Post by: Mongo Hunter on October 26, 2015, 10:36:09 AM
So it got me looking at a short lightweight rifle for just these sort of occasions. the two I'm looking at are the Marlin 45-70 (about 37" and 7lbs) and the Thompson Katahdin (34.5" 7lbs). I'm trying to figure out the advantages and disadvantages of both.
I have always wanted a Marlin 45-70 in stainless and I like the extra rounds it holds, however the new ones I have heard are a bit spotty on QC and its a little longer than the Thompson.
The Thompson is the shortest has great QC/REP and it can break down very small to even be a backup hunting rifle, but is only a single shot.
I understand the compromise that these guns are, they will never reach out as far or as accurate as my 7mm BUT they are significantly shorter and lighter than what I have.
So my question, what would you pick/use/have? Is there something I missed that maybe would be a better option?
No bolt guns, I have 3 and trying to convince the wife of a 4th wont happen, but if I can sell the one (Remington 788 in 243) I could easily convince her of one of these other two or something similar.
Thanks guys!
Post by: Smokepole54 on October 26, 2015, 11:14:31 AM
Post by: jackelope on October 26, 2015, 11:30:19 AM
Post by: jackelope on October 26, 2015, 11:31:37 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F26%2F29e6162a19a69f8247579ec13ba71f14.jpg&hash=bd68b34d44b9699e315c69f965b980ee73e577d2)
If I can find my scale I'll check today and report back.
Post by: Bob33 on October 26, 2015, 11:44:36 AM
Post by: gundogr on October 26, 2015, 11:46:13 AM
Now to the Marlins... I have owned four. The newer ones nicknamed 'Remlins' and three original 'JM' (John Marlin) stamped on the left of the barrel near the receiver. I have heard the and seen the horror stories of the early RemLins and in some ways lived one. My declarative statement, if you get one, get an original JM. More on why...
Okay, I have owned three guide guns and a 336 in 35 Remington... first was one of the first Remington/Marlins SBL, good rifle, horrible trigger but with upgraded trigger, stainless barrel, full XS rail, carries seven rounds with full cartridge tube. But that adds weight to the barrel if you run her full. Though I got rid of it, I liked it a lot.
Next came a Marlin 336, this is an older JM model, great trigger (maybe a tad light), rifle handled great. I need another one and it was a mistake to let this one go. You can get them in 30-30, 35 Remington, 308 Marlin Express (like a 308 magnum really)... the 35 is nostalgic and a good caliber for brush from deer to elk within reasonable ranges. But ammo can be hard to come by unless you reload (which I do).
Stainless JM 1895 45/70 was my fourth (I will get to the second, last and current GG). This is a beautiful rifle, nice trigger but I traded it to get my second (and current) one back. 45/70, blued, ported and great trigger. I have been some customizations to it to make it exactly what I like... but if you get one, the JM triggers, fit and finish are the best. I put WWG Happy trigger and the orange followers in mine (so it will handle the Hornady FTX 325gr bullets), put on the scope or sights you want (I have a Leupold VX3 1-5x20) and you are set. Short, accurate, and will put whatever you can hit down for good.
The best news is you look around and can usually find these for $5-600.
Cheers.
Post by: Encore 280 on October 26, 2015, 11:48:26 AM
Post by: jackelope on October 26, 2015, 11:56:32 AM
I also have the TC Encore in 24'' SS 280 and it's a tack driver. Also have the blued 24'' 06 and 26'' SS 7mm and it's a tack driver too. Have 2 blued 15'' 308 barrels, 2 blued and 1 SS frame, don't ask me why I have so many. :dunno: I can't figure out why they can make a 300 mag barrel but not a 7mmRUM barrel.
They're not strong enough for RUM's because the wall thickness ends up so thin in order to accommodate the RUM case.
Post by: jackelope on October 26, 2015, 12:11:43 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F26%2Fa56766d0589761054936c22e9d6029f9.jpg&hash=1b46313ba586d484b3dd3c71105ea433bc37ba22)
.500 S&W 0 at 100. 20" low at 200.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F26%2F5beaa39d94c99ed762721f594208ee72.jpg&hash=bb116d32d5e762c15b8a8c6185a99e8f2ee8a562)
If you like to hunt up close and personal go for it. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with either of your 2 choices for a mountain rifle.
Post by: Curly on October 26, 2015, 12:21:46 PM
You might want to message YorkeTransport on here and get his opinion on a Savage Striker. :twocents:
Post by: cooltimber on October 26, 2015, 12:23:35 PM
Post by: Mongo Hunter on October 26, 2015, 01:05:30 PM
.45-70. 0 at 100 yards, 10" low at 200.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F26%2Fa56766d0589761054936c22e9d6029f9.jpg&hash=1b46313ba586d484b3dd3c71105ea433bc37ba22)
.500 S&W 0 at 100. 20" low at 200.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F26%2F5beaa39d94c99ed762721f594208ee72.jpg&hash=bb116d32d5e762c15b8a8c6185a99e8f2ee8a562)
If you like to hunt up close and personal go for it. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with either of your 2 choices for a mountain rifle.
That's using a 430gr bullet. the Hornady Leverlution is a bit better trajectory wise than that, but anyways. the only "new" cartridges I'm willing to add are 45-70 or a 308. so is there another light, small gun in either 30-06, 25-05, 7mm, 308 or 45-70?
Post by: theleo on October 26, 2015, 01:38:51 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 26, 2015, 02:37:45 PM
Post by: 2MANY on October 26, 2015, 02:43:25 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 26, 2015, 05:40:55 PM
.45-70. 0 at 100 yards, 10" low at 200.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F26%2Fa56766d0589761054936c22e9d6029f9.jpg&hash=1b46313ba586d484b3dd3c71105ea433bc37ba22)
.500 S&W 0 at 100. 20" low at 200.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F26%2F5beaa39d94c99ed762721f594208ee72.jpg&hash=bb116d32d5e762c15b8a8c6185a99e8f2ee8a562)
If you like to hunt up close and personal go for it. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with either of your 2 choices for a mountain rifle.
That's using a 430gr bullet. the Hornady Leverlution is a bit better trajectory wise than that, but anyways. the only "new" cartridges I'm willing to add are 45-70 or a 308. so is there another light, small gun in either 30-06, 25-05, 7mm, 308 or 45-70?
Buy a TC Encore or Pro Hunter with a .308 barrel. When someone says mountain rifle, I think lightweight, somewhat compact etc.
I just weighed my Encore. It's a 24" SS .280 Rem, 4-16x42 Vortex scope, claw sling and a Harris bipod. It weighs 9.2 pounds with all that stuff. I'd drop the bipod and lose a pound or so if I was hunting in the mountains. If I wanted to save more weight id put a smaller scope on it. I could be under 8 pounds ready to roll. You could do the same thing with pretty much whatever caliber you want.
Post by: Bob33 on October 26, 2015, 05:44:00 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 26, 2015, 05:58:54 PM
By ruling out bolt actions, you eliminated the vast majority of the best mountain rifles.Think there's multiple definitions being thrown around here. The current sales/gun writer use for 'mountain rifle' is a really lightweight/ long, contoured barrel, generally bolt gun in a flat shooting caliber. Even the muzzy world is doing this--shaving off weight and it now becomes a 'mountain rifle'.
Post by: beaslayer6 on October 26, 2015, 06:12:25 PM
Post by: Curly on October 27, 2015, 02:04:22 PM
Here you go. Check out the link above. Not my idea of a mtn rifle, but maybe would fit your definition.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 27, 2015, 02:21:25 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,184688.msg2438920/topicseen.html#new
Here you go. Check out the link above. Not my idea of a mtn rifle, but maybe would fit your definition.
I was just thinking about this, too.
Many options are out there. I would probably go with the Remington 700 Mountain or Ruger All Weather. Both are about sub-8# with scope. If you want a brush gun, go with the Marlin. I have all three.
With the OP specs, I'd go with a TC, but with a flatter shooting caliber. I need one of these.
Post by: Longbowz on October 27, 2015, 10:32:53 PM
Another option if you can find one is a Remington 600 or 660. I recently found a 660 in .308 that was in almost new condition. My problem now is as soon as my wife saw it she claimed it as her new rifle! :dunno:
Post by: Curly on October 28, 2015, 06:39:53 PM
BTW - that BLR that is for sale weighs in at only 6.5 lbs. That is 1/2 pound lighter that the 2 options you were considering. Plus in .308 win, the trajectory would be much better than a 45-70.
BLR '81 specs (http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?fid=003B&cid=034&tid=006)
Post by: Mark251 on October 28, 2015, 06:54:32 PM
Post by: MountainWalk on October 28, 2015, 07:21:48 PM
Post by: high country on October 28, 2015, 09:14:53 PM
When I go to a mountain rifle, I consider the ammo. Can I carry a few extra shells without a noticeable weight gain? Not in a big bore....
Post by: yorketransport on October 29, 2015, 07:36:54 AM
You might want to message YorkeTransport on here and get his opinion on a Savage Striker. :twocents:
I saw that guy on the interwebs, he seems legit! :chuckle:
Since you don't want a bolt gun and you like the Encore, why not an Encore Prohunter pistol in 7-08? It will weigh less, offer better range, and do anything that the rifles will do with a little practice.
Or I can help you slap together a bolt action pistol in 300 RUM if that's more your speed :tup: Mine weighed less than 7# scoped and would duplicate the 300 win mag's ballistics without even breaking a sweat.
Andrew
Post by: mountainman on October 29, 2015, 08:04:02 AM
9.2#'s? Would not class that as a lightweight mountain gun. Love the TC's, but there are better choices that will get down under 6.5#'s complete!.45-70. 0 at 100 yards, 10" low at 200.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F26%2Fa56766d0589761054936c22e9d6029f9.jpg&hash=1b46313ba586d484b3dd3c71105ea433bc37ba22)
.500 S&W 0 at 100. 20" low at 200.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F26%2F5beaa39d94c99ed762721f594208ee72.jpg&hash=bb116d32d5e762c15b8a8c6185a99e8f2ee8a562)
If you like to hunt up close and personal go for it. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with either of your 2 choices for a mountain rifle.
That's using a 430gr bullet. the Hornady Leverlution is a bit better trajectory wise than that, but anyways. the only "new" cartridges I'm willing to add are 45-70 or a 308. so is there another light, small gun in either 30-06, 25-05, 7mm, 308 or 45-70?
Buy a TC Encore or Pro Hunter with a .308 barrel. When someone says mountain rifle, I think lightweight, somewhat compact etc.
I just weighed my Encore. It's a 24" SS .280 Rem, 4-16x42 Vortex scope, claw sling and a Harris bipod. It weighs 9.2 pounds with all that stuff. I'd drop the bipod and lose a pound or so if I was hunting in the mountains. If I wanted to save more weight id put a smaller scope on it. I could be under 8 pounds ready to roll. You could do the same thing with pretty much whatever caliber you want.
Post by: huntnphool on October 29, 2015, 08:04:26 AM
Post by: TeacherMan on October 29, 2015, 09:13:02 AM
Post by: Stein on October 29, 2015, 09:35:50 AM
If it were me, I wouldn't consider that. Honestly, for $1,000 I could buy a S***ton of gas, drive to the mountains on the weekends and do some late season hunting and pre-season scouting next year and end up gaining way more by loosing a few pounds and getting in better shape.
That's just my view.
Post by: coachcw on October 29, 2015, 09:48:51 AM
Post by: jackelope on October 29, 2015, 04:46:40 PM
9.2#'s? Would not class that as a lightweight mountain gun. Love the TC's, but there are better choices that will get down under 6.5#'s complete!.45-70. 0 at 100 yards, 10" low at 200.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F26%2Fa56766d0589761054936c22e9d6029f9.jpg&hash=1b46313ba586d484b3dd3c71105ea433bc37ba22)
.500 S&W 0 at 100. 20" low at 200.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F26%2F5beaa39d94c99ed762721f594208ee72.jpg&hash=bb116d32d5e762c15b8a8c6185a99e8f2ee8a562)
If you like to hunt up close and personal go for it. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with either of your 2 choices for a mountain rifle.
That's using a 430gr bullet. the Hornady Leverlution is a bit better trajectory wise than that, but anyways. the only "new" cartridges I'm willing to add are 45-70 or a 308. so is there another light, small gun in either 30-06, 25-05, 7mm, 308 or 45-70?
Buy a TC Encore or Pro Hunter with a .308 barrel. When someone says mountain rifle, I think lightweight, somewhat compact etc.
I just weighed my Encore. It's a 24" SS .280 Rem, 4-16x42 Vortex scope, claw sling and a Harris bipod. It weighs 9.2 pounds with all that stuff. I'd drop the bipod and lose a pound or so if I was hunting in the mountains. If I wanted to save more weight id put a smaller scope on it. I could be under 8 pounds ready to roll. You could do the same thing with pretty much whatever caliber you want.
I wouldn't disagree with that, and I don't consider mine a mountain gun. Only reason I mentioned it was because an Encore is one of the rifles he wanted in his original post.
PS my 9.2# rifle is with a 4-16x scope, a bipod and a Quake Claw sling.