Another Variable?

S

smoke

Guest
This may be "old hat" for some of you,but,since it hasn't been discussed on these pages let me throw something out. First, to give it a little pizzaz, I call it "Weight Distribution Dynamics" . All it amounts to is determining what portion of the rifle's weight should be on which bag? It seems that most of us just set up our front rest, then place the rear bag where we want it and start shooting - Sporter, Unlimited, whatever- no change except possibly the rear bag. However, if you were to place a scale under the toe of the stock to determine what portion of the rifles weight is supported by the rear bag , you will probably notice a differant percentage for differant class rifles. This percentage can be varied by adjusting the front stop on the rest - the closer the stop is to the rest, more weight is supported by the rear bag, thus the "new" variable. My limited testing has shown some interesting results -- any ideas on an optimum weight distribution? Should it be the same for differant rifles? Comments? Bob Vail
 
I've often thought about that but never experimented with it. I'm very interested to hear your results.
 
Not exactly related, but I have a Ruger #1 varmit in .220 Swift.. I had read that keeping the rest close to the action gives better accuracy. Sure nough. That puts less weight on the bag, but is that the real factor in this rifle? Don't know. Does it apply to anything other that 2 piece stocks? But it least this is one case of rest position mattering.
 
Rich
Seems to me the closer the rear bag is to the action the more wt on the bag.
I would think equal wt on the front rest and the rear bag would be best. That is the reason for putting wt in the butt.
Fred K
 
Since a lot of these guns seem to be built for a 10 1/2 limit, they usually come up light and require some weight in back. I have always tried to keep the balance point as close the the front of the action, i.e. centered. That seems to be common.
 
You can fine tune your gun by moving the forearm stop which changes the weight on the front rest I always check that first before adding any weight to the stock
Joe
 
Joe , this is exactly my point. But, how does one know how much the front stop needs to be moved? For my tests I have a micrometer adjustable front stop (this may be overkill) but that way it is possible to go back to replicate results. The question remains - what is the optimal location for the stop? Since the weight on the rear bag changes with the stop location, it seems reasonable to first determine a good location, weigh the pressure on the rear bag, and then use that proportion for differant rifles. Does this make sense or am I missing something here?
 
Fred K I was referring to the front rest. The rear rest is in a normal position, but the front rest is just in front of the action. This leaves almost all the weight on the front rest. Doesn't make sense and can't use the stop on the rest, but the Ruger #1 shoots best this way. At least what I have read and my experience with this one gun.

I have not really experimented with my bench guns. I do know they shot best with their original barrels, deeply fluted Shilen 6 groove 1 in 16 1/2 twist. Thin barrels which put less weight on the front rest percentage wise. Heck one was a tad over 9 pounds and the other a tad over 10 pounds per the old BR-50 rules. None of my replacement barrels are fluted and are heavier. I would guess both weigh over 12 pounds although I have never weighed them. So a greater percentage of weight is on the front rest. I did make a butt plate of lead once, still have it but never tried it. I don't have much of the forestock extending in front of the rest but I might try even less after reading this post. And try that lead butt plate that has been sitting on my bench for 6 or 7 years. It weighs near a pound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top