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

Neutral bedding is when the barrel is bedded up the barrel channel without pressure . One of the other things about full length neutral bedding is in cold weather if you get moisture under the barrel and it freezes it can play havoc with consistency.When water freezes it expands and puts pressure on the stock and barrel.If you live in a cold climate I would avoid it.
 
In my opinion neutral bedding is no solution at the best of times... rarely you will have a piece of wood stable enough that the bedding will remain neutral from week to week... so you will have wood touching in various places and changing, just a headache for accuracy, and a headache to try and make it neutral to start with ... I would prefer a pressure point over neutral but floating is so much better.
 
South Pender said:
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.
Click to expand...

Free floating, with good bedding, ensures consistent harmonics, hence consistent accuracy. You can’t separate warpage from this topic, as various levels of warpage will effect harmonics in different levels, thus negatively impact accuracy.
 
just another point of reference ... the ZKK 600's (and 602's) have a dovetail under the rear sight boss; a sliding stud engages this dovetail.... there is a screw that enters through the bottom of the forestock and in turn screws into the sliding stud. the purpose is to maintain a constant relationship between the barrel and the foreend of the stock. Accuracy in these rifles is generally very decent. Both according to testing and their test targets.
 
My Browning 78 didn’t shoot very well until I inserted a spacer under the hanger arm to separate the forend from the barrel. It’s a tack driver now.
 
And then you can have a Pre64 Model 70 that can shoot extremely well with it's front screw tightened into the barrel wart.

In shooting, there are always exceptions to the rule.
 
oneadam12 said:
Swamped barrels were a thing once in black powder front loaders.

McMillan claimed the best results were with bedding about an inch forward of the chamber and floating the rest.

Enfields wanted up pressure at the muzzle.

Ruger falling blocks need floating and have issues with uneven expansion of the aluminum sight rib.

Angled Rugers like the M77 can shoot very well with bedding near the end of the stock in a sporter configuration.

Garand based actions want to be stiffened at the muzzle end.

In a chassis a stiff barrel is fine floated as long as the screws are torqued correctly. You can measure the deflection changing as you tighten them and the action flexes.

Bench guns are basically clamped in place for much of the barrel length.

Bottom line it depends on the rifle and the barrel profile.
Click to expand...

To what aluminum sight rib on the Ruger falling block do you refer?
Do you have some pics of the abundance of modern bench guns with the barrels clamped in place over much of their length?
What kind of chassis is so poorly built that the action is distorted when bolted in?
With the advent of the internet, it is common to see a lot of pure BS posted but this one ranks with the best.
 
I tried the neutral bedding technique on a rifle I had (a BRNO ZKK) about fifty years ago. The rifle was quite accurate but produced some interesting results under certain conditions. Fired from a cold barrel, it shot reasonably well (1moa) and was quite consistent. If I fired a couple of groups then walked up to change targets, it gave the barrel a chance to cool about halfway. The first shot would then hit about 6 inches high, at 100 yd. Each subsequent shot would then walk down until, after three or four shots, it would group at the original point of impact. If allowed to cool down completely (for an hour or so), the first shot would hit as intended. From day to day, the point of impact would change minimally. I then free floated the barrel and never saw this again. Free floated, it shot better, (3/4 moa) and was more consistent; hot or cold.
I have owned quite a few Ruger No1's, starting in 1971. All of them shot best with five to seven pounds of upward pressure at the forend tip. For the bolt actions, though, floating has always produced the best, most consistent, accuracy.
Only in certain cases do I believe in bedding the barrel under the chamber. Usually, this has produced some, slight, vertical dispersion as the barrel heated.
 
One of the most accurate hunting rifles was a Brno model 21 with a factory stock--which had a screw down pressure point. I shot MOA or under with 173 grain factory S&B ammo!
However, in general, free floated barrels will cause the least amount of headache.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom