bench shape

[eric n]

Why are most benches in the shape of a ''T''?
I can understand for shooting free recoil, but the vast majority of people I see at the range hold. I shoot better groups when I get square behind but the RO's don't allow it. Is it a keep the muzzle ahead of the firing line issue?

 

[SmTx]

I like U shaped benches.

I imagine the T is for less material and still accommodates left and right hand shooters.

 

[LHSmith]

From a competition standpoint, U - shaped benches cause problems with multi-port actions......there is no bench top left to eject cases onto. Also, if the U- benches have built in seats - it is difficult for some shooters to get into.
My local club had a single wood U-shaped bench with built-in seat which we replaced with 2 concrete topped T- benches and individual wood stools and after 10 years seems to satisfy everyone.
In proper use ot the U top the shooter is supposed to set up the rifle to the right or left of the cut-out....to set up in the center leaves virtually no room for the typical front sandbag/rest and separate rear bag.
Lastly, the U-top requires 4 legs vs. 3 for the T-top and requires more material which causes added construction costs.

 

[Terry]

I have shot on many varieties. The ones at the St.Louis range I like best. We shot on T benches at Yukon MO. they are so long you cannot set behind the gun and keep the mussel in front of the bench. Shot on U benches at Byres, CO., if they are not perfectly aligned with the range your rest hangs off one side and your bag off the other, all your brass goes on the floor. My first try was 39"X 39", they are about 6" short. The next set will be 46" wide X 48" long, with a 45 bevel at each rear corner 1ft. long. They are long enough for most rest/bag combinations and short enough to keep the mussel past the end. the 45 bevel permits people to set beside the gun from either side. There should be plenty of room for everything.

 

[eric n]

I like U shaped benches.

I imagine the T is for less material and still accommodates left and right hand shooters.

Makes the most sense. After reading the article Mr(Boyd) Allen posted, the pics of a right/left shooter next to each other showed it.
While not new to shooting, I am very new to proper bench manners and rest/bag set up, obviously limited in experience to different bench styles as well. My experience is from the field and prone. Coming off the ground, I wondered why people never lined up square behind the rifle. I see people in all different kinds of contortions and do not understand how there can be any repeatability so I moved everything back, squared my shoulders and had good consistency and tracking even with a sub par front rest. Then the R/O told me to move it up and it went back to poor tracking and disappointing results on paper.
I imagine I would be a fan of the 'U' style benches until I can let go of holding and get a proper rest and learn to use it.
Thank you for your answers

 

[Dusty Stevens]

The T shape seems to be the most versatile. I usually dont even go to a range with U shaped benches as most br shooters dont.

 

[JRS]

The T shape seems to be the most versatile. I usually dont even go to a range with U shaped benches as most br shooters dont.

Evidently, you've never been to Ben Avery, a world class shooting range. Home of the Cactus Classic 2 supports under the concrete top. One on the front, one on the rear, and it isn't T-shaped

 

[BoydAllen]

Here is a way to be able to get directly behind your rifle (may be a problem for matches, ask first) when shooting from a T shaped bench, and still have your muzzle forward of the front of the bench. Use a stout piece of plywood that is a couple of inches wider than your bag is long, and perhaps 6" longer than the tail of the bench is wide. Clamp it on the tail of the bench so that it is flush with the far side and sticks out on the near side. I have a portable bench that is shaped that way and I can sit anywhere from sqaure to the stock to a more conventional shoulder angle. You can use a bigger piece, and the method of clamping will have to be worked out to be are much out of the way as possible, but I think that you can see that this would solve your problem. Here is a picture of my portable shooting bench top before I mounted the legs. I was checking the design and dimensions. I used lumber that I had on hand for the prototype, figuring that I would do the final build with multiple layers of plywood laminated together, but is worked so well that I had no reason to do that.

 

[OIF/OEF]

I built a T Shape bench...my first one actually and it came out ok I guess. the top is one piece so I can take it off from the legs and add or take away. I like it but it feels like I am sitting more beside the rifle that behind it. This will probably sound stupid but I am in the process of building a small deck that I can shoot prone off of. Ill build it 3 feet off the ground to stay away from the critters as I shoot in a pasture and its not my land but the owner lets me do whatever I want as long as its safe.


The biggest issue with my T shape bench is I feel there is not enough room to my left. I should have made the "shooting rest area" about 6 inches wider and the very minimum. If it comes out to big that's no bid deal but too small is a big deal. I feel like I am having to lean to the right to get comfortable. Sorry for the long drawn out post

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

JMO, but my preference is for the "home plate" shaped tops.

 

[JRS]

JMO, but my preference is for the "home plate" shaped tops.

A pentagon

 

[Terry]

JMO, but my preference is for the "home plate" shaped tops.

+1

 

[dkhunt14]

JMO, but my preference is for the "home plate" shaped tops.

+1

I like these also. The thing you have to watch is you don't get it too long front to back. On heavy gun the stock needs to overhang the back to shoot it. The stock is 38 inches long. When they get too long you can't get the muzzle over the front edge. Matt

 

[Terry]

JMO, but my preference is for the "home plate" shaped tops.

+1

I like these also. The thing you have to watch is you don't get it too long front to back. On heavy gun the stock needs to overhang the back to shoot it. The stock is 38 inches long. When they get too long you can't get the muzzle over the front edge. Matt

Matt

Is 48" too long?

 

[dkhunt14]

I'm not sure. I know at Missouri they were 58 inches and way too long. They were also T shaped and nowhere to put shells or anything. You also couldn't keep your cases landing on the bench. The long part of the T was only about 16 inches wide. With a mechanical rear rest on a plate they are about 12 inches or so wide. With the rest you have to be behind the gun and you can't reach in from the side. I actually even shoot the light gun that way also. 48 inches would be about max. Matt

 

[BoydAllen]

The devil is in the details. One thing that is overlooked when some build T shaped benches is the front to back dimension of the wide front part of the bench. If that dimension is set to the maximum that can be comfortably used with the shortest barreled rifle that will be used for competition purposes. This will allow most adjustments of rear sandbag to front rest spacing to be done by moving the front rest forward, so that the shooter can better utilize the front of the bench and not end up way back on the narrow tail of the bench.

The other issue that is central to this is the location of the rear leg or support. Many shooters prefer to have one of their legs at a right angle to the CL of their bench, behind benchs' rear legs or supports. The way that many benches are built forces them back onto the tail of the bench in order be in that position. The cure for this is to make the bench long enough so that the rear leg is far enough to be out of the way, or far enough forward so that it does not force shooters toward the rear of the bench.

Benches who have their back corners cut off may facilitate getting behind the stock, but they tend to limit the available room on the shooter's side of the rifle. One possible approach that would get around this is to extend the width of the bench at the front of the angle, a hybrid design as it were. I have not seen any bench that has been built this way, and would suggest that a simple plywood overlay mounted on an existing bench, would be a good way to be able to evaluate this design without much trouble or expense.