Middle ground

A

analretentive

Member
For some reason, I actually thought i could resurrect this forum to something close to where it began.

Wrong. It's a Match and results forum. That's as it should be. That's what the members want, and democratically..that is correct.

I got no place to go now (Yeah, I can hear the cheers.) Doctorates on Rimfire Accuracy are really boring...Ownership's opinions there trump pretty much everything else. Bill's site is a joke. Ain't there no middle ground?

Y'all tell me to go away, and I will.

Gerry
 
Gerry, no need to go away, if you want to discuss a topic, bring it up. If other folks have something to say and want to contribute, they will.
 
State of the art or Pinacle ?

I asked an "Old Hand" this past weekend if he thought Rimfire Rifles had reached the State of the Art or are as good as they can be , ergo no discussion on here and he opined that he thought so. Perhaps - - -, I don't know but the only folks who share freely are those who have nothing to loose, eh? I think that is a shame. I would sooner have the Windflags decide who the winners are and everyone share every last piece of info they think might help someone. I won't be a-holdin my breath though - - -
 
Of course the alternative is that rather than B**** about everything real or perceived, if you've anything constructive to offer spit it out.
 
Last edited:
analretentive said:
It's a Match and results forum. That's as it should be. That's what the members want, and democratically..that is correct.

I got no place to go now (Yeah, I can hear the cheers.) Doctorates on Rimfire Accuracy are really boring...Ownership's opinions there trump pretty much everything else. Bill's site is a joke. Ain't there no middle ground?

Y'all tell me to go away, and I will.

Gerry
Click to expand...
Gerry, I agree with what you are saying, all it would take is for the moderator here to move those match announcements and results but you can see that isn't going to happen. You are correct on the other sites also, they both are a discredit to RFBR, they do little or nothing to promote this sport. All rapped up in their egos!
 
tim said:
Of course the alternative is that rather than B**** about everything real or perceived, if you've anything constructive to offer spit it out.
Click to expand...

OK, I saw REAL evidence recently that bedding in Rimfire Rifles doesn't mean much. Provocative statement, eh and I actually experienced it, hands on.
 
Pete Wass said:
OK, I saw REAL evidence recently that bedding in Rimfire Rifles doesn't mean much. Provocative statement, eh and I actually experienced it, hands on.
Click to expand...

That may or may not represent anything. Here's the couterpoint for you. Ask yourself how many original turbos are out there? Now check with a couple good smiths that can tell you how much flex they have, especially in the tang.
Now call Calfee and ask him the REAL reason he came up with the one piece, forward only scope mount .
 
A poor bedding job may be worse than no bedding. There is also a reason many actions shoot better if there is less torque on the tang action screw than on the front one. Not limited to the old Turbos
I have no problem with shoot postings being allowed to co-mingle with other info.
 
katokoch said:
Care to explain?
Click to expand...

Sure, a friend had an older single shot Benchrest Rifle for sale. I was interested in it so took it home with me to try out. When I got it home I noticed the barrel was hard against the left side of the barrel channel. I decided I would find out why. Took the barreled action out of the stock and found that there was a lug in a dovetail about an inch or so forward of the face of the action. It is the bedding point, if you will, for the front screw. There is also a screw in the tang, which , by the way, is mebby half or less the thickness of the Turbo's tang. the lug under the barrel was floating in the recess of the stock it fits into. I shimmed the lug until I was able to run a dollar bill back to the lug, centered the barrel in the channel and hand tightened that screw. I then inserted the screw in the tang and tightened it; not too tight though. I was then able to run a dollar bill under the action front to back.

I then shot the rifle. Used a lot of Blue box that is fair and began trying to find a good tune spot going from zero forward by 25's. Found a one bullet hole at 25 and another at 50. kept going but the groups opened up so much I went back to 50 and played there. The rifle shot amazingly well.

I opted not to buy the rifle because of the bedding , or lack there of but a friend bought it and scored very well with it in our last match; better than he had been scoring previously with his "Kahy" Turbo.

This led me to believe that when it comes to bedding and Rimfire Rifles, well, it is difficult to come up with what I could conceive to be a worse situation, bedding wise. So how important is the bedding? If this rifle was any indication, I am skeptical of all that is made of the importance of bedding. I have also seen some other out od the box rifles that shoot amazingly well with no bedding at all. Not many but enough to make one question the entire issue.

And the issue of Turbo Flex, BOLDERDASH, I say. The action on the rifle I tested is half or less the size of a Turbo. The issues mostly lie in front of the action, IMHO. The barrels and the windflags.
 
And once again we have a disagreement based on the fact that you don't know what I'm referring to but figured you'd be contrary. This is real simple. Take a turbo and grip it in a vise. Put an indicator anywhere on the tang. Push down on it firmly with one finger.
 
Benchrest Myths:

tim said:
And once again we have a disagreement based on the fact that you don't know what I'm referring to but figured you'd be contrary. This is real simple. Take a turbo and grip it in a vise. Put an indicator anywhere on the tang. Push down on it firmly with one finger.
Click to expand...

I have been competing in various forms of Nationally Sanctioned Benchrest events since 1998. From the very beginning I could see that there were any number of myths that were virtual Law in the Benchrest Communities and many of them have been blown over these years. I'm sure you and many others believe that there is enough flex in a Turbo action to make some sort of accuracy difference but I do not believe that. Not just based on my recent finding with the action and lack of what would be considered "proper bedding" with the rifle I recently evaluated. If a rifle, with it's barreled action hanging to a stock only by two bedding screws will shoot the way that one does, there has to be way more to this. I don't think it is much of a stretch to be able to deduce that action flex in Rimfire Rifles may not be as big an issue as one might imagine, just saying - - -. I have seen a number of re-worked Rem 700 actions that will shoot with the Customs. Sure, they are not very sexy or cool but Flex, H--- Yes, they probably flex but so what? They still shoot damn well. Now, that's big booming rifles, not puny little ole Rimfire rifles. So, tell me, how would one compare a Turbo action to a Rem 700, in terms of flex. This is in no way an indictment of anyone but in my mind a reality check.
 
Sure I can tell you Pete. A turbo flexes at the tang. Why, because, among other things it has a huge cutout right ahead of the tang. You know, the cutout the larger bolt lug mates up to when it locks up, hopefully consistently, less so if the tang moves around all the time.
And for what it's worth, I've been a center fire bench rest shooter for something pushing 30 years and the last time I saw a reasonably competitive 700 based action was about 30 years ago. We're not talking hunter here but they simply will not compete at the same level. Feel free to post a question on the BR forum.
 
("I shimmed the lug until I was able to run a dollar bill back to the lug, centered the barrel in the channel and hand tightened that screw. I then inserted the screw in the tang and tightened it; not too tight though. I was then able to run a dollar bill under the action front to back.'")

Pete,
I would surmise that you indeed improved the bedding with the shim work, and that proper bedding does indeed make a difference after all.

I once watched Allen Hall work on a fellow's BR sporter bedding during a match, between relays. When you loosened the front receiver screw the front of the action would rise about 1/16". Allen told me to come closer and look at it as he loosened the screw, I told him I didn't need to because I could see it from 6' away. He proceeded to cut some shims from a soda can and got it to a reasonable state(out of a bind) until the guy could get it rebedded. If I recall, he improved it quite a bit.
Interesting post.
 
This is a slightly different scenario but similar in some aspects. 2 or 3 years ago I was conducting a barrel indexing experiment in my tunnel using a differentially threaded bushing. I was indexing the barrel 15 degrees for each test and firing 50 shots at each index. This required I remove the rifle from the rest, remove the barreled action from the stock, and reset the barrel 15 degrees clockwise each time.

I'm embarrassed to say that on one of these monotonous repetitions, I neglected to reinstall the action screws and couldn't tell they were missing by the quality of groups I was shooting. However, it was painfully obvious when I started to remove the barreled action from the stock and it fell out with the next 15 degree change. Luckily I turned it over while it was sitting in my lap or it could have been a very bad day! LOL

A sophisticated analysis of all the shots fired during this entire day's testing revealed the missing action screws had no significant effect on the rifle's accuracy and this wasn't any run-of-the-mill rifle where poor accuracy might hide small differences because it still holds a couple of my tunnel records.
Maybe this is the exception to every rule? Maybe it's the most perfect bedding job in history? Maybe it wouldn't repeat? I just thought it was interesting and worth sharing.

Landy
 
I'm embarrassed to say that on one of these monotonous repetitions, I neglected to reinstall the action screws and couldn't tell they were missing by the quality of groups I was shooting. However, it was painfully obvious when I started to remove the barreled action from the stock and it fell out with the next 15 degree change. Luckily I turned it over while it was sitting in my lap or it could have been a very bad day! LOL

Landy[/QUOTE]

Your embarrassing incident somewhat shows that if a rifles action is bedded correctly, torqueing the screws precisely becomes less critical. Some claim 20 to 25 inch pounds is all that is needed if the pillar bedding job is right.
 
Perhaps you all would care to take a look at CF rail guns? That a rail gun is *usually* fired in a RTB rest need not be particularly relevant.

I'm pretty sure the thing that is important is to not load the barrel, and the easiest way to do that is to let the action function only as a breech block & firing mechanism whilst hanging in space.

My model for a ideal bag gun then, is to barrel block it, and hang the stock, in a straightforward manner, off the block. Which I have done with several CF benchrest rifles, using a glued-on block. They shoot quite well -- as well as the barrel allows -- and with very few mystery shots.

This may not be legal with RF sporters, but believe would be with the other RF classes.

Where we might disagree is that I now feel the stock need not be stiff, as long as it is isolated from the barrel in some manner. Remember, the bags/rest can load the stock differently from time to time, and if the stock is stiff, some of that is transferred to whatever the stock contacts -- usually receiver. It would be better if it were a stiff barrel block, or better still if the stock were to just not transfer much...

An untested idea. I'm building one now, in RF, we shall see. Of course, a sample size of one isn't worth much. The first one will not be barrel blocked, just use one piece of 7/8", 6061-T6 aluminum square tubing, with the receiver screwed to it. The receiver is much stiffer than the .0625 wall tubing.

Didn't someone put together a RF bench gun using a Gene Beggs stock? And didn't it shoot rather well? I can't remember, but this would be approximately halfway to what I'm talking about. Just don't apply ANY forces/loading to the barrel that can vary from shot to shot.
 
Last edited:
Kent Owens said:
("I shimmed the lug until I was able to run a dollar bill back to the lug, centered the barrel in the channel and hand tightened that screw. I then inserted the screw in the tang and tightened it; not too tight though. I was then able to run a dollar bill under the action front to back.'")

Pete,
I would surmise that you indeed improved the bedding with the shim work, and that proper bedding does indeed make a difference after all.

I once watched Allen Hall work on a fellow's BR sporter bedding during a match, between relays. When you loosened the front receiver screw the front of the action would rise about 1/16". Allen told me to come closer and look at it as he loosened the screw, I told him I didn't need to because I could see it from 6' away. He proceeded to cut some shims from a soda can and got it to a reasonable state(out of a bind) until the guy could get it rebedded. If I recall, he improved it quite a bit.
Interesting post.
Click to expand...



That lug is less than an inch long and about 1/2" wide and I shimmed it with some pieces of the thick gray paper backing for a motel note pad. I think the point that these rifles are so lacking in violent recoil that the same level of bedding that might be required for a CF rifle is simply not needed and makes my point about the lack of importance for rigidity in actions, etc. It would appear that what goes on ahead of the chamber is what is most important in these little rifles.

When one thinks of all that has been written and prophesied about lock time, firing pin weight, firing pin position and on and on and if others could see what the firing mechanism and bolt look like in the rifle I am speaking of, one would question most of what has been considered to be advancements in the Art, believe you me. Now, I'm not saying any of the "Advancements" have harmed anything but may not be as necessary as we have ginned them up to be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top