Quote Originally Posted by Mach2 View Post
People whine about them but the plastic stocks are very light. Mine are 2006 or earlier models. I like mine.
A 3006 barrel weighs less than a 270 barrel because more metal is removed to create the bore channel.
Watch your scope weight. A straight tube weighs less than a large bell objective.
Aluminum two piece mounts weigh less than one piece.
Short rings weigh less than tall rings.
Mach2 makes all good points. If you can stomach the factory IM stock it is pretty light.
Leupold scopes are consistently the lightest scopes in their class. I don't know how they do it but they do.
The old model Leupold Ultralights just aren't great scopes but when they were redesigned and made part of the VX-2 line a couple years ago they became much much better.
Talley Light Weight rings are the lightest quality mounts around and they're strong too. A bit homely IMO. The S&K mounts are fantastic in every way but they are like 2oz heavier than the TLW's.
The rifle I described earlier is an uncut long action receiver sporting a full 24" of tube with only a 6mm bore through it and it wears steel rings/mounts holding a light but not ultralight scope. IOW, the components were not what could be chosen if ultimate light weight was your main criteria.

My Kimber of Oregon 84 is a full pound lighter than my Savage but it sports an action which barely fits the diminutive 6x47 (.222RM necked) has a 22" tube, TLW's holding a VX-2 Ultralight, and a 19.3oz stock.

My Savage compromised nothing and still comes in at just over 7#. Flutes on a #2 contour saves very little weight and saves it all in front of the forward action screw. Exactly the wrong place I want it. Lightening cuts on the receiver also saves very little weight and it looks like heck IMO.
My advice is to skip flutes and action cuts and put the money saved towards a high quality lightweight stock like a McM EDGE.

Finally, to me, the Savage LWH is light done wrong on many levels.