Many will laugh at this idea, but I'm actually serious. As DaveMc suggested (and I believe the eminent ballistician McCoy was the originator of this idea), weight well above the bore axis is good for reducing "bucking" and torque recoil. If I had some spare Kg, I would design a rainproof roof for scope and action made from metal and possibly some hard clear plastic. The metal parts could be overdesigned to increase weight and the design would need to allow good access to and visibility of scope knobs and action. I can hear the sniggering already , but think about it, wouldn't that be a good way of making two substantial performance improvements simultaneously, at the expense of having an unorthodox looking rifle, which isn't actually a performance disadvantage?
And a third function could be added in the form of a carrying handle - again I'm serious about this.
And I should add that this is not a suggestion for Tim, so much as an idea for general consideration.
Right on Alan. The height adjustable weights on the machine rest I tested with years ago at 1000 yards at Rosedale were made for this purpose. I s the concrete rest Piercy and I built still there? David.
williada wrote:Right on Alan. The height adjustable weights on the machine rest I tested with years ago at 1000 yards at Rosedale were made for this purpose. I s the concrete rest Piercy and I built still there? David.
Yes it is Dave. And it has continued to arouse the curiosity of visitors for many years. Some of the guesses as to what it is have been very amusing!
This is what you want to add weight and stability. Bow shooting has been around for a lot longer than rifle shooting and in some ways it is more technically advanced. It is also more of a spectator sport for obvious reasons.
They have to maintain stability through a longer time span until the arrow leaves the bow. The principals are the same however for a rifle.
Read here about the mechanics of bow stability.
Norm, whilst there are some similarities with archery there are also some (obviously) fundamental differences. Archers are trying to stabilize a bow hanging off what is effectively a single point (web of hand). One of the primary aims is to create a stable shooting platform. Whilst there is recoil and torque in archery they are fairly insignificant in size and different in nature compared to rifle shooting. Bow induced arrow torque is another issue altogether and a main aim of some of the stabilisers is to reduce this but it is a different force to ours. In essence though - low slung weights help stabilize a "hanging point".
We have a solid (hopefully) rest and aren't trying to "stabilize" as much as add weight to create inertia and reduce the velocity and felt effect of any resultant "reactions" to the actions applied (ie projectile and gases going forward, reaction - rifle going backward, projectile spinning - reaction rifle spinning in opposite direction). Ideally we design the outfit to direct as much of this energy into straight back motion as possible instead of overturning moments. Interestingly though we have discussed hanging archery like stabilisers from the front weight at 45 degrees to reduce felt torque and increase recoil stability - someone pointed out that two "balls" hanging off the back of a forward weight might draw some attention in more ways than one . and would need to be counterbalanced by a single vertical weight in the scope or other that doesn't get in the way of your aiming.
Also Alans idea (or McCoy's??) has great merit and has been put into practice by a certain infamous individual for many years up here (in addition to the interesting sounding rest down there!). A heavy white scope on high mounts (with large bolts) also used as a carry handle. Some may think it looks "interesting" but I assure you every piece of metal strapped or bolted to that rifle has a specific purpose based on a sound knowledge of physics. Remember you really want the centre of gravity in line with the bore (centre of recoil force) vertically and horizontally to track straight and reduce rotational moments in x,y, or z plane. Individual side weight (not counterbalanced) could cause some grief regarding recoil direction and stresses - especially on scope mounts which typically are quite frail with small screws. effectively this still offsets the recoil force from centre of gravity but in the side (x) plane.
Last edited by DaveMc on Sat May 31, 2014 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tim, while I know nothing about Fisics and the ladies I associate with know much much more than I do about putting on weight, you might have wondered why my scopes sit high enough to walk a dog between the scope bell and barrel. Using the extra high rings, adapters and spacers isn't just to put my head in a more natural position, or so the Parallax knobs clear the scope rail underneath
When I picked up your gun with its new heavy barrel, it was balancing around 9-10" in front of the front of the action. It was still fairly light in the rear end when you had it on the rest as well. I cant remember is your stock had a cheek piece, but if it does, I have some material you can put in place of the cheek piece (or on top of the stock you have a high scope). This will have the weight up fairly high and to the rear, which for your light stock, might help.
Alan,
All suggestions welcome, if we don't think outside the square nothing "new" will be found.
I'm thinking of fitting a couple of Tactical(hope that doesn't put me out of the club) offset 45 deg scope mounts to my rail which will give me something to attach weight to, maybe over the top of the scope as you suggested.
Rod,
My stock doesn't have a cheek piece, so I will try the above first.
Thanks everyone.
We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training. Archilochos 680-645 BC
When I have my stock set up by my gunsmith he bores 2, 1 inch holes into the but. The first hole is as close to the center of the bore as possible and the second hole is just below it.
The first hole holds the full amount of weight and the lower hole holds shorter weights that can be added or subtracted as barrels are replaced or shortened.
I use 1 inch dia copper gas pipe filled with molten lead. These weights can be cut down so the max weight can be achieved for your class of shooting.
Cheers
Paul
Time's a wasted wot's not spent shooti'n BARNARD 300WSM's
Super interesting thread but now moving in another direction!
I will start up a new thread all about recoil and stock design. It will include some ideas I have about testing a rifle under free recoil (suspended on bearings) with high speed photography and also a simple rifle centre of gravity test device.
Shared ideas might just help us all understand this dynamic force we all need to cope with better. It interests me greatly as my transition from FS, F T/R and FO have all had vastly different levels of recoil to handle. An exchange of ideas on what works and why would really be an asset to all shooters.
Ian
__________________________________________
A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!
The South Australian Shooters are years in advance of the rest of Australia.
Last year I spotted them at a secret location field testing a secret weapon.
Although I was sworn to secrecy upon fear of being beaten to death by a road kill crow. I did manage to covertly take this picture of their hydraulic ballast system of stability and weight control.
, but think about it, wouldn't that be a good way of making two substantial performance improvements simultaneously, at the expense of having an unorthodox looking rifle, which isn't actually a performance disadvantage?
.
Menu
Newest members