Benchrest needs "mad science" types.

James M.

James M.

New member
Shooters like Dwight Scott, Jerry Hensler, and Larry Fuesse are always trying new things and other shooters are the beneficiaries of their efforts. One regret I have from my days of writing for "PS" is that I did not interview Jerry Hensler. He of course is the father of the drop port action and now he has developed a self-adjusting tuner for rimfire rifles. I saw Jerry at Tomball set up his reloading table away from others so that he could try purging his cases with pure oxygen before putting powder in them. He told me that he could tell no difference, but that certainly hasn't deterred him from trying new things. All of you "mad scientist" types....keep at it. James Mock
 
James M. said:
Shooters like Dwight Scott, Jerry Hensler, and Larry Fuesse are always trying new things and other shooters are the beneficiaries of their efforts. One regret I have from my days of writing for "PS" is that I did not interview Jerry Hensler. He of course is the father of the drop port action and now he has developed a self-adjusting tuner for rimfire rifles. I saw Jerry at Tomball set up his reloading table away from others so that he could try purging his cases with pure oxygen before putting powder in them. He told me that he could tell no difference, but that certainly hasn't deterred him from trying new things. All of you "mad scientist" types....keep at it. James Mock
Click to expand...
James. It must be something in the water up there in Michigan. I don't know Jerry or where he lives but both Dwight and Larry have done gunsmithing work for me and I know Larry is always trying something new and different.
 
James, did you get to see the rig Hensler set up one year at St Louis one year at a nationals to monitor the net effect of wind?

What we see with flags only show wind at the flag. The wind, if it is swirling, like it does most times in our mountain ranges can be completely different in direction and intensity between the flags that what is showing on the flag itself. Jerrys rig showed the total effect of the wind across the area of the bullet path.


.
 
Jerry, I did indeed see the "strain" indicators that Jerry and Arnold Jewell set up. It came to become known as the "trot line" and Mark Buettgen tied a couple of perch to it:eek: Good shooting...James
 
I have one of Hensler's micrometer adjustable inserts for my powder thrower. I believe Stiller made some complete powder throwers of Jerry's designed. He built a lightweight rail gun that attached only by a clamp at the muzzle of the barrel. The rest of the barreled action floated. I think he used a thermometer in his powder inorder to keep the powder temp at a constant.
 
Could you comment on the self adjusting rimfire tuner or point me to some information somewhere?
 
I am not sure that benchrest is the place for "Mad Scientists" to emerge. I have seen several real scientists post very good information on bench and accuracy sites, that would make good changes, only to be run off because what they posted didn't conform to the accepted orthodoxy. When I was competing (back in the dark ages) benchrest was full of guys trying everything and sharing thoughts and ideas. But bench and accuracy shooting has "evolved" and now modern bench is the most conservative, "Follow the other guys" of all shooting sports.
 
XBBR Shooter said:
I am not sure that benchrest is the place for "Mad Scientists" to emerge. I have seen several real scientists post very good information on bench and accuracy sites, that would make good changes, only to be run off because what they posted didn't conform to the accepted orthodoxy. When I was competing (back in the dark ages) benchrest was full of guys trying everything and sharing thoughts and ideas. But bench and accuracy shooting has "evolved" and now modern bench is the most conservative, "Follow the other guys" of all shooting sports.
Click to expand...

Give me an example of this. I can't see this.
 
In a primer thread,I posted that "mike in co" had said primers should be seated to the bottom of the primer pocket and then a small crush.
I was laughed at.
Then Bart tested, and found out "mike in co" was correct,-0-2 thou crush produced the best results.

By the way he posted it nearly 10 years ago,
back when i was just a lurker, reading only.


Butch Lambert said:
Give me an example of this. I can't see this.
Click to expand...
 
There are two lines of thought concerning competitive Benchrest shooting.

One is that a set of rules control the aspects of equipment and shooting such that a competitor with a rifle can compete successfully. The other is whatever a competitor can come up with should be legal as it may improve accuracy overall.

Either is somewhat acceptable as long as enough folks have the money to play. Folks with smaller amounts of money depend on a set of rules that are specific and don't change. Folks with larger money generally don't care.

It all boils down to either a competition or an equipment race. Certainly, it's always been an equipment race but a well defined equipment race.

________________________________________

The unlimited class supports the trial of anything....and has for a long, long time.
 
CMaier said:
In a primer thread,I posted that "mike in co" had said primers should be seated to the bottom of the primer pocket and then a small crush.
I was laughed at.
Then Bart tested, and found out "mike in co" was correct,-0-2 thou crush produced the best results.

By the way he posted it nearly 10 years ago,
back when i was just a lurker, reading only.
Click to expand...

That probably has more to do with who and not his idea. By the way, I was taught that 25-30 years ago.
 
XBBR Shooter said:
I am not sure that benchrest is the place for "Mad Scientists" to emerge. I have seen several real scientists post very good information on bench and accuracy sites, that would make good changes, only to be run off because what they posted didn't conform to the accepted orthodoxy. When I was competing (back in the dark ages) benchrest was full of guys trying everything and sharing thoughts and ideas. But bench and accuracy shooting has "evolved" and now modern bench is the most conservative, "Follow the other guys" of all shooting sports.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does take a strong effort to get the major Sanctioning Bodies to accept new things. My major battle was getting the NBRSA to allow tuners in 100-200 yard Registered Competition,. But persistence did pay off when we finally presented the NBRSA with a a very practical and non confrontational argument.
 
Last edited:
XBBR Shooter said:
I am not sure that benchrest is the place for "Mad Scientists" to emerge. I have seen several real scientists post very good information on bench and accuracy sites, that would make good changes, only to be run off because what they posted didn't conform to the accepted orthodoxy. When I was competing (back in the dark ages) benchrest was full of guys trying everything and sharing thoughts and ideas. But bench and accuracy shooting has "evolved" and now modern bench is the most conservative, "Follow the other guys" of all shooting sports.
Click to expand...

The rules in NBRSA Unlimited class say it has to have at least a 18 inch barrel and be safely fired.

Granted, there are some bench rules, i.e., you can't bolt it down, and it does have to be single shot and manually loaded.

But aside from that, what is "stifling" the creativity?

With the new rules in Sporter, aside from weighing 10.5 pounds and not having a return to battery feature, where is the "stifling" taking place?

Give me some examples.
 
Last edited:
Then there is this. If someone wants to test the accuracy of a particular design, why would competition rules have to have anything to do with the process? While benchrest competition is all about accuracy, it does not own the franchise. Anyone can do any experiment that he wants.

Competition rules are designed to provide some sort of stable platform, without which shooters' investments would be constantly at risk. There are a few shooters for whom money is no object, who could afford to have their rifles become instantly obsolete in an endless equipment race. For most, the costs of competition are a significant factor, and the prospect of constantly having to come up to new designs' capabilities wold be prohibitive.

Virtually every form of competition takes place within a framework of rules, including those that specify equipment design limits. My experience has been that those that like competition will find a way to participate, and those that talk constantly about "if only" would not even if the rules that they suggest were implemented. It seems to me that for them the rules furnish a convenient excuse, which makes me take their protestations with more than a grain of salt.
 
Zdog said:
...
What is needed is an Experimental Class, that would allow innovators the chance to try things that are currently banned by the organizations or would be disqualified if brought to the line. Think Seb's Swallow Tailed BR Stock. UBR has done some of that and it has had great success. Maybe it's time for the other sanctioning bodies to follow suit(?).

Not trying to hijack this Thread away from experimental reloading techniques - just saying that any innovation is met with resistance until it is proven to be superior to the existing orthodoxy. When that happens everyone jumps on board. A few years later someone will say "Jeez . . . remember when everybody used, or used to . . . (fill in your favorite obsolete piece of equipment, reloading technique, components, etc.)." :)

Z-dog (Chris Mitchell)
Click to expand...

The NBRSA made a change to the Sporter class a few years ago doing away with the forend width and barrel contour restrictions as well as the slope to the butt of the stock. You can build pretty well what you want for the class as long as the rifle weighs 10.5 pounds or less and doesn't have a concave forend. I'm not sure how long its been that way, but have seen very little in the way of anything different actually being shot in the class. With the length of time it takes to get actions as well as have stocks made or make stocks, it does take a little bit of planning and time to try something different. Bob Scarborough is making a stock thats called the hammer head that has a 5" wide forend. Scott Hunter has shot his some, but don't know whether he's competed with it.
 
When was the last time anyone got thrown out of a club match when they brought an experimental rifle (that was not a safety hazard to anyone), paid their entry fee, and did not shoot against anyone but themselves?

Later
Dave
 
Dave Coots said:
When was the last time anyone got thrown out of a club match when they brought an experimental rifle (that was not a safety hazard to anyone), paid their entry fee, and did not shoot against anyone but themselves?

Later
Dave
Click to expand...

Great point. At our Tomball Club Matches, the rules in our "Benchrest Class" are brutally simple.

"Any legal firearm"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top