TargetTalk

Hi all, I'm about to start shooting small bore rifle, (currently shooting air rifle). So I would appreciate if you may share some opinions about FWB 2700 Light (cheaper) or KK500 ultra light, or do you suggest heavy barrels? I'm 5'7 average build male, I'm fit but not strong.I have tried my friend's Walther KK300, it felt too heavy for me, although he did put on some extra weight on the rifle.

I will shoot 3 positions rather than prone only, I know it is good to have some weight for prone, but I must consider if I could endure 120 shots that includes standing and kneeling. So is the light weight rifle compares to the heavier one, really makes a difference in performance?

Any thoughts and experience would be much appreciated, love to hear your advice.
Thank you so much

Cat Bro,

Everyone is different, but few adult men need an ultra-light rifle. The 2700 light, and the KK500 650mm light barrel are largely intended for petite women. Both rifles are available with a 22mm barrel that is more commonly seen.

When you say you tried your friends KK300, did they allow you to completely re-adjust the stock, or are they exact same build as you? If not, this will affect your perception of the weight and balance. A KK300 is not an especially heavy rifle; the barrel is about the same size as the 22mm FWB, and the Anschutz 1907. Would your friend let you try their rifle without the extra weight?

The KK300 with all its gear is still over 14lbs of rifle. It's weight is deceiving because of its compact stock and good balance.

The method we use for new or small-stature position shooters to reduce weight and improve offhand and kneeling performance is to cut the barrels to 500mm or less and add an aluminum bloop tube, the sight extension still providing the sight radius advantage in prone, which is the only position where long barrels are an advantage.



When building these for smaller or weaker people, some of these barrels can get pretty short. ;)

Tim S wrote:Cat Bro,

Everyone is different, but few adult men need an ultra-light rifle. The 2700 light, and the KK500 650mm light barrel are largely intended for petite women. Both rifles are available with a 22mm barrel that is more commonly seen.

When you say you tried your friends KK300, did they allow you to completely re-adjust the stock, or are they exact same build as you? If not, this will affect your perception of the weight and balance. A KK300 is not an especially heavy rifle; the barrel is about the same size as the 22mm FWB, and the Anschutz 1907. Would your friend let you try their rifle without the extra weight?

Tomorrow I'll try his rifle with all additional weights removed, and I'll see how that goes.
Last time I called the dealer, said FWB no longer makes rifle in 24mm but all 22mm as standard now. So I guess the weight is already lower than it was?
I'll post the feedback once I get back, thanks a lot for your input

My son is 5-6" and 140lbs . He shoots an Anschutz 1907 in a black precise stock . Jos last year and finished 9th overall in prone and I think it was in the top 30 in 3 p . don't quote me on 3p. Weight was not an issue , it was actually added for balance.

We are all different, but I like as much weight as I can support without muscle fatigue. At one time the Brits were suggesting we limit rifle weight so there must be an advantage. For the Anschutz 2213 I added stock weights. I loaned a pair of weights to a friend a few years back and the next week he won the state championship. For the precise stock I went old school with a stabilizer that attaches to the rail and makes it easy to adjust weights; love the way it dampens wobble.

Mark

patriot wrote:At one time the Brits were suggesting we limit rifle weight so there must be an advantage.
Mark

Mark,

You have mentioned this before, but without reference. Where have you got this idea?

I would go with a lighter rifle. It is much easier to add weight to a rifle then remove weight. As noted above, cutting down the barrel with reduce a big chunk of weight. But there aren't any other ways to reduce larger chunks of weight. I have never ran into anyone using anywhere near max. weight on a free rifle. I think most are actually using a rifle that is too heavy for them and thus reducing scores due to fatigue.

Corey

Tim S wrote:

patriot wrote:At one time the Brits were suggesting we limit rifle weight so there must be an advantage.
Mark

Mark,

You have mentioned this before, but without reference. Where have you got this idea?

Not certain I can find the reference. If my memory is correct it was proposed followed one of the International HP matches held in England. I found it offensive and said so at the time. If someone trains or is born strong then that is to their advantage. If you are born with an eye sight advantage are they going to take that away to level the field?

Mark

Found it; guess the mind isn't complete mush yet. Enjoy.

http://www.usrifleteams.com/lrforum/ind ... topic=8623

Mark,

I remember that discussion. It's a very specific topic that has nothing to do with smallbore shooting, and is unlikely to represent the views of the British contributors to this forum. It is certainly not evidence that Brits are trying to limit rifle weight. Do remember that British full-bore shooting was almost entirely Service Rifle until 1969, and the "modern" TR rules deliberately retained a one-size-fits-all ethos, much like with the ISU Standard Rifle.

Tim S wrote:Mark,

I remember that discussion. It's a very specific topic that has nothing to do with smallbore shooting, and is unlikely to represent the views of the British contributors to this forum. It is certainly not evidence that Brits are trying to limit rifle weight. Do remember that British full-bore shooting was almost entirely Service Rifle until 1969, and the "modern" TR rules deliberately retained a one-size-fits-all ethos, much like with the ISU Standard Rifle.

Where did I say smallbore? What was their reason for fighting the rule? The point is each shooter should have the freedom to find their optimum rifle weight. Increasing the weight has benefits up to the point the muscles can't support it. Smallbore, service, or high power; no difference.

Mark,

I agree with your argument, but I dislike your generalisation about British shooters. The British are not trying to limit your rifle weight, or the weight of any rifle being discussed on this forum; some Brits wanted to maintain a maximum rifle weight for the Palma match. If you aren't shooting in the Palma match, the discussion is moot. British smallbore rules haven't maintained a weight limit for several generations.

Tim S wrote:...some Brits wanted to maintain a maximum rifle weight...

Can't change history.

patriot wrote: Can't change history.

Oh for Pete's sake, what a facile and obnoxious comment!

Tim S wrote:

patriot wrote: Can't change history.

Oh for Pete's sake, what a facile and obnoxious comment!

Tim,
With all respect, perhaps you should C-H-I-L-L.

Anschutz wrote:Tim,
With all respect, perhaps you should C-H-I-L-L.

Has your country been defamed? However I take the point that there is no point in arguing with the obtuse.

So last sunday I tried my friend's KK300 without all that weight and stock adjusted to my size. it seems alright then perhaps it is all about balance rather than just weight of the rifle on a scale, except for prone position where heavy rifle does make my muscle fatigue but I think it is manageable with training.
Thanks a lot people for your advice and opinion on this~