot an accurate rifle. Just like a contract fencer has to carry his spade and post rammer up hills dig post holes, place and ram them tight. 10kg less body weight even 5kg lost makes a huge difference and is an investment in your own health and well being. Entirely up to you to choose. It's one of your available options and the rewards will pay way more dividends back for you than shaving metal and weight off your heavy piece of accurate artillery..........
Thanks Warwick. That thread seems to have input from a lot of blokes who are carrying a tad excess. That is not me. If I lost 5kg, I would lose strength. If I lost 10 kg, I would die, if I didn't blow away first. I have always been regarded as a pretty fair climber and fitness and weight are as good as they can be for me.
Making things a bit easier for our knees and lungs doesn't have to be an "either or" choice. We can have sensibly light gear and ALSO trim off excess body weight. WIN/WIN.
There is also the consideration of physical size. In broad terms it seems that many posters weigh 80kgs or more, even when fit. I weigh 62. So if one gets into the numbers, a 10lb rifle for someone weighing 80kg size is a 7.75lb rifle for me. Or put another way a 10lb rifle for me is a 12.9 lb rifle for our 80 KG hunter. How many of you want to hunt thar with a 13lb rifle, no matter how nice it is to shoot ?
Bob's idea of using the rifle as an anchor on windy ridges has some merit, particularly in Fjiordland, but 12lb ? No way. Even with a 30oz scope, I am unconvinced about the need for such weights to achieve excellent accuracy.
I carried a very accurate Sako L61R 270 on my first thar hunting trip 45 years ago, and it weighed over 9.5lbs. I vowed never again.