Been testing different methods to make my rest bags the right "slickness" but not really sure how slick they should be, one thing I have tried on the front rest bag and the rear one is wax paper between the bags and rifle stock, of course I have tried talcum powder as well, any suggestions ? thanks in advance
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Front and rearRest Bags - How Slick should they be ?
- Thread starter bigh
- Start date
Boyd Allen
Active member
Recently Bart Sauter an Billy Stevens have returned to leather bags and baby powder (sure on the first, pretty sure on the second). There are others who favor bags that are as slick as possible. What short of shooting are you doing, and what shooting style are you using? IMO the most important thing is having consistent release. There have been times when slicker did not shoot better for me, so I stopped chasing that, and have concentrated on consistency. IMO some stock designs do not take maximum slick as well as others. It is a matter of geometry and balance. The newer wood and carbon fiber stocks seem to be shaped better for free and slick. Mine is more of a vintage design.
bob finger
New member
Used Bounce dryer sheets work quite well as does PTFE stock tape. Check your rule book(s) or ask the MD to insure what you are contemplating is legal. I carry Bounce with me just in case but I prefer to shoot with PTFE tape on the fore end.
Either is okay in ARA and IR50 UL. IR50 3 gun is a different story. Talcum powder I think is always legal. bob
Either is okay in ARA and IR50 UL. IR50 3 gun is a different story. Talcum powder I think is always legal. bob
bigh,
If you read between the lines in Boyd Allen's post ... "sometimes slicker is not better" is often true.
I have a friend who competes using a two piece in our unlimited USBR club matches. He was always concerned about keeping his setup slick and was having issues with occasional unexplained wide shots that killed his match scores. I suggested that he try tightening up on the screws/wings that compress the sandbag against the side of his stock. His rifle began shooting more accurately and without the wide shots! Matter of fact ... he won three matches in a row by not allowing his rifle to recoil much in the bags. Try this ... next time your at a larger RFBR match and between relays, ask a few of the better shooters if you could check the resistance of their rifle setup while in the bags, by pulling back slightly on the stock. You might be surprised to find quite a bit more resistance than you would have thought. John
If you read between the lines in Boyd Allen's post ... "sometimes slicker is not better" is often true.
I have a friend who competes using a two piece in our unlimited USBR club matches. He was always concerned about keeping his setup slick and was having issues with occasional unexplained wide shots that killed his match scores. I suggested that he try tightening up on the screws/wings that compress the sandbag against the side of his stock. His rifle began shooting more accurately and without the wide shots! Matter of fact ... he won three matches in a row by not allowing his rifle to recoil much in the bags. Try this ... next time your at a larger RFBR match and between relays, ask a few of the better shooters if you could check the resistance of their rifle setup while in the bags, by pulling back slightly on the stock. You might be surprised to find quite a bit more resistance than you would have thought. John
bob finger
New member
We need a definition of "slick". Loose is not good, and in my experience tight is not good either. Problem arises mostly in hot and humid summer weather. If the rifle "sticks" in the bags then it will shoot differently than when it does not "stick".
Your goal should be to have the rifle "not stick". Perhaps "slick" was a poor choice of words.
But then some guys have the rest so loose that if one does not put some resistance on the gun it will recoil right off the rest. To me that is "slick", but not an asset. bob
Your goal should be to have the rifle "not stick". Perhaps "slick" was a poor choice of words.
But then some guys have the rest so loose that if one does not put some resistance on the gun it will recoil right off the rest. To me that is "slick", but not an asset. bob
Recently Bart Sauter an Billy Stevens have returned to leather bags and baby powder (sure on the first, pretty sure on the second). There are others who favor bags that are as slick as possible. What short of shooting are you doing, and what shooting style are you using? IMO the most important thing is having consistent release. There have been times when slicker did not shoot better for me, so I stopped chasing that, and have concentrated on consistency. IMO some stock designs do not take maximum slick as well as others. It is a matter of geometry and balance. The newer wood and carbon fiber stocks seem to be shaped better for free and slick. Mine is more of a vintage design.
The rifle has a Kelbly's BR stock with 3 in flat up front, 1/2" flat in the back, rifle is a 54 match Anschutz, thanks for the advice
bigh,
If you read between the lines in Boyd Allen's post ... "sometimes slicker is not better" is often true.
I have a friend who competes using a two piece in our unlimited USBR club matches. He was always concerned about keeping his setup slick and was having issues with occasional unexplained wide shots that killed his match scores. I suggested that he try tightening up on the screws/wings that compress the sandbag against the side of his stock. His rifle began shooting more accurately and without the wide shots! Matter of fact ... he won three matches in a row by not allowing his rifle to recoil much in the bags. Try this ... next time your at a larger RFBR match and between relays, ask a few of the better shooters if you could check the resistance of their rifle setup while in the bags, by pulling back slightly on the stock. You might be surprised to find quite a bit more resistance than you would have thought. John
I will try that, thanks for the tip