Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Express Rifles and Big Bores Only Sling Attached To Barrel?

I have always heard of people claiming that resting the barrel of a rifle on something while firing would interfere with accuracy. I think the term used was harmonic distortion. I see that the Ruger Alaskan has the front sling swivel attached directly to the barrel. So...what's the deal? What am I missing here? Thanks for the response.

The heavier recoiling rifles have the front sling swivel mounted on the barrel instead of the fore end to place it further away from your hand and avoid getting hit by it when firing. Well that's the theory anyway - not sure it's a valid arguement, but that's the way is was originally done and it has stuck around for a long time.

I think it's more just for advertising these days - if it has a barrel mounted swivel, it's a kicker!!!

The rifle also hangs lower on your shoulder, avoiding brush hang-ups a little better. With the larger diameter of big bores there may not be enough distortion to matter, but there's the possibility. Practice shooting with and without a tight sling...

These guys are right, Bbl. sling swivel keeps you from barking up your knuckles under recoil and allows rifle to be carried lower...as for interfering with accuracy, I recall some gunwriter 'tests' done on this....even wrapped up in the sling in a shooting position, you had to really use your imagination to note an accuracy difference..
Seems like we just ain't strong enough to bend that barrel out of whack by using our sling...

I have shot rifles of many calibers with Bbl. bands for many years at game, and havent been able to bend the barrel far enough out of line to miss yet..

Ingwe is spot on.
"Accuracy" is a marketing word when used with hunting rifles. A miss attributed to a sling attached to a barrel on a close dangerous game shot is really adventurous.

John

USMC and USA testing showed that using the sling too tightly for position shooting on an M16A2 can be enough to cause a complete miss at 300m. I don't think on a hunting rifle it will matter as much, for a variety of reasons, most prominently the fact that very few hunters use a sling as a support aid.

Well said....reminds me I should put an addendum on my post, Ive never used a sling as a shooting aid ( whilst hunting...only in competition, and that was many moons ago...)and indeed don't even have a sling or carrying strap on the rifle when hunting DG ( African)...

Yes, if hunting DG then the rifle needs to be in your hands, not hanging off your shoulder, and in that case the loose sling can get caught up in brush etc

I would say the splinter foreends of double rifles is where the barrel mounted sling idea originated - just not enough room to screw a sling swivel into the stock and have clearance with the hand. My CZ550 Magnums have the stock mounted sling base but there is plenty of room and I've never been "bitten" by the sling mount on my 458. Those CZ550 Magnums modified in the US as the Custom Classics (?) in 404J, 500J and 505Gibbs have the sling mounts on the barrel - likely a good idea on the 500s but probably just for looks on the 404.

I have been swivelbit by my CZ550 in 416 Rigby with heavy handloads. It hurts! But, my arms are long and hands are large so this might have been part of the problem. Still, instead of mounting the sling swivel out on the barrel where it most CERTAINLY would screw up longish shots from a tight sling I mounted my front swivel out on the tip of the forend, but opened up the hole for it and used a large amount of accraglass that I extended into the forend area as well to make sure the tip mounted sling swivel stud did not come out under the weight of the rifle or recoil when fired with the sling tight. Worked great for many safari's but now Karnis is re doing the stock with an Ebony forend tip and installing hidden, recessed bayonet style sling swivel studs.

Your thoughts and concerns are on the money. I don't like barrel mounted sling swivel studs on rifles capable of more than typical short range DGR shots.

Those are COOL! That stock belong to anyone I know?

I wonder if that's what this guy's looking for?

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...ing_swivel_for_A_Square_Hann#Post6463394

Can you give me the specifics on that screw?

Mark: belongs to sactoller. Ruger in 7x64.

Jorge: Pachmyar flush fit sling swivels. They can be bedded but whoever does it has to "plug" the back of the assembly to ensure epoxy doesn't ooze into the bayonet type release.

Thanks Karnis. What I'm looking for specifically is almost a flat or slightly rounded screw to put in place of the standard sling stud. I picked up a nice 375 Model 70 with a McMillan stock, glassed & bedded and cerakoted. I'd like to remove the existing stud on the forearm and replace it with a flush screw or something and use the barrel abnd swivel instead. jorge

I have a "matched pair" of Ruger express rifles. One in .30-06 and the other in .416 Rigby. They both have barrel mounted slings, and I was interested enough in this problem that I did some experimenting.

With the relatively thin barrel of the '06, shooting from a tight sling badly affected both accuracy and POI.

With the very thick barrel of the Rigby, I couldn't discern any difference in accuracy or POI from a tight sling in a sitting position. There may have been a difference from prone - where I am both more accurate and use a tighter sling - but I gave it up before really gathering meaningful data because shooting a .416 from prone is... unpleasant.

So I pretty much came to the same conclusion as Ingwe: if there is a difference, it's completely irrelevant for the typical uses to which a DGR is put.

Being a bit of a sling-shooting nut case, I decided to try slinging up in sitting position with my .375 H&H Ruger Number One.

Was surprised that the point of impact at 100 yards didn't budge from zero, and the three-shot group was good.

I really expected the point of impact to shift, but it didn't. The .375 has a fairly stout barrel, and I didn't put a lot of pressure on the sling, but it was interesting to me all the same.

FWIW, Guy

I've only had barrel band sling swivels on three rifles, my 350 rigby, 458 lott #2, and my 500 Jeffrey. All of the rifles have thick barrels and I never put the sling in enough tension to throw shots, though I have no doubt it could be done.

As mentioned, the forward mounted sling swivel keeps you from hammering your non dominant hand, and with the big rifles that is a very real happening.

And then there are aesthetics, let's face it, a barrel band sling swivel and front sight simply looks nice on a big bore.

I believe thee barrel band sling swivel or eye is a hangover from earier days and wrote the following a few years ago when I was building a rifle or two. Nothing I have read since has changed my thinking. My opinion only but worth thinking about.

A barrel of about twenty five inches with a fore arm that was under eight inches long in front of the receiver ring, including a very short ebony tip and a barrel band sling swivel stud. It is interesting to note how many supossedly knowledgable writers continue to perpetuate the fallacy that this stud is barrel mounted because if it was mounted on the fore arm it might dig into the leading hand during recoil.They have not recognised that the design of these rifles negated the ability to mount the stud on the fore arm as this was usually very short in front of the receiver ring and left insufficient room for this purpose. Besides which the recoil of most of the rifles they were used on was, and is really quite easily handled. When it first came into practice it hadn't been too many years since military rifles from which all sporting rifles were developed, had extremely long barrels and the rear sling stud was mounted in the front of the trigger guard. It was to have the slung rifle sit lower on the shoulder and bring the weight down making it more portable, controllable, and practical to carry. When rifle developement mooved toward the sporting requirements these lessons were kept in mind. The fore arm was shortened to be just enough to hold onto as the weight of the former military arms was such thar no-one wanted to carry that much when it was not necessary, besides the rifle was not likely to be needed as a club that the military action sometimes necessitated. However the barrels were still longer than is now the norm and up to thirty inches was not uncommon so that keeping the weight lower when the rifle was slung was still desirable. It was when factory hunting rifles which usually had fuller and longer fore arms became cost efective for the average man with their forearm mounted sling stud,(because this is a cheaper option) that the confusion started. While most who aspire to :safari" will be unable to afford the cost they still want their rifles to look as if they were about to go and the barrel mounted sling stud is a factory offering to pander to this desire, even when a ten inch or longer for end negates the need. As many of the factory stocks were improperly shaped to help with recoil the transition to recoil being the reason for barrel mounting the sling stud began. This is a manufactured reason as any rifleman who has used the heavier calibers will tell you it takes very few shots from a propperly shaped stock to accustom yourself to this factor. If it can not be handled then the rifleman ( or woman) needs to reconsider whether he really needs this level of power.

Von Gruff.

I doubt anyone is "bending the barrel", but one could maybe change the harmonics, especially on a light barrel. If a heated barrel then contacting the stock channel can do it (and it can!)then so could enough downward barrel sling pressure, it seems to me. The key word there is "enough".

JMO, as I haven't experimented with it. Makes sense that heavy thick barrels would not be affected much if at all, and as noted above, one is supposed to use only enough sling pressure to steady the hold, and that doesn't take much.

Good to read some actual experimental results...