I have a 1 year old 1712 with the original wood stock, BKL rings and a Sightron 6-24 Big Sky scope (that weighs the same as the Leupold 6.5-20 EFR scope) that I just put together. According to my scale I am making weight by one ounce. I wouldn't mind having a little more cushion than that. You guys have any tricks to shed a couple ounces? Seems like the Mark Pharr stocks are light weight... that would be my last resort if I cannot do something else. My guess is I got one of the 1712's that hit the upper suggested limit. Tried removing the sling studs, but they only weigh 0.2 ounce each. If I'm really screwed, I bust out my CZ to compete.

gregw72 wrote:I have a 1 year old 1712 with the original wood stock, BKL rings and a Sightron 6-24 Big Sky scope (that weighs the same as the Leupold 6.5-20 EFR scope) that I just put together. According to my scale I am making weight by one ounce. I wouldn't mind having a little more cushion than that. You guys have any tricks to shed a couple ounces? Seems like the Mark Pharr stocks are light weight... that would be my last resort if I cannot do something else. My guess is I got one of the 1712's that hit the upper suggested limit. Tried removing the sling studs, but they only weigh 0.2 ounce each. If I'm really screwed, I bust out my CZ to compete.

If you are making weight don't worry. I know that same set up with a Leupold 6.5x20 EFR makes weight and there are many on the line. I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.

If you got up to 1 oz less than the weight limit, you're just about perfect. Don't mess with a thing. If you want a fancy Pharr RTS stock, just get it because you want it. A whole ounce is plenty of cushion. I have less than that on purpose.

gregw72 wrote:I have a 1 year old 1712 with the original wood stock, BKL rings and a Sightron 6-24 Big Sky scope (that weighs the same as the Leupold 6.5-20 EFR scope) that I just put together. According to my scale I am making weight by one ounce. I wouldn't mind having a little more cushion than that. You guys have any tricks to shed a couple ounces? Seems like the Mark Pharr stocks are light weight... that would be my last resort if I cannot do something else. My guess is I got one of the 1712's that hit the upper suggested limit. Tried removing the sling studs, but they only weigh 0.2 ounce each. If I'm really screwed, I bust out my CZ to compete.

In this same vein I'd like to take this query a step further and ask how is the best way to shift weight forward significantly? I've considered hollowing the buttstock and routing the forearm, which would be filled with lead.
Is there a simpler way?

Boyd L. wrote:In this same vein I'd like to take this query a step further and ask how is the best way to shift weight forward significantly? I've considered hollowing the buttstock and routing the forearm, which would be filled with lead.
Is there a simpler way?

You would have to remove a lot of wood just to get 1 ounce of wood out to shift that 1oz to the fore piece. PPKNY carries around an example for those thinking about it and it's about a 1" or more cube for 1 ounce. That said PPKY is a mad man with a router and can really lighten it up

Bob259 wrote:

Boyd L. wrote:In this same vein I'd like to take this query a step further and ask how is the best way to shift weight forward significantly? I've considered hollowing the buttstock and routing the forearm, which would be filled with lead.
Is there a simpler way?

You would have to remove a lot of wood just to get 1 ounce of wood out to shift that 1oz to the fore piece. PPKNY carries around an example for those thinking about it and it's about a 1" or more cube for 1 ounce. That said PPKY is a mad man with a router and can really lighten it up

Boyd was talking about using lead to add weight.

That is about the most simply way of doing it Boyd.

Trent wrote:

Bob259 wrote:

Boyd L. wrote:In this same vein I'd like to take this query a step further and ask how is the best way to shift weight forward significantly? I've considered hollowing the buttstock and routing the forearm, which would be filled with lead.
Is there a simpler way?

You would have to remove a lot of wood just to get 1 ounce of wood out to shift that 1oz to the fore piece. PPKNY carries around an example for those thinking about it and it's about a 1" or more cube for 1 ounce. That said PPKY is a mad man with a router and can really lighten it up

Boyd was talking about using lead to add weight.

That is about the most simply way of doing it Boyd.

Understand that Trent. What I was trying to point out is if he wants to add weight, seeing he's only got an ounce to play with currently, he would have to remove a lot of wood in the butt and fore piece to make much of a difference and room to add the lead and still make weight. We milled out the fore piece in my CZ and added weight (Stickon Mag weights) in that channel we cut and along the trigger area, but I had a lot of room to play with for weight addition, the 1712 is closer to the max weight.

Ahhh... I think you are confusing Boyd with the original poster. At least, that is who you replied to.

Totally agree with you on how much wood has to be removed to make up an ounce.

Trent wrote:Ahhh... I think you are confusing Boyd with the original poster. At least, that is who you replied to.

Mea culpa for the thread hijack and the confusion.

Trent wrote:....Totally agree with you on how much wood has to be removed to make up an ounce.

Since I've already pulled a hijack, I have around 5 ounces to play with. I taped 8 210 grain .41 mag bullets to the forend to see if some semblance of balance could be achieved like this. It can, but I'm not real crazy about routing out that thin forend enough to pour 5 ounces of lead shot/glue into it.