Is Accuracy Generally Better with a Free-Floated Barrel in a Hunting Rifle

[South Pender]

This may have been discussed in the past on this forum, but I'd be interested in hearing everyone's views on the topic.

Many, if not most, of today's hunting rifles come with the barrel floated. In some cases, with a lot more space between barrel and stock than is necessary. We see this in the higher-end rifles as well as the less-expensive ones. Doing it this way saves manufacturing costs in that no painstaking hand work--routing and fitting--is necessary in production. With older wood-stocked rifles, there is full contact between barrel and stock, and some hand work is necessary to get the inletting right.

So my question is: Will a floated barrel in a hunting rifle generally yield better accuracy than one with full barrel-stock contact? I'm not so interested in the issue of stock warpage with a rifle having full barrel-stock contact changing POI. It's undoubtedly a reasonable concern, but my interest at the moment is accuracy. With an older wood-stocked hunting rifle with full barrel-stock contact, is it generally the case that accuracy will be improved by hogging out the barrel channel and free-floating the barrel?

Also, I'm not concerned here with target or benchrest rifles which are almost always free-floated. My interest is with hunting rifles.

 

[emerson]

My understanding is that any contact between stock, especially wood, and barrel is exceedingly difficult to maintain exactly the same. Change is bad for repeatable accuracy. I had a Ruger #1 that shot far better with a spacer that kept the fore end from touching the barrel. I didn’t hog out the barrel channel for aesthetic and resale reasons. It’s impossible to know for sure until after it’s done. Hard to sell us it’s butchered though. I do check my rifles barrel/stock clearance.

 

[guntech]

A free floating barrel in a bolt action rifle is desirable for accuracy. For over 50 years I have had experienced customers who when they buy a new rifle, the first thing they do is have the action bedded and the barrel floated... I have not seen a rifle where accuracy became worse. Point of impact from month to month also becomes more stable.

Hogging out a barrel channel isn't what you want, only enough material needs to be removed so you can slide a thin business card between the barrel and stock... "hogging out" implies removing way to much in a haphazard way.

 

[Potashminer]

Is what makes internet discussion! I hunted with a Ruger No. 1 about 20 years. As per an article by John Barsness, I put a dab of epoxy at the very front of the forearm wood - to create "up" pressure there, and to reduce that forearm wobbling. I probably should have bedded the attachment point for that angled forearm screw, but I do not recall doing that. I also filed away wood so there was about no pressure against the front of that receiver. I think that forearm "up" pressure improved the accuracy. It was a 7x57, in the 1A configuration. I would usually get about 1 1/4" groups at 100 yards, with back of my left hand resting against the sand bags - was for 5 shots with 150 grain Partitions and RL-19 powder. Did that many times. Was sufficient for many deer.

 

[guntech]

I have floated many Ruger number 1's with good success... a tricky job and they need to have more clearance than a bolt action due to the springy hanger the forend is attached to. With a custom barrel you could get 1/2 inch groups.

 

[South Pender]

Hogging out a barrel channel isn't what you want, only enough material needs to be removed so you can slide a thin business card between the barrel and stock... "hogging out" implies removing way to much in a haphazard way.

Of course, you would remove only enough to free up the barrel to the extent you describe. I wasn't aware that "hogging out" necessarily had this meaning!

 

[Potashminer]

When I was younger, was a "thing" to demonstrate something by pulling out a $5 bill and slide up the forearm to check a rifle. I think that is sort of .004" or so thick. I believe the No. 4 Armourer instructions call for .030" clearance. GunTech suggestion of a "thin business card" makes most sense to me - I just measured one - I got between .012" and .015" thick - so, like three or four bills thickness - about half what the Army wanted in a No. 4. But that Army specification also include the hand guards, not just the forearm - they did want a free floating barrel within a tube of wood, usually with some "up" pressure at the very far end, near the front sight. And Bisley target shooters learned to improve on that by installing a mid barrel bearing, as well as hand guard "packing" - so in their case, they improved the accuracy by adding more bedding to the barrel.

Plus, I think it matters a bit about the action design and where the front action screw attaches - I have a Schultz and Larsen Model 60 with a strip about 3/4" wide solidly bedded under the chamber area of the barrel, and other models of rifles that are clearly "free-floated" right to the receiver - different receiver designs, different attachments.

 

[Lodi]

Will a floated barrel in a hunting rifle generally yield better accuracy than one with full barrel-stock contact?

Way too many variables in this question to give an either or answer.

Taking a bolt action rifle and removing the pressure point up front, with no other work done, can be worse for accuracy. The factories spend time and effort putting the pressure point in because more rifles are accurate with it than without it. I worked in the repair shop of one manufacturer and a significant amount of time was spent getting that pressure point fit correctly.

 

[G.E.FLACH]

I have never ever seen a rifle that did not benefit from a good bedding job and free floated barrel .It is easier for a production rifle to to have a pressure point than a good bedding job .Full bedded forends on customs are tricky.

 

[bearhunter]

I have never ever seen a rifle that did not benefit from a good bedding job and free floated barrel .It is easier for a production rifle to to have a pressure point than a good bedding job .Full bedded forends on customs are tricky.

Really??? I've got a couple of full stock to the muzzle rifles, with a couple of contact points along the way and one old Remington 700 with a custom birds eye maple stock, which has been on it for over 40 years and it's one of the most accurate rifles I have. It's not glass bedded and it's stocked to the muzzle, with a lovey blued cap on the tip of the wood.

I have seen the folks with stocked to the muzzle, black powder rifles embarrass some very smug target shooters

Your statement is to broad, likely based on personal experience.

There was a time when full contact on the barrel, by the stock was considered to be the best form of bedding and in some instances it was accomplished with cork, which wasn't uncommon to see on DCRA rifles.

Back in the day, properly seasoned, wood stocks, were coveted jewels.

As mass production became the word of the day, especially during the early sixties, that started to change.

I can remember people digging up wood that had been purposely buried for over fifty years to get seasoned wood for rifle stocks.

Those stocks are a thing of the past, but some rifles with them are still tucked away in safes.

Polymer stocks are usually less sensetive to warpage but often aren't as rigid as properly sealed/seasoned wood.

It's pretty tough for a polymer stock to beat a well made laminated wood stock, even if it's full length bedded to the muzzle.

The polymer stock will almost always require some sort of bedding assistance, such as pillars or machined aluminum inserts.

There was a time when inletting a good stock, by hand, was a well paying skillset. It's still expensive but the demand is hardly there.

CNC machining has taken over the manufacture and inletting of stocks, as well as manufacturing receivers/barrels.

I will agree, a good bedding job will usually enhance the consistent accuracy of most off the shelf, modern rifles.

 

[dilly]

Just one thing to add to this mystery...my drilling is one of my most accurate rifles...

Defies logic...

 

[Mystic Precision]

Proper bedding... free float barrel... work up a suitable handload

This assumes the rifle is in proper working condition, chamber is cut straight and there are no major defects in the rifle. optic and ring/base are solid and working

Basic formula for a modern bolt rifle

Jerry

 

[South Pender]

I acknowledge that free-floating the barrel is the consensus view re accuracy. I've had all my serious accuracy rifles done this way. However, I have a recently-acquired vintage hunting rifle (a Schultz & Larsen M65DL) in which the barrel seems to make contact with the wood along the barrel channel. I haven't shot it yet, so perhaps should wait to see how it shoots before thinking about modifying things.

I've often wondered why free-floating the barrel would necessarily improve accuracy. With forend contact--either all along the forend or just at the tip--you are damping the barrel vibrations, and I don't understand why this wouldn't be a good thing. I've done some reading on the notion of a "node" and finding it with one's handloads, but fail to see why this couldn't also be done with a barrel having contact with the stock. Can someone explain this to me?

 

[Lodi]

I've often wondered why free-floating the barrel would necessarily improve accuracy.

Accuracy is about consistency, from shot-to-shot-to-shot. Many times when you read about free-floating it will also include a mention of glassbedding, this in reference to the action assembly, so it's not just free-floating.

Dampening the vibrations is an effort to provide consistency. This method is used by many factories on their production rifles, guns meant to be used by the average shooter using average factory ammunition.

Consistency is the goal. No matter what, when fired a rifle will twist and vibrate and contort greatly. By making the rifle consistent the barrel and receiver and bottom metal will all return to their 'starting' point.

A handloader will 'work up' a load in an attempt to find a combination that creates consistency. A non-handloader, someone shooting factory ammunition, will try to find that same combination by changing brands or bullet weight.

Just free-floating a barrel removes a factor in providing consistency, though changing ammunition might add back in that factor.

 

[Potashminer]

I acknowledge that free-floating the barrel is the consensus view re accuracy. I've had all my serious accuracy rifles done this way. However, I have a recently-acquired vintage hunting rifle (a Schultz & Larsen M65DL) in which the barrel seems to make contact with the wood along the barrel channel. I haven't shot it yet, so perhaps should wait to see how it shoots before thinking about modifying things.
...

I have an M60 Schultz and Larson and worked with an acquaintance's M65. I think that you really aught to give that old girl a chance to see what it can do, before changing it. Unlike today, in the 1960's a 1MOA rifle was to dream about - not many could do that. As mentioned above - really high end, well seasoned stocks just do not appear to exist any more - not many grand kids cutting stocks from wood that their Grandpa's selected and felled as young men. I have often wondered - I am VERY cynical about the marketing profession - so, many old school high end guns were made with full contact bedding and with sights that were hand filed to be "sighted in" - is now very expensive to find the wood or the people that can do that - much cheaper to do "free float", I think - so "marketing" convinced us that "free float" is "better" - just like "adjustable" is better?? No mention of also cheaper for the manufacturer.

Pretty sure I saw an older ad on the Internet - Rem 700 and Win 70 like $129 or $139. Weatherby and S&L like $359?

 

[South Pender]

Just free-floating a barrel removes a factor in providing consistency, though changing ammunition might add back in that factor.

I certainly get the notion of maximizing consistency, but why would a barrel with some stock contact not afford the same shot-to-shot consistency as a free-floated one?

It might be worth noting here that some rifles designed for precision shooting (Remington 40X, for example) provided an adjustable forend pressure device (near the tip) to enhance accuracy.

 

[South Pender]

I have an M60 Schultz and Larson and worked with an acquaintance's M65. I think that you really aught to give that old girl a chance to see what it can do, before changing it.

Pretty sure I saw an older ad on the Internet - Rem 700 and Win 70 like $129 or $139. Weatherby and S&L like $359?

I imagine that your S&L M60 had the barrel in contact with the forend. How did it shoot? Same for the acquaintance's M65.

As for comparative prices, my 1970 Gun Digest shows the Schultz & Larsen M68 (almost identical to the M65) listed at $485, the Weatherby Mk V at $299.50, the Winchester M70 standard rifle at $162.95, and the Remington 700 ADL at $134.95.

 

[guntech]

I certainly get the notion of maximizing consistency, but why would a barrel with some stock contact not afford the same shot-to-shot consistency as a free-floated one?

It might be worth noting here that some rifles designed for precision shooting (Remington 40X, for example) provided an adjustable forend pressure device (near the tip) to enhance accuracy.

Wood can change every week with humidity and temperature changes and affect point of impact and grouping... so laminated wood stocks were invented... they are more stable but quality synthetic stocks are again more stable... and all of them end up free floating because it works the best...

Remington's adjustable forend pressure was in stocks for position shooting... where the shooters like to tinker and tune more... many simply back the adjustment screw out and shoot it floating... and the real bench rest accuracy stocks were all floating...

Stocks with forend wood touching the barrel may still shoot fine... but may also string shots and be more variable...

 

[South Pender]

Wood can change every week with humidity and temperature changes and affect point of impact and grouping...

Yes, good point. So you might expect some POI changes over time with a wood stock in contact with the barrel as the wood swelled or shrank with changing weather conditions. I was more curious about shot-to-shot variation (and larger groups) within a single range session.

 

[Lodi]

... but why would a barrel with some stock contact not afford the same shot-to-shot consistency as a free-floated one?

With stock contact a barrel can move as it heats from expansion. A shooter with a sling exerting force, pressure upwards from a rest can both move barrel inconsistently. In general something touching a barrel will not be as consistent as nothing touching a barrel.

Forend pressure techniques like the 40X you mentioned are tools used to try and improve consistency. After all the other work is performed, and accurate handloads are devised, then adding different degrees of pressure may increase accuracy.