Weigh your rifles

pbike said:
For Matches the NBRSA regional directors (at least in the Eastern) have a set of traveling weights, one weighs 10.5 pounds the other 3 pounds. These weights are certified test wieghts, but are not use to calibrate the scale, they are used to verify the scale. Only the 10 Kg can be used when calibrating, which hasn't been needed in the five or six years that dad has had his. I have only had mine, just over a year. It is also right on. The certified calibration weight was about 70 bucks plus shipping.
Click to expand...

Most of these "made in Communist China" scales we buy off places like eBay are advertised as "postal scales". Their load cell requires a metric weight to calibrate them since their load scale is metric. The pound reading is simply a calculation done internally to display pounds and ounces or pounds and tenths-of-pounds. Calibrating these scales with a known metric weight simply shifts their zero, or null, to compensate for some of the error in those cheap load cells.

That calibration does not make that item "certified". The required NBRSA certified weight only show what that scale reading will be when 10.5 pound and 13.5 pound ceritfied weights are applied. Since I've not recently read that part of the IBS rules I can't speak for the IBS but I'm sure they require certified weights also. I know this about the NBRSA rules from being a referee at NBRSA shoots and at the last NBRSA registered Super Shoot.
 
Dick Grosbier said:
Having high resolution does not necessarily equate to having high level of accuracy.
Click to expand...
What I've been trying to say is, new scales are very accurate. Anyone who's got a test weight can attest that they are WAY within any reasonable limits we as shooters might impose. If a range has an old expensive scale, that one would be suspect.

PBike said:
The scales require a test weight to be calibrated, if needed. The scales are precalibrated and certified. Each scale has a set amount that the scale needs to be calibrated at when needed. Ours require a 10Kg test weight. Dad has a Ultra 30 Myweigh, I have the Ultra 55 Myweigh, both require 10Kg. Dad bought the certified test weight from a scale certification company with all the paperwork to validate the weight. What this does is to allow us to test that the scale actually reads exactly 10Kg with the weight on it.
Click to expand...
Paul, How many times have you seen your scale to be wrong (more than the .01# it specifies?)

FBecigneul said:
Don't bet your Christmas money on that one. A Hall Of Fame shooter was found to have gone overweight by changing his scope at a match. He was DQd.
Click to expand...
Francis,
was this person at 11.51/13.51? I'm thinking not. Even so, I'd allow that a person should get an allowance for the resolution of scales that are reasonable to expect a club to buy. I mean, do we really need gazillion dollar scales to be a requirement when a $29 scale provides .01# accuracy AND resolution. Then too, if someone would simply measure in metric units, they'd find the scale to be more precise anyhow. Why not change the rules to the 5.216KG class, 6.123KG class, 7.711KG, or whatever. Now the scale resolutions will be even closer! ;)
 
4Mesh said:
.......... I seriously doubt you'll ever have a person who would bring a gun right at the limit, shoot well enough to worry about it. Those types don't generally do so well.


QUOTE]

interesting backpocket analysis.

opinions vary

;)

al
Click to expand...
 
Scott Hobarth was found to have a heavy rifle before a match at Holton. He hacksawed some off his butt stock in the loading barn, shot the match, and never competed again. True story.[/QUOTE]

It seems some people just "snap" when faced with BR bureaucracy. I would have taken a voluntary DNQ before I "butched" my stock with a freehand hack saw cut. Perhaps the thought of burnishing off an ounce or two against the back of a running automotive fan belt never occured to Mr. Hobarth ( what's that smell ? ).
Seriously though, I have seen noteable "Hall of Fame" shooters get weighed with a heavy rifle and flip out with the "this can't possibly be" routine 'cause they just weighed it at another range and it was fine ? Strangely enough,every one else made weight.
Speaking of strange,my first Custom BR rifle( put together by a noteable gunsmith) hit the scales at the '02 Nationals at Palmisano's at a mere 9lbs 10 ozs. I have never been stared at by so many people at once in my entire life. Later, I questioned my soon to be "ex-gunsmith" and I was told that "it was better to have a balanced rifle than a rifle that weighed exactly 10-1/2 lbs". True story.
Joel
 
Nader said:
Scott Hobarth was found to have a heavy rifle before a match at Holton. He hacksawed some off his butt stock in the loading barn, shot the match, and never competed again. True story.
Click to expand...

It seems some people just "snap" when faced with BR bureaucracy. I would have taken a voluntary DNQ before I "butched" my stock with a freehand hack saw cut. Perhaps the thought of burnishing off an ounce or two against the back of a running automotive fan belt never occured to Mr. Hobarth ( what's that smell ? ).
Seriously though, I have seen noteable "Hall of Fame" shooters get weighed with a heavy rifle and flip out with the "this can't possibly be" routine 'cause they just weighed it at another range and it was fine ? Strangely enough,every one else made weight.
Speaking of strange,my first Custom BR rifle( put together by a noteable gunsmith) hit the scales at the '02 Nationals at Palmisano's at a mere 9lbs 10 ozs. I have never been stared at by so many people at once in my entire life. Later, I questioned my soon to be "ex-gunsmith" and I was told that "it was better to have a balanced rifle than a rifle that weighed exactly 10-1/2 lbs". True story.
Joel
Click to expand...

Francis has a LV rifle thats shoots pretty well at just a hair under 10 pounds. One year at Rachels Glen or Shamrock he was shooting and was weighed before the match. Brady told him "Boy you need to put that rifle on Steroids". Dad finished a "close" second behind Jef Fowler who had just shot a NBRSA record. True story... weight isn't everything, that gun was balanced.
 
Last edited:
So then, it must be extremely difficult to make a 10-1/2 lb gun that is balanced ? So then, a reduction of 14 oz to achieve this "balance" is strategic and not just poor balance planning? Why not an 8lb balanced rifle---------get real !
 
Nader said:
So then, it must be extremely difficult to make a 10-1/2 lb gun that is balanced ? So then, a reduction of 14 oz to achieve this "balance" is strategic and not just poor balance planning? Why not an 8lb balanced rifle---------get real !
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion from what was said, but, I suppose I'll take your word for it. I don't think he said the weight was missing in order to be balanced, only that the gun without that weight was balanced. But you knew that.

I've weighed rifles at matches before, and I'll say that if someone here thinks they can pick a winner by looking at that weight list, they're sadly mistaken. About the only conclusion I could make from such a list is that the folks who are right at the limit, probably will not win because if they brought a gun that chances getting them dq'd, they probably dropped the ball somewhere else along the way. Some others here may differ with that and that's ok with me. I've seen it enough that nobody's changing my mind on it. No matter how many "unusual" cases there may be.

Btw, I've seen plenty of rifles that were significantly underweight, then get "weight added" by the owner, all to have the gun shoot bigger'n hell afterward. And that's a true story too.
 
Balanced Light Varmint rifles

Francis,
I'm guilty, I'm the one that derailed the weigh your rifle thread. No sense starting a balanced LV thread 'cause there is only so much one can do to balance one.
An action, trigger,scope and rings are gonna weigh so much. All of this weight is center of mass. A stock is necessary and projects forward and backward of this center of mass and so is basically balanced ( a little more weight to the rear). Now comes the barrel,generally a 5lb,21.5" Light varmint taper. All of this weight is forward of center thus producing a weight forward balance.The only way to bring these components into balance is with weights near the toe of the stock( generally attached to the butt plate)or with a significantly lighter or shorter barrel.The combined weight of these components( without additional toe weight) is gonna be real close to 10-1/2 lbs. So how short and light of a barrel are you willing to screw onto your rifle to attain this magical,mythical balance? This question is not only directed at you but anyone else who thinks they have a handle on the balanced rifle concept.
There are exceptions to everything but over the years guns weighing at or just under 10-1/2 lbs have dominated every major light varmint and sporter event in 100-200-300yd Benchrest.Giving up legal weight to achieve balance in a LV rifle is a road that very few competitors are willing to travel. Your thoughts ?
Joel
 
Nader,

I only ever built one gun for short range br. An LV. I make my own stocks from blanks, and since that one was laminated, it was pretty dense and needed to be whittled out a bit to make weight. When I was done, the rifle weighed in around 11.40 or so, and I knew the wood had not dried yet so it would loose quite a bit over the next few days. Iirc, it finished up around 11.3x (x = mid to low). Afiac, that is about ideal. Could the rifle have weighed less and shot the same? I'd say yes. Why did I stop? cause there was no need to do more work. Why didn't I stop at 11.50. Because I do not want to show up at a match and spend my time wondering if my rifle is legal.

Balance... IMO (with stress on imo). Balance is more about shape than it is about weight placement. Since I make my own stocks, actions, and do my own barrel work, I have a little more latitude with where the weight goes than the typical shooter. I have seen a ___ of a lot more difference in how a gun shoots by changing the shape of the stock than I ever did by altering it for weight. For that matter, I thougth about this next statement since I posted yesterday, and I can say that in my competitive shooting years, I have NEVER seen a rifle have weight added after the fact, by the owner (smith, whatever) and shoot better with than without.

Now for a return question, have you ever seen an LV that was equally competitive with HV rifles? An additional 17% more weight often shows up as nothing in the agg size doesn't it? Even still, yes, they do shoot a "little" better, but, they certainly don't shoot 17% better do they?
 
4Mesh said:
Nader,

I only ever built one gun for short range br. An LV. I make my own stocks from blanks, and since that one was laminated, it was pretty dense and needed to be whittled out a bit to make weight. When I was done, the rifle weighed in around 11.40 or so, and I knew the wood had not dried yet so it would loose quite a bit over the next few days. Iirc, it finished up around 11.3x (x = mid to low). Afiac, that is about ideal. Could the rifle have weighed less and shot the same? I'd say yes. Why did I stop? cause there was no need to do more work. Why didn't I stop at 11.50. Because I do not want to show up at a match and spend my time wondering if my rifle is legal.

Balance... IMO (with stress on imo). Balance is more about shape than it is about weight placement. Since I make my own stocks, actions, and do my own barrel work, I have a little more latitude with where the weight goes than the typical shooter. I have seen a ___ of a lot more difference in how a gun shoots by changing the shape of the stock than I ever did by altering it for weight. For that matter, I thougth about this next statement since I posted yesterday, and I can say that in my competitive shooting years, I have NEVER seen a rifle have weight added after the fact, by the owner (smith, whatever) and shoot better with than without.

Now for a return question, have you ever seen an LV that was equally competitive with HV rifles? An additional 17% more weight often shows up as nothing in the agg size doesn't it? Even still, yes, they do shoot a "little" better, but, they certainly don't shoot 17% better do they?
Click to expand...

I only agree somewhat, if you are considering 30 cals. The more recoil you have, the more important it is that the gun handle well IMO. Simply put, the more the gun moves, the more critical it is that the gun behaves well. I certainly can't argue that a LV will shoot with a HV in a 6mm. And at times, with a 30.--Mike
 
4mesh,
I am in agreement with you.You think for yourself and you come to your own valid and sane conclusions.Check out my comments on Jerry's balance thread.
Joel
 
4Mesh said:
Now for a return question, have you ever seen an LV that was equally competitive with HV rifles? An additional 17% more weight often shows up as nothing in the agg size doesn't it? Even still, yes, they do shoot a "little" better, but, they certainly don't shoot 17% better do they?
Click to expand...

Well most LVs will shoot about on par with HVs. I would **guess** that around 50% of competitors shoot an LV through a 2 gun, and I am sure that its not like all the LV shooters are in the bottom half of the 13.5 class and the dedicated HVs are in the top half (noted that some add weight to their LV for the HV, but many do not). If you look at events like the WBC, where a large portion of the competitors fly in and so are constrained by weight in the baggage allowance, most shoot one rifle the whole event.

Certainly some like Boyer have HV rifles they have a lot of confidence in, so change to them when the class allows it, but generally you would be hard pressed to pick a 10.5lb rifle from a 13.5 rifle based purely on the aggs they post at a HV yardage.
 
Since all the other components are pretty much of a fixed weight (speaking 10.5#) except the barrel, Just how light do you think that a 6PPC barrel can be, before it starts giving away accuracy?
 
Imo

The HV barrel will fit into a LV rifle so that is what both my bats have.The balance"thing" is a matter of rest and bag place ment in relation to the stock on the klub i come back with the rest and push the bag forward on my balsa carbon fibre i go long with the rest and push the bag forward but the balsa stock is very dead.So i must be in agreement with Joel......jim
 
If you go with a longer forend, and a shorter length of pull the rifle sits back further in the bags, putting more barrel between the rests.
 
Boyd Allen said:
Since all the other components are pretty much of a fixed weight (speaking 10.5#) except the barrel, Just how light do you think that a 6PPC barrel can be, before it starts giving away accuracy?
Click to expand...
Boyd,
I consider this a very common misconception. Folks get set in their ways and get a mindset that some things are not changeable. For example, I have done a lot of weight massaging in 1000 yard light guns. What is typically a LG barrel is a 1.250/30" straight taper to <.951 with <6" major dia. (old rules). On a 1.450 action, this is about what folks consider difficult to make weight. I had a 30" 1.450 with 5.999Major Dia not incl tenon, a 1.625" action, a rather heavy scope, and did it with 1/2# to spare using a homemade wooden stock that weighed >2#. It "IS" possible to do a lot with shape, design, and a little work. Oh, and that rifle had a FULL alum bedding block in the stock. (that was tough). And with >110 average shooters / match, lets just say it was real competitive... as was it's similarly configured successor.

I bet I could remove a pound from my LV without even getting serious about it, and not alter the way it shoots.
 
Boyd Allen said:
Since all the other components are pretty much of a fixed weight (speaking 10.5#) except the barrel, Just how light do you think that a 6PPC barrel can be, before it starts giving away accuracy?
Click to expand...

Boyd, in 2005 when I was experimenting with tuners, I took several barrels down to about 3.5# with no detriment to accuracy. Some were turned straight cylinder and a couple were stepped like Peter Paul Mauser did in the late 1800's.

I turned cut rifled and button rifled barrels, slugging before and after turning. None tapered in the bore. They still shot great.
 
My sporter has a Six manufactured, Speedy designed, stock; Viper action, trigger guard, and rings; Jewel trigger; and B&L 36X scope. The butt plate is 1/4" aluminum, with a weight system that bolts to the inside of it, hanging into the stock. On my rifle, There is a little room for adding weight for balance, but that has less effect on balance than one might expect. On the other hand, all other things being equal, changes in barrel weight have considerable effect because a good deal of it is in front of the front sandbag, and whatever the reduction is may be added at the butt. If I upgraded my scope to something more current, I would be right on the edge, and loose the ability to use my weight system. I believe that my stock is well under 2lb. To make any change in balance would all center around barrel weight. I would have to do some combination of shortening, using a smaller profile, and/or fluting or cutting steps. As I have written before, I have found that stepping one of my barrels allowed me to remove about 5.25 oz. (without changing the muzzle diameter), without any detrimental effect on accuracy and while this is not as attractive as fluting, is certainly more economical.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top