Optimal gun weight distribution between the front/rear rests

[HTSmith]

tobacco stick wrapped in baling twine

That's exactly what I shot for the first 8 years of my life until I got my first Daisy

 

[Bginvestor]

I would not conclude it was stock flex because things did not progressively get worse. In a light gun 60/40 works well, its very hard to get 50/50. In a 36lb gun I do not think it will matter much. The problem is with lighter rifles the butt can bounce off the bag, in a heavy rifle thats far less of an issue.

Thanks Alex.. with these types of tests, I forgot to mention that I feel that you always need to go back to the range and see if you can repeat your results.

In this case, my father's shooting from a previous day also confirmed some of these results.

 

[johara1]

A rule of thumb is 2" ahead of the receiver works good ... short or long range And barrel quality means more after you balance it..... jim

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

A rule of thumb is 2" ahead of the receiver works good ... short or long range And barrel quality means more after you balance it..... jim

I agree with what Alex is saying and that works better on a heavier gun than say a 10.5lb lv rifle. It leaves the butt too light on a gun that light, IMHO. Each gun, caliber and the rules/disciplines dictate what works best for a given setup. Nothing wrong with 2" on a 17lb gun, for example.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I think we get away with a lot more with our 17lb rifles. They just are not as bag sensitive imo. Some guys shoot off of pretty hard bags and do very well, others off of soft bags and do well. I have even ran heavy sand in the front bag and agged well. I just have not found the bag setup to be as critical as I often read about. Im actually kind of sloppy about bag setup. I do think a little flex in the stock helps with this. I have owned stocks that would not free recoil well, they needed to be held a little. Thats just a stock design issue. I also like weigh in a stock. Meaning I prefer to build a rifle close to its intended weight rather than building it light and adding weight. Also, bag positioning can have an effect on positive compensation. It would be interesting if you could run the same test at 1000 yards to see if the results were the same.

 

[johara1]

I agree with what Alex is saying and that works better on a heavier gun than say a 10.5lb lv rifle. It leaves the butt too light on a gun that light, IMHO. Each gun, caliber and the rules/disciplines dictate what works best for a given setup. Nothing wrong with 2" on a 17lb gun, for example.

1.5 to 2" ahead of the receiver is in the center of the bags ...... A lot depends where your fore end stop is and where you set the rear begin relation to the butt stock in the bag. Now all of that has to do with balancing the gun first ..... Granted you can get away with a lot at short range and when you hang a tuner out in front..... jim

 

[johara1]

I think we get away with a lot more with our 17lb rifles. They just are not as bag sensitive imo. Some guys shoot off of pretty hard bags and do very well, others off of soft bags and do well. I have even ran heavy sand in the front bag and agged well. I just have not found the bag setup to be as critical as I often read about. Im actually kind of sloppy about bag setup. I do think a little flex in the stock helps with this. I have owned stocks that would not free recoil well, they needed to be held a little. Thats just a stock design issue. I also like weigh in a stock. Meaning I prefer to build a rifle close to its intended weight rather than building it light and adding weight. Also, bag positioning can have an effect on positive compensation. It would be interesting if you could run the same test at 1000 yards to see if the results were the same.

The lower the better, if you build to specific components and want to change something like a scope you are in trouble. I think you need to build lighter and add weight where you need it..... jim

 

[Alex Wheeler]

The lower the better, if you build to specific components and want to change something like a scope you are in trouble. I think you need to build lighter and add weight where you need it..... jim

Im not talking that tight Jim.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

1.5 to 2" ahead of the receiver is in the center of the bags ...... A lot depends where your fore end stop is and where you set the rear begin relation to the butt stock in the bag. Now all of that has to do with balancing the gun first ..... Granted you can get away with a lot at short range and when you hang a tuner out in front..... jim

Whut? The lighter the gun is, the LESS you can get by with. I'm not sure what you're saying but it sounds illogical.

If you have more liberal weight rules, you can manipulate where weight goes easier. It's not even easy to make weight period, in a 10.5lb rifle with a tuner. That's why I am making the new lighter tuner, for one. .

 

[johara1]

Whut? The lighter the gun is, the LESS you can get by with. I'm not sure what you're saying but it sounds illogical.

If you have more liberal weight rules, you can manipulate where weight goes easier. It's not even easy to make weight period, in a 10.5lb rifle with a tuner. That's why I am making the new lighter tuner, for one. .

I think you need to reread it..... and it is hard to balance one if you build right up at the weight, is what I said plus the tuner is added now you are in a world of shit if you build close to the max and decide to add a tuner and you have 4-5 oz. hanging on the muzzle. Let alone balance it.... jim

 

[johara1]

Im not talking that tight Jim.

Ok, we are on the same page then..... jim

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I think you need to reread it..... and it is hard to balance one if you build right up at the weight, is what I said plus the tuner is added now you are in a world of shit if you build close to the max and decide to add a tuner and you have 4-5 oz. hanging on the muzzle. Let alone balance it.... jim

Ok, I re-read it and it still reads the same way ...but you later posts clarified it, I think. Lol!