Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Getting a rifle to balance perfectly in the hand. Tricks of the trade?

I think it was Steve Timm who described one of his rifles as "seeming to come alive in the hand" or something like that. Or being an extension of his being...

I get that to some extent, some rifles are just clunky and you cannot put your finger on why and some rifles balance perfect and seem a joy to shoulder and even to carry.

What is the deal? How to make that happen? Barrel contours and stocks being what they are; what if it all gets glued and screwed together and it just ain't balanced just so? Go off the blue prints of your pard that happened to get it just right?

Not a gunwriter, but I had to build a couple that weren't what I wanted. You can often fix balance, chop the barrel or rebarrel, or restock in something lighter/heavier. Of course it drives cost up. Live and learn.

What I want in a rifle in terms of weight/balance that will be in my hands for 10 straight hours as compared to one that will be on my shoulder all day, compared to one where I will be just carrying to a box blind over a 500yd field is a bit different. Its all relative and what you use if for and what you want.

Handling other peoples builds is a good start, but many items don't make themselves apparent until you have many hours with a rifle.

I have Savage 93 22 mag that was all out of balance, all weight forward. the tupperware stock was fine except that it needed to weighted down in the rear. the entire wrist and rear of the stock was hollow. I used low expansions spray foam to take out the hollow parts of in the wrist and about half of the stock. The remaining void near the butt plate was filled with molding clay I bought at walmart. I added about a pounnd of it. I went in with a slight crush fit to get the butt plate back on. Figuring that the clay will dry out some over time and shrink. The rifles balance is 100% better. This was my simlpe fix to annoying problem.may not the best way to do it but, it worked for me.

You really need to stay away from the 788's.

A slim stock is what seems to liven an otherwise cumbersome rifle. I like the LOP to be short enough to work the action from the shoulder without effort. A open grip and short fore end also helps.

Think British game gun.

No, think Steyr Scout.

For a hunting rifle, I like the balance to be just in front of the trigger. Moving the balance rearward makes it handle faster, but it is harder for me to stabilize and the muzzle flips more. Moving the balance towards the muzzle makes it slower handling, but more stable with less muzzle flip, all else being equal. Other ergonomic factors not related to balance such as matching your scope height to your comb height and having a wrist that fits your hand will also make the rifle feel more like an extension of your arm.

I've been fortunate in that the majority of my rifles balance perfecty. For me. I like the center of gravity at the receiver ring. It lets the rifle snap to the shoulder, with enough weight forward for a steady off hand hold. I have a couple that are balanced a little further back, but I can deal with them. My 700 mountain rifle was rebarreled with a 24" mtn. rifle contour but was still butt heavy in the wood stock, so I removed the recoil pad and carefully drilled three holes fairly deep into the butt. It now balances at the front action screw, which is good enough. Everyone's idea of balance is different. I have a 3 or 4 deer rifles that guys have handled and wondered why they're "awful heavy". But then, I have them shoulder the rifle a couple times, and they decide I may be on to something. as always, YMMV.

I've got a Kimber Talkeetna that seldom gets out of the safe simply because it's cumbersome to carry. A very accurate and functional rifle it's just so muzzle heavy that it's a bother to carry. It the balance weren't bad enough, the front sling attachment is so far forward on the barrel that the butt drags in the blueberry bushes.

Yep, that was my comment ... about a couple of rifles, actually.

Like most guys, I've made some major mistakes when ordering new custom rifles and I've also learned what I like. It is sort of a trial-and-error thing; at least it was in my case.

After many decades of hunting and ordering custom rifles, my very favorite prescription ended up as follows: 700 Remington BDL action blueprinted and factory trigger tuned to 3�-pounds. McMillan Remington Classic stock. Three-contour barrel, usually a Schneider, in stainless steel and 24-inches long. Leupold QR or Double Dovetail mounts and rings.

My favorite .280 Ackley is exactly this rifle and it wears a Leupold 3.5-10X40 scope ... my .25-'06 is an exact match (except that the barrel is a gain-twist Pac-Nor) and it's scoped with a Leupold 4.5-14X40.

With a sling and a magazine full of rounds, the rifles weigh a tad over eight-pounds. Add a Harris Low-Swivel bipod and it's just about nine-pounds.

The balance is precisely at the forward guard screw and the rifles are literally alive in my hands.

My .25-'06 has literally never missed and I've killed a slew of antelope and deer with it ... plus three or four elk.

My .280 Ackley has literally killed many, many pickup loads of deer, antelope, elk ... with a scattering of mooses and caribou thrown in. Oh yeah, and some black bears.

I missed a single round with the .280 and I have no idea what the hell happened. I had a rather big Alberta whitetail dead to rights and I shot. To my amazement, the buck ran off to about 300 yards and I hammered his ass. Only one hole, for pity's sake and I have no idea what happened.

Oh yeah, and I killed an Asian water buffalo with the .280 Ackley. A single 154-grain Hornady Interlocked through both carotid arteries is all it took. Bang-flop kill.

Other folks without a doubt have other ideas and rifles that they would prefer. And that's fine; the above is what I've finally figgered out for myself.

Merry Christmas everyone and God Bless,

Steve Timm ... Dogzapper

PS. I should add that Karen's beloved .250 Ackley is to the same prescription, except that the Gary Schneider barrel is 22-inches and I put a Jewell trigger on it. Personally, I like the wider blade of the Remington trigger.

We've been married now for 50 years and six months. If I took her .250 Ackley away or sold it ... uhhh, let's just say that such an action would severely strain our relationship The lady dearly loves her .250.

Yep, she's killed deer, antelope and elk with it ... lots!!

I've often wondered about a gun that is said to, "balance perfectly in the hand" or terms to that effect. I've wondered if a lot of it isn't in the head of the evaluator. For instance, if a group of people were told, "this rifle cost $50,000 and was perfectly designed by the greatest gunsmith(s) in the world and has been used to take 500 trophy elephants" or some such thing, would they very carefully heft it, shoulder it, and agree while being in awe of such a work of craftsmanship? Or is it maybe an individual thing where some think it is "balanced perfectly" while others feel it is too butt heavy or muzzle heavy?

I often wondered the same thing. I dislike a rifle sling while hunting; I want the rifle in my hands and don�t want the thing flopping around. As such, I want the rifle to balance with one hand under the action in front of the trigger guard. I don�t mind a slightly muzzle heavy rifle (you can side your carry hand forward), but have come to HATE a butt heavy rifle.

Absolutely it is a personal thing. I can't articulate what makes it just right for me. I can tell you that I don't have a rifle in the safe right now that is JUST RIGHT.

Mr. Timm!

What a pleasant surprise!

I had no idea you had a 25-06 too... LOL

Thanks for the recipe, Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Handling and balance can mean different things to different people. A well balanced rifle for offhand target shooting , where stability is important, will be different than one intended to be carried in the hand and used for quick snap shots.
The rule of thumb for English shotgun makers was that 1/2 the weight should be centered between the hands. Many of their rifles were built the same way. You can see that in the taper of their barrels and the use of integral ribs. The barrel on so many of the older rifles kept the taper and weight near the receiver until abruptly curving - not always at a straight taper - toward the muzzle.

I like Steve have always felt the "Classic" stock w/small cheek piece was the way to go. I like the forearm to be a little smaller than the Remington classic forearm. I like a 22-23in barrel of 2 1/2-3 contour and a 3-9 or 3-10 scope in ultra light rings. I want it to be 7.5 all up. I do not like Montana type rifles at all. They feel like a toy gun in my hands. Just my version. powdr

*Brother Steve I hope you and Karen have a wondeful Christmas and New Year. Please continue to post from time to time.

Nice to see a dogzapper post again!

All the best to you and yours this Christmas, Mr Timm.

A few comments:

1) It's good to see Dogzapper ("Rooms" to some people) posting again!

2) Height, weight, arm length, etc. all have a lot to do with balance.

3) The distance to the front guard screw in bolt-action rifles varies considerably, the reason this really isn't a very good measure of the center of balance. (The same thing is true to a lesser degree in using the hinge-pin as a balance reference in double shotguns.) I prefer measuring how far the balance point is in front of the trigger.

Welcome back, Steve!

I handled an over under kregoff from pre ww2 chambered in 8 mm
it was an easy 8 lbs but sure didn't feel like it..