Accurizing rests

[Tozguy]

Has there been any attempt at measuring the improvement in accuracy of ‘return to battery’ mechanical rests versus the best benchrest stuff (separate front and rear sandbags)? When we see how small the groups in competitive benchrest are, with atmospheric and ammo variations wreaking their havoc, it is hard to imagine just how much improvement in accuracy comes with one piece mechanical rests. What is involved in accurizing a rest system?
We seem to concentrate on what we can measure without knowing what the accuracy potential really is. For example, we true an action to .0001’’ because we have the tools. We measure a barrel with an air gauge to .0002’’ because we can. We turn necks to within .0005’’ because we have the dials and gauges. We weigh powder charges to .1 grains because we have scales. The list goes on. There is no doubt that more precision in these areas doesn’t hurt. Even if do not know just how much they are helping we would go even further if we could because more is better. The only limiting factor with more resolution in measurement tools seems to be our ability to use them consistently.
But are there other potentially more important areas in the shooting spectrum that are being neglected for lack of measurement tools? What about accurizing rests? We take an trued action with a close tolerance match grade barrel, with very special bedding , with a highly sophisticated telescope mounted on precision rings and bases, with a highly engineered trigger and what do we do….we plunk it on sandbags that have to deflect 1/4'' by finger pressure! Interpreting the holes in a target is a very subjective way of inferring the impact of a ‘better’ rest because of the complex mix of factors that are ever present when we try to get a second bullet into the same hole as the first one. Is there a way to measure the tolerances of one rest system versus another? Should we want to?
Will the next significant increment in accuracy improvement depend on what new measurement methods we come up with for designing and using rests?

 

[Rust]

There is such a class, they're called rail guns.

 

[mikecr]

I'm thinking the 'rules' negate it.
Then again, if relying on a rest for an improved shooting system, shouldn't it really count as part of the weight?
I think so.

Personally, I'd like to see BR bipods in any configuration(including return to battery) but counting for weight.

 

[Tozguy]

First, let me apologize for the initial post, I reread myself and can't figure out what I was trying to say! :
Your idea of having the rest system included in a weight limit would open up to some interesting experimentation and development. Thats the spirit in which my first post was written. Being limited to sand bags is a choice but it seems archaeic compared to how sophisticated rifles, scopes and ammo have become.

Maybe we should get more technical about sand bags? We have trigger pull gauges good to a fraction of an ounce but who measures the ES and SD of the coefficient of friction on their sandbags? Maybe the time will come to consider everything above the table as a shooting system with an overall weight limit and see what flies.

 

[TonyR]

Good question, Tozguy. One way to at least compare would be to look at the NBRSA record aggregates for rail guns compared to guns shot off of bags. Here is a link to the NBRSA Records page.

http://nbrsa.org/sites/default/files/existing%20world%20records%201-14-2010.doc

The Grand Aggregates at the bottom of the page seem to be the most valid comparison for your purposes.

 

[Tozguy]

Very interesting, thanks Tony. Am going to think a lot about what to make of those performances.
It must be tricky measuring groups to the nearest thou.

 

[TonyR]

I had never looked at those records before; but I was really amazed at how close Tony Boyer came to the Rail Gun agg with a Sporter Class gun. Probably a lesson in that too.

 

[StraightPipes]

Gentlemen, I am by no means a professional BR shooter or much of a competitor, but I would like to make a statement purely from a "novice" aspect.

I tinker to the extreme, I am more than obsessed with the precision and engineering involved in this "sport". The technical aspect of this "sport" can and will elevate to heights beyond belief as time goes on, its in our nature.

In saying this, after we engineer ourselves into a state of "migraine", when are we going to leave this sport in the hands of the "talented shooter". In other words, its not all about our equipment or is it.?????

As stated earlier, some of us can still to this day shoot quite well against the ultra engineered works of engineering art that we see on the line these days. If I could almost out shoot a rail gun, from a front rest and a rear sandbag I would take this in pride and accomplishment and continue till the end of time in this manner or style of shooting.
Its late, Im tired and if I have totally missed the point in this thread I shoot me. This should always be a sport of "men" not "machines".

 

[Tozguy]

Man versus machine is probably a question of choice. Some of us still like to shoot muzzleloaders from the standing position, others like shooting wildcats from a rail gun. Considering the orientation of this website and in the context of benchrest shooting, the the question seems pertinent.

Shooting free recoil with extremely light triggers is a popular technique. But what might seem like the reduction or elimination of human variables in the accuracy equation is actually just the displacement of it to another point. Where many of us find enjoyment is in the understanding and use of technical/mechanical principles to compensate for the our limitations. No matter what level we go to in 'replacing man with machines' there always seems to be another one to aim for. The actual trigger pulling might just be a small part of the activities we thrive on.

 

[BoydAllen]

In the real world, it is very seldom that we get conditions that allow the best shooter with the best equipment to shoot to their limits, no matter what the rest.I enjoy the progress in equipment as much as anyone I know, but I also know that learning to stay in tune and speak wind flag are more important under most real world conditions. One of the best shooters that I know of, Gary Ocock, uses the simplest of bag/rest setups. There is a lesson there.

 

[Tozguy]

Jerry Tierney's results (1000yd National in Sacremento) is even more evidence that the human pulling the trigger makes more of a difference than a super engineered rest. The lesson: make friends with Mr. Wind.