Some rifles that made big waves, then I didnt really hear much about them.

[twatermelon]

Had my 457 out for the first time yesterday and was impressed, will be doing the challenge with it that's for sure.

 

[grauhanen]

Under specific circumstances, yes stock configuration and weight makes a difference. For example, if one uses the "free recoil" shooting technique, I would expect poor results with a sporter rifle on a rest with a 3" wide front bag positioned near the end of the forestock, compared to using a BR specific heavy stock.

Not to stir anything up, but is free recoil the only circumstance in which stock configuration and weight matters when shooting from the bench?

Here's why I ask. A rifle with more weight has greater inertia than one with less weight. Indeed that is one of the reasons 3P shooters prefer heavier rifles rather than those that are lighter. The same principle of more weight conferring greater resistance to movement would seem to apply when a rifle is shot from a rest from the bench. I understand that a shooter can attempt to reduce rifle movement by adjusting his grip, perhaps holding the rifle very tightly. At the same time, that can leave open the possibility of hold inconsistency. No matter with hold consistency, however, as perhaps shooters can reproduce good results regardless of how their rifles are held off the bench.

With regard to stock configuration, I doubt anyone would attempt to shoot seriously with a sporter rifle on a rest with a 3" wide front bag. That would not be very sensible, to say the least. What I'm wondering about is the rifle with a narrow, round forestock, such as a CZ 452 or 455 American or a Schnabel-style stock. Being round and relatively narrow, stocks such as these may induce the rifle to be more at risk from rolling in a front rest bag. To be sure, front bags come in a variety of sizes, but they don't always fit as nicely as many shooters might prefer. Again, no matter about front bag and forestock match, perhaps shooters can reproduce good results regardless of how their rifle stocks match and sit on the front rest bag.

Drawing on my own experience, even when using the best ammo I've found heavier rifles with certain stock configurations seem to yield better results than rifles with narrow forestocks and with less weight. That's just my opinion and it's not meant to create a kerfluffle.

 

[RabidM4U5]

Not to stir anything up, but is free recoil the only circumstance in which stock configuration and weight matters when shooting from the bench?

With regard to stock configuration, I doubt anyone would attempt to shoot seriously with a sporter rifle on a rest with a 3" wide front bag. That would not be very sensible, to say the least. What I'm wondering about is the rifle with a narrow, round forestock, such as a CZ 452 or 455 American or a Schnabel-style stock. Being round and relatively narrow, stocks such as these may induce the rifle to be more at risk from rolling in a front rest bag. To be sure, front bags come in a variety of sizes, but they don't always fit as nicely as many shooters might prefer. Again, no matter about front bag and forestock match, perhaps shooters can reproduce good results regardless of how their rifle stocks match and sit on the front rest bag.

That seems an odd comment to make, considering I began my post as such:

One must be aware of how they should configure their rest for different styles of stocks, and what techniques are appropriate to use for different rifles. The shortcomings of a lightweight sporter stock for bench shooting can be effectively mitigated through rest setup and technique.

Free recoil is the circumstance in which stock configuration and weight will have the greatest impact. The scenario I presented was deliberately extreme in order to make the example clear. Surely (or perhaps, hopefully) nobody would have any difficulty visualizing why shooting a sporter rifle free recoil off a wide front bag is a recipe for disaster. It was only an example intended to reinforce my point that it is incumbent upon shooters to devise the most appropriate rest setup, and deploy the most suitable technique for the style of rifle they are shooting. To that effect, narrow front bags that securely cradle the stock of a sporter rifle are ideal, or, dare I say, essential. While I had hoped to guide readers towards self-realization, perhaps I need to state these things explicitly. Mea culpa.

Here's why I ask. A rifle with more weight has greater inertia than one with less weight. Indeed that is one of the reasons 3P shooters prefer heavier rifles rather than those that are lighter. The same principle of more weight conferring greater resistance to movement would seem to apply when a rifle is shot from a rest from the bench. I understand that a shooter can attempt to reduce rifle movement by adjusting his grip, perhaps holding the rifle very tightly. At the same time, that can leave open the possibility of hold inconsistency. No matter with hold consistency, however, as perhaps shooters can reproduce good results regardless of how their rifles are held off the bench.

Drawing on my own experience, even when using the best ammo I've found heavier rifles with certain stock configurations seem to yield better results than rifles with narrow forestocks and with less weight. That's just my opinion and it's not meant to create a kerfluffle.

How much does a sporter weigh? About 7 lbs? A more bench oriented rifle? Around 11 lbs? 4 lbs difference seem about reasonable? I can apply much more than 4 lbs of down force to a rifle stock into the rest. The inertia of a heavier rifle would confer an advantage in the free recoil or minimal hold methodology of shooting. Some may choose to shoot with only their trigger hand gripping the stock, and the free hand may squeeze or support the rear bag. These methods center on allowing the rifle to move relatively freely. For these methods, specifically, it therefore becomes important for positioning and hold pressure, if there is any, to be as consistent as possible. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there is the full, firm hold method. Here, the shooter seeks to control the rifle and not allow movement. Of course, given the high force of recoil (though minimal in a .22 LR), it is virtually impossible to fully arrest recoil. The goal is to have controlled the rifle until the round has left the barrel, at which point recoil forces will have peaked and overcome the shooter's strength to move the rifle, but it does not matter as the round has been sent as intended. The rest needs to support the rifle such that it enables the shooter to hold firmly and steadily with relative ease. A front bag that does not fit the forestock snugly lends to unwanted movement being induced into the shooter's hold.

If we circle back to where I said "accuracy is accuracy", what I meant by that is that the barreled action has a given accuracy potential. It does not know if it is installed in a sporter stock or a benchrest stock. If we set aside the trials and tribulations of shooting different stock configurations, what other characteristic do sporter rifles feature that distinguishes them from bench centric rifles, and what implications does this have towards extracting the full accuracy potential out of the barreled action? You certainly have shot a wide variety of rifles, and I don't doubt that you generally observed the heavier rifles to perform better, for you. If I might ask, how much time did you spend with each rifle, and what was your testing protocol? Are you certain the results you achieved were limited primarily by the stock configuration? Were there any options left unexplored that may have generated better results with the light, narrow stocks? Or, should I rephrase as the barreled actions that happened to be installed in light, narrow stocks?