short range Benchrest---10 1/2 pound rifles

J

Jefferson

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
197   0   0
Location
Alberta
on another thread we were discussing 10 1/2 pound rifles for short range Benchrest.
100 200 300 yard group and score shooting. 5 shot groups, or 5 bulls for score at all 3 ranges (most now are 100 & 200 yard events)

a question came up on actions.

Let us start there. I prefer a BAT action, either 6 1/2 or 7 1/2

right bolt left port right eject, with a pillar bed. (just do not like the glue ins as some come apart in the worst of times or a little at a time, just ask dan opel who struggled all year not knowing it was letting loose)

the SV actions are quite light. I have a model B in a 7 1/2 octagonal that you want to have a 5 pound barrel to make weight. I love the weight in the centre of the rifle as opposed to having a longer barrel out front and front heavy.

go ahead start your comments and let's see where this takes us.

I think the Barnard actions are a little heavy, what is the lightest they weigh.


Jefferson
 
Barnard comes in ppc BF. However to get down to 40 oz. you have to go with
a model S. The probably preferable model P is listed at 48 OZ which is a little high to start building a 10 lb. rifle.
 
always wanted to try a barnard action

but here is how the weight is broken down.

EXAMPLE MAY NOT BE EXACT FOR YOUR NEEDS

10 1/2 pounds is 186 ounces


barrel------------- 82 oz 5 pounds 2 ounces

stock------------- 29 oz pillar bedded

action ------------ 33 oz SV is 28 DS 32.5 my octagonal 7 1/2 is 39 oz

scope 36x or 45x--- 17 oz or 21 for a leopold competition or a march

trigger 2 oz with a trigger guard and scope rings and of course a mirage
shield for the barrel ---
so trigger & guard & rings & shield is a total of about 7 oz

so here you have the 10 1/2 pound gun

pretty tough to make weight with a 40 oz action.

we are going to lighter barrels recently in the last 4 years, why no real answer but maybe this


heavier scopes by 3 ounces
heavier tuners if you wish by 3 to 7 ounces
heavier frozen scopes by 3 to 4 ounces

most folks starting out will use a weaver 36x scope at about 400 us$ and progress form there (mmm I am still there on some rifles)

GET 30 MM RINGS and buy the inserts so if you go with a 30 mm scope later you already have the rings. (mmmmm why does it take me so long to learn)


this answer was directed at looking at the barnard action but it is indeed heavy and consequently if not "what the pros are using it is a little harder to sell"

more thoughts and some questions

then I am sure others will jump in

Jefferson
 
Last edited:
there you go

I put the 2 lines together now so you can read the triger and guard and rings and shield and and and so on for those who have bifocals (that includes me)

also people use barrels form 5 pounds even to 5 pounds eight ounces so these things vary a bit.

Jeffy
 
I used to believe it was a great advantage to use a heavy varmint contour barrel and squeeze the weight limit. I've mellowed my stance a bit. As mentioned, it is almost mandatory to be a little flexible if one is to use one of the heavier scopes.
If using a Barnard, I would use the S and would use the P only if I was building a dedicated HV rifle.
Regarding glue-ins coming loose; If a glue-in comes loose, it means it wasn't properly done in the first place. A proper glue job won't come loose. It will only come apart with great difficulty. Not long ago, I removed a glued in 40X from a stock. I had glued this one together in 1979. I put a wedge under the barrel and heated the action with a heat gun. When it finally came apart, it took some of the top layer of glass cloth from the stock with it.
The 6ppc will be dominant for a long time. The only reason to use anything else is to be contrary (reason enough for me); I still have all my 6PPC stuff but shoot a 6 BR now. I still use old 40X actions and will likely stay with them for the forseeable future. I even still use old homemade triggers and stuff.
It would be entirely possible to use a blocked rifle in the Varmint classes but I don't know of anyone trying it lately. I should do that one day. Regards, Bill
 
Has there been any advantage demonstrated to gluing an action? I see from looking at other sites that at least some br types do it.
 
From my

understanding glue ins were initially used because the stocks used at the time were soft. Instead of pillar bedding the stocks were bedded and then just glued in. There is definately a solid marriage between stock and action when done right.
 
cycbb486 said:
understanding glue ins were initially used because the stocks used at the time were soft. Instead of pillar bedding the stocks were bedded and then just glued in.

I suggest to you that reason actions where glued in because it was felt when the wooden stocks took on moisture they shifted which created different points of aim. After a good rain it was nothing for a large wooden stock to put on 2 oz and you would have to loosen off the screws and redo the tenision on them. Glueing in seem to prevent that.

There is definately a solid marriage between stock and action when done right.
Click to expand...

Without question.
 
I wonder if the idea of gluing in might give kind of a false sense of confidence, be unnecessary, introduce new kinds of errors or even hide developing problems that can occur in a system. For one thing most people are dealing with modern stocks, which are generally inert and so stable at least one is advertised as not requiring pillar bedding. From this perspective, why bother? There is also the additional consideration that, if the glued in setup can fail, as has been suggested above, (In fact, I don't see how failure can be avoided in at least a percentage of cases. One can, after all, take them apart by heating or cooling and pressuring the action.) it might be hard to detect, again as has been suggested. It is fair enough to say the job should be done properly, but without evidence of significant gains resulting from the procedure, you may well be just adding a further potential error to the errors already possible in bedding and pillar bedding actions, i.e. overall error rate in construction goes up. Using the procedure might also detract from the care that goes into the initial bedding of the action. Kind of the "...gee I'm going to glue it anyway type of thinking...". While I tend to pooh! pooh! this kind of thinking in my own case, I'm sure there is a percentage of other people that think this way, some of them even in business:D. So far, the more I think about it, the more I am coming to the view, admittedly somewhat ill-informed, that gluing in an action will (has to) fail if there is any looseness or bad fit in bedding at all. That being the case, something might be said for being aware there is a bedding problem with a rifle, rather than going through a slow dissolution of accuracy that takes a long time to appreciate or understand. Maybe another way of looking at it might be; "If the rifle has a good bedding job done, why ever would one want to glue it?" fred
 
Well that may be true Fred, but gluing in an action may require more detail to bedding then a regular stock. Since the glue is the only thing that holds the action in place I can tell you first hand that the bedding job has to be perfect. I have on many occasion had to rebed a stock because it was not perfect for a glue in. Would this work for a big calibur like a .338, I don't know, I would not think so, but, I don't know. In all honesty I don't worry about it anymore, my buddy TM does it now. In the short range benchrest, perfection is paramount, to put off skipping a procedure, as you suggest, could happen, and I hope all of my competitors think that way, but not likely. I guess you are saying that bedding to this extent may be overboard and you could be right, but at the Holton match which I just attended the difference between 1st and 2nd in the 2 Gun, after 2 days and 20 targets later was .052 of an inch. So I don't think you can cut a corner with the idea that the glue in will be a short cut.
 
bill gammon said:
Well that may be true Fred, but gluing in an action may require more detail to bedding then a regular stock. Since the glue is the only thing that holds the action in place I can tell you first hand that the bedding job has to be perfect. I have on many occasion had to rebed a stock because it was not perfect for a glue in. Would this work for a big calibur like a .338, I don't know, I would not think so, but, I don't know. In all honesty I don't worry about it anymore, my buddy TM does it now. In the short range benchrest, perfection is paramount, to put off skipping a procedure, as you suggest, could happen, and I hope all of my competitors think that way, but not likely. I guess you are saying that bedding to this extent may be overboard and you could be right, but at the Holton match which I just attended the difference between 1st and 2nd in the 2 Gun, after 2 days and 20 targets later was .052 of an inch. So I don't think you can cut a corner with the idea that the glue in will be a short cut.
Click to expand...

I'm not thinking of cutting corners and I accept what you are saying as true, i.e. don't cut corners when competing in this game or use the best procedures. (Everyone else says it too, for that matter.) I'm thinking in a different way and trying to be precise. I'm asking if gluing an action in introduces any problems. I don't see anything inherently bad about the idea, except I am more used to screws doing the job. I do think it should be tested. Any procedure I am aware of (in anything) has the potential to make things worse or to create a set of unique problems. One thing that might help is a survey to see how long it takes a conventionally set up action and a glued in action to develop accuracy problems. Another piece of evidence I would like to see is a comparison done between equivalent actions that are glued in and those that are not from an accuracy perspective. If they are equal then no problem, if one is poorer than the other, or has more problems then... so it goes...fred
 
they used to call them glue and screw

pillar bedded and then glued in.
that is how i bought my first 2 pandas from gary alvey (who now does 600 and 1000 yard heavy gun building and some neat all aluminum stocks)

BAT machine says pillar is harder (I am not sure about this as I agree with gammon)

I think sometimes not so benchresty gunsmiths can cover up their work by glueing in actions.

I just have had some good luck with BAT machine and tom meridith and others like robertson composites to want to change.

(note plug for robertson-----the last 2 stocks I have seen, both not mine he did such a nice job they literally pushed into the stock and you could shoot them without a glue in or pil;lars tightened up)

I shot a gary alvey stock once we took it apart and put it back together without the screws in or glue in for a whole aggregate. (.268 calgary and somewhat windy so a good agg at the time) and was going to use it the whole weekend but chickened out.

It fit the action so well and robertson has done the same. It almost needed to be forced into place.

the feeling I get when this happens is one of confidence in the equipment, much more so than a mere glue in.

your milage may vary but I am happy with the results in my limited experience. Other like glue ins.

but you still glue in the action initally and then just skim bed it and or tighten up the screws (and then put the screws to your competition)

Jeff
 
Jeff that

is what I have seen of Guntechs bedding work. It is top notch.

I was amazed at what it looked like when I got my first gun back from him. The 6PPC I cannot say as it is a glue in. But knowing him from the work I have had done by him there is not cutting corners.

My third project by him should be complete late next week. I know it will be top notch as the rest.
 
BCFred said:
I'm not thinking of cutting corners and I accept what you are saying as true, i.e. don't cut corners when competing in this game or use the best procedures. (Everyone else says it too, for that matter.) I'm thinking in a different way and trying to be precise. I'm asking if gluing an action in introduces any problems. I don't see anything inherently bad about the idea, except I am more used to screws doing the job. I do think it should be tested. Any procedure I am aware of (in anything) has the potential to make things worse or to create a set of unique problems. One thing that might help is a survey to see how long it takes a conventionally set up action and a glued in action to develop accuracy problems. Another piece of evidence I would like to see is a comparison done between equivalent actions that are glued in and those that are not from an accuracy perspective. If they are equal then no problem, if one is poorer than the other, or has more problems then... so it goes...fred
Click to expand...

The only problem that I see Fred is someone not using the right glue or bedding and also how they bed. I have seen rifles that were done by self labeled experts actually come apart during a match. I would think that it would be very difficult to do a comparsion because every component is different even though they could look the same. You could put to-gether 2 absolutely equal rifles, ie same stocks, actions, scopes, componets and 1 barrel for both and one will shoot better then the other, why, no one really knows. The 2 best shooting rifles I have ever owned was a Clyd Hart sleeved 700 bolted in with 4 bolts. The other rifle is my present Swindlehurst on a Adamovich stock which is glued in. Which one in more accurate, I think they are the same. Which one is easier to shoot? the Swindlehurst by far. Double port. load from the left, right hand bolt with a Tom Griffin ejecter. Just as a matter of thought there will be between 300 and 400 competitors at Super Shoot in 3 weeks and I would bet you 90% of the rifles on the line will be glue-in's and keep in mind the difference between 1st and 2nd will be less then .052.
 
bill gammon said:
You could put to-gether 2 absolutely equal rifles, ie same stocks, actions, scopes, componets and 1 barrel for both and one will shoot better then the other, why, no one really knows.

They aren't absolutely equal. They can't be. The difference between them is unknown. From this point we get into the realm of research or superstition (opinion?). In fairness, it may be impractical for people doing the sport to find out why. Most of us simply don't have the finances, time or inclination to make an attempt. One thing I have noticed over my life so far is that often the most intensely held beliefs occur in such circumstances. I recall an article I read years ago (For the life of me I can't remember the authors, but I will still mention it as someone here will surely recall it.) in which the authors did their shooting in a very large aircraft hanger, which gave them good control over their testing. They found that most procedures used in reloading to achieve accuracy simply didn't contribute to the accuracy they measured. The implication, of course, was that much of reloading was superstitious behaviour.

Just as a matter of thought there will be between 300 and 400 competitors at Super Shoot in 3 weeks and I would bet you 90% of the rifles on the line will be glue-in's and keep in mind the difference between 1st and 2nd will be less then .052.

Maybe it is a shame, because I like shooting so much, but this is one of the things that turned me away from trying benchrest shooting. The amount of difference between winners and losers at 100 meters seemed too small to me to be significant in any way that mattered. I recall even having doubts at the time that differences this small would be measured reliably. I was sure there would be good efforts and thought put into doing the measurements, as well as much acrimony accompanying perceived failures to do it right. But, where is the point at 100 meters where the differences measured become mythical, rather than real? It made more sense to me to hunt or shoot at silhouettes or to shoot for score, under some conditions. Less chance for ambiguity. (Have to admit to desiring some ambiguity lots of times, though...:)... You never know, it might go your way.)
Click to expand...

Probably it would would be
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom