Видео

@@TheBlackTrapper thanks for the feedback! Ya, that stock doesn't look fancy... but I designed it to be the lightest fully functional stock at just 3oz. It's lighter than anything else on the market. The next closest would be the Farrowtech stock, if you cut up a milspec buffertube and replace all but the threaded end piece with a piece of carbon fiber tube. A friend of mine made one, and it came in at 3.2oz. At 3oz, the stock I designed has velcro for adding or subtracting a higher cheek riser, and an insert for getting shorter or longer length of pull. It also has enough of a shape to the bottom that it works well with a rear bag.

@@TheBlackTrapper it will be interesting to compare the solo300 side charging upper with what BCA came up with. From the pics I've seen, I think the weight of the solo300 will be hard to beat (with his aluminum Bolt Carrier) unless one builds their own with a magnesium or polymer upper.

@@MaximRecoil interesting information. The CF handguard you see on the rifle weighs 1oz, and has a 1mm thick wall. The CF pistol grip on the rifle weighs .97oz. The next lightest pistol grip I am aware of (that is not carbon fiber) is the 15 degree grip from Hogue. It is a bit over 1.5oz. If you are aware of lighter-weight alternatives with a similar strength to weight ratio, please add them to the comments below. Thanks!

@@ultralightoutdoors You probably won't find anything off-the-shelf that's lighter than what you already have, because companies making, e.g., a plastic AR-15 pistol grip, wouldn't be aiming to make it as light as possible. There are plastics strong enough to do it though (for example, Glock frames are made of some flavor of Nylon 6 or Nylon 66). So short of having something custom made you're probably about as light as you can get on those parts already. However, you _might_ save a little weight by going with an original style lower receiver, i.e., one like the early M16s and the Colt AR-15 SP1 used. Those don't have that "fence" around the magazine release button and the section in the rear that the butt stock attaches to has less material in it (that section was beefed up starting with the M16A2 to reduce the chance of it breaking there). There's at least one company that makes a reproduction of those for about $160 (search for 601 Slickside Lower Receiver). They are normally used for retro AR-15 builds. You could contact them to find out how much they weigh.

@@MaximRecoil thanks for the info. I believe the retro aluminum slickside lowers are around 8oz. There are a few polymer lowers out there, New Frontier makes one at about 4.2oz. The CF one I used in the video is a hair over 4.0oz. Here is the walnut version of the exact grip I use in the video... note it is 2.3oz, not the .97oz of the carbon fiber version. mdttac.com/mdt-pistol-grip-wood/

Any chance of a parts list? I’m curious about where you got the upper receiver and the handguard. Or did you make them?

@DrewEdwardBacklas the upper is from solo300.com, the handguard I made from carbon fiber tube off of Amazon. Tight fit over a JAG composites barrel nut (with a bit of sanding).

@@borhanhosseini3250 no one ever said anything about new shooters taking "shots on game from 800 yards". If that was your impression, then I apologize. What I referenced in the video is the ability for novice shooters to engage targets out to 600, 700, even 800 yards with a properly set up rifle system. In my case, that is referring to the steel gong targets at our range we have set up at various yardages. I've found it helpful to have shooters practice at 1.5-2 times the distance that they would be able to competently hunt at. So, a shooter who can reliably hit a 10 inch gong at 600 yards with the rifle system will typically have little trouble making an accurate shot on game at 250-400 yards in the field. I would also add... not all shooters are equal, nor are all shooting situations created equal... the young hunters I take out are not taking shots on game unless they are 1. Fully supported shooting positions (front and rear of rifle, ) 2. Game is not running/moving rapidly, 3. Close to ideal environmental conditions (low wind, etc). On average, I've found it takes 3-5 quality setups for a 1st time hunter to feel comfortable about taking a shot. But we go to great lengths to help them feel as comfortable as possible (they know that there is no shame in not taking the shot if they aren't ready) This has led to a very high percentage success rate. Out of more than 60 animals taken with my rifle setups in the last 10 years or so, all but a small handful have required only 1 shot. I contrast that situation with the more common scenario... the "opening morning artillery barrage" when you will hear "experienced" hunters shooting 5, 6, even 10 times at the same animal... almost always from unsupported positions, almost always at running game... In the end, there are far more bad shots made and wounded animals unrecovered... because "hunters" take an unsupported running shot with their grandaddy's rifle... at just 100 yards... than from disciplined youth shooters making 350 yard shots from prone positions with dialing scopes and suppressors.

@@2dclxvi what you are saying is partially true... but misses (or rather ignores) a key factor... the caliber... a lighter recoiling caliber like a 223rem, 6ARC, 243win, 6mmCM etc will have less of a recoil impulse in a 7lb rifle than a 300PRC in a 10lb rifle... its just physics. So, to your point... SOME calibers would benefit from a heavier rifle, but NOT ALL calibers. It is all relative. For example, a 5lb (all up) 243win would be too much recoil for ideal accuracy. However, get that same rifle above 6.5lbs, and it is very shootable. Likewise, a 6.5lb 308win is hard to shoot accurately... but get that same 308win rifle into the 9-10lb range, and it is shootable. There is also a difference with your bullet choice... a 308win with 150gr projectiles has less recoil than the same rifle shooting 180gr projectiles... all else being equal. Also, I'm not sure why you were referring to muzzlebrakes... there was no reference to muzzlebrakes in the video... almost makes me wonder if you ever watched it, or just saw the title and decided to make an incomplete and misleading argument. I bet if you knew that the actual rifles in the video were a 6mmCM and a 243win, you might have thought twice about your post.

@@ultralightoutdoors The lighter recoiling cartridges will move the barrel less of course, but if we're talking about hunting big game then typically the rifle will be chambered in a more powerful cartridge anywhere from a .308 to a 300 Win Mag. A .243 or a 6mm CM isn't going to be a good choice for an elk at +300 yards...they're simply under powered for deer/elk at medium to longer ranges. I mentioned the muzzle brakes because a lot of folks believe that they will counteract the effects of barrel movement...they don't.

@@2dclxvi you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the fact is there are plenty of "ethical" hunters who choose to hunt big game (and have done so successfully for decades) using smaller calibers like 223rem, 22-250, 22creed, 6arc, 6creed, 6.5creed, 243win, 25-06, etc. The common tag lines for this argument is "bullets matter more than headstamps" and variations on "its all about shot placement". Google is your friend... just read the "223 for bear, mountain goat, deer, elk, and moose" thread on Rokslide.com... the last I checked, it was up to over 9500 posts of example after example of hunters using a 22 cal bullet (like the 77tmk) out of a 223rem/5.56 to take every big game animal in North America, often out to yardages well in excess of 300 yards. There are plenty of other posts on that website and other sources that cite innumerable examples of 6mm and 6.5mm cartridges being used successfully for big game hunting. One primary reason for the success of smaller bore cartridges (to the exclusion of larger bore cartridges) goes back to part of the premise of your original post... lower recoiling cartridges mean greater accuracy in practice and in the field. The bottom line is... 223rem 77gr tmk bullet through the lungs will kill an elk quickly... every time... but a 300win in the guts will mean that you probably won't recover the animal. Now, not talking about Hypothetical scenarios... in the last two seasons, youth and novice hunters have taken over a dozen big game animals (bear, deer, and elk... including 3 mature bulls) with my 6mmCM and 6.5CM rifles, with the majority of the shots being between 275 and 450 yards. All the animals died and were recovered within 50 yards of where they were shot, and all but two were "1 shot drops"... the remaining two were lethally hit on the first shot, but the animal was still standing in the moment following the first shot, so the shooter shot a second time to put it down as quickly as possible. Oh, and I should add that the 6mmCM shown in this video is one if the rifles that has been used. The 6.5cm in question is an almost identical setup, with the only difference being a larger suppressor and a larger scope (so it weighs a bit over 8lbs compared to the 7lb 6mmCM). I will also add, that there have been ZERO animals that have been shot at, but not recovered with these rifles. Of course, this is only my experience... but where the vast majority of the hunting I do is in mentoring young shooters... I have learned through hard experience over the years, that an accurate, lightweight, light-recoiling, rifle (that has essential features like suppressors, bulletproof dialing scopes, bipod/tripod rests, properly fitted stocks, etc) will be a more effective (and ethical) hunting tool in the hands of young/novice shooters than any large bore behemoth rifle alternatives.

@@eugenohanka have you ever shot a 7lb 243win? It is a manageable amount of recoil. To your point though, yes, the lighter the weight, the more recoil. But the weight of the projectile and amount of powder behind it is an essential component to the equation... where a 7lb 243win is shootable, a 7lb 338LM would be far less so.

@@blazebox71 no, I did not find them very difficult to unscrew. It's not easy to get a good grip on them though.

@@tobiascrow2792 the legs can be tightened into place at any length.

@@wvbonbonqueen I ended up with the booties second hand, and haven't found them for sale new. So, my wife made a few pairs.

@@ultralightoutdoors Thank you for trying.

@@stuartem3443 I would be interested to hear what boots you are getting 1960-2880 miles out of before the tread is unusable or the upper has worn out. We are talking about relatively lightweight if not ultralight hiking footwear here, perhaps what you are using was designed for a more industrial level of use. I would also point out that most running shoes aren't designed to be used more than a few hundred miles before they should be traded in for a new model, or risk an injury. I'll also add that the pair of boots i was issued in USMC Boot Camp lasted me less than a year of training before they needed serious repair or an upgrade.

@@ultralightoutdoors thanks for your review! I learned through the years that soles started to become significantly less durable at around 2005. Today, types of boots that lasted 2-3 years back then usually have their treads worn out like after 1 year. It's all over the shoe industry. They just want to sell more by planned obsolescence. Given the price of the tracker esc boots, it's really meh. 😕

@@pastorfox No need for conspiracies. Every shoe company wants to be praised for durability. It literally makes or breaks their business. Soles got softer and grippier and that's what you're experiencing. Use common sense..

@@CptAngelKGaming sorry, but that's just what i experienced - no conspiracy theory. And yes: There obviously are enough shoe brands who aren't interested in reputation by quality, but in reputation by fashion.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that the gear in my pack is not regularly used.

@@simoneala3 I've worn them in hot and cold weather. They are certainly warmer than a typical trail running tennis shoe, but not bad. My feet breathe fairly well in them. My socks get sweaty no matter what shoe I wear if it's hot...

The Magna ESC will be a better option. Otherwise just get a breathable trail shoe..

@@dougharlow6037 fair question. I want the bare rifle to be as lightweight as possible so that when I add weight back in (scope, rings, suppressor, tripod, arca rail, ammo sleeve, etc) then the overall finished weight is still packable. Every ounce counts when I'm packing in 12 miles. But, you are correct, there is a point of diminished return with added recoil. It is dependent on your cartridge of choice. My lightest hunting rifle is chambered in 223rem, so recoil is negligible. My next lightest rifle is 4.25lbs bare, and about 7lbs all up. Chambered in a 6mmCM, It is very manageable recoil. My 6.5CM is about 8lbs all up, also manageable for the weight to recoil relationship. But my 6.5prc is over 10lbs to be shootable at long range. However, my sub 6lb 308win, which has more recoil, is a great short range thumper (great for quick shots in dark timber). Very handy, and can even be shot accurately one handed because of how light it is. But I wouldn't try and shoot groups with it beyond 250 yards... whereas the other setups can easily do 600-1000 on steel.

@@ultralightoutdoors Great and thorough response. I think I would be more sacred of a close range charging brown bear than weight? But as you said if you packing all day there must be a compromise. Thanks

@@dougharlow6037 actually, in the case of the charging bear... I've found a lightweight rifle is far easier to manage and get on target effectively than a heavy one. At close range, the recoil's affect on accuracy is negligible, especially with practice. More important are features like an easily operated reliable action (pump or bolt is reliable), a good trigger, a grip style that can be manipulated one handed if necessary, and a well placed scope that allows you to shoot with both eyes open (red dot, holographic, or lvpo style all work for a multi purpose optic that gives you up close usefulness and reasonable range for hunting purposes.)

Looks like he taped on a massive DOPE card

They resole them for you with the Revivo service. I've yet to fully test the waterproofing but I plan on wearing waterproof socks when I know the conditions will call for it. From initial tests they're pretty good for wading shallow water etc - I think they'll just need some TLC in terms of waxing etc to keep the seams honest.

I've had my 95mm spotter on it. No more wobble than any other ultralight tripod with it.

@@mangoman62 I've used mine a lot this past winter. In deep snow or extreme cold, I wear a thin fleece bootie over the top of them, and thicker socks (size larger boot than I use in the summer). In very wet conditions (multiple days of rain and puddles in a row) I make a tyvek bootie that completely covers the boot. My feet still breathe, but the boots don't wet out (I can usually get about 20 miles on a tyvek bootie before it wears through on the bottom).

I don't have this model but every vivo I have tried has been too narrow for my 4E foot but by a lot. The width is all in the toe box, which is fine for a normal width foot and good toe spread but awful for an actual wide foot. I'd say that if you are a E/EE you would most likely be fine with vivos in general. An EEE/EEEE not so much. Vivos tend to be low volume in the arch and instep as well. Lems tend to be higher volume in my experience but aren't as barefoot (some models being worse than others like the Grip/Summit). Xero is higher volume and significantly wider in the mid/forefoot but way narrower in the toe box. Similar stack height though. Jim Green barefoot boots are super high volume, an actual 3E last with a wide toe box but it is round and not anatomical plus they aren't as flexible and have a high stack height. Sounds like you are in a similar situation to me, I can't have any arch support at all, or my feet hurt, a lot. Sadly, with extra wide feet, high arches and a high instep I haven't found a perfect solution yet. Good luck.

Yes. Any standard short action aics style mags.

The mdt hnt26 weighs about 31oz in it's factory configuration. I was able to get mine down to approximately 18oz with the non folder stock and 21.5oz with the folder stock. I was able to get an LSS chassis down to about 31oz including a folder stock.