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..

Balance is a very individual thing. Over the years I have learned what works for me. Most of this knowledge was gained on the first rifle I ever built...an FN Mauser in .30-06 that I obtained in military dress at age 20. I learned to modify the bolt, restock the rifle, drill and tap and turn this rifle into a usable sporter.

After a season or two I began to modify things based on carrying the rifle in the field. I never thought about total weight or balance points....I simply modified the stock to a form that felt "right" to me.

The resulting form is "just right". A 23" small diameter barrel with a VERY slim stock. The forearm is short (like a British express rifle and small in diameter (round with just enough wood to grip. The butt is also very trim with a grip that is almost tiny. My thumb and fingers will actually overlap when I grip the rifle at the wrist. Wood was removed under the buttplate to lighten things and shift the balance forward (although I had no actual balance point in mind). Total weight ended being just under 8 pounds fully loaded and ready to hunt.

It just so happened that the balance point is just behind the front receiver ring....with scope mounted. That is, to me, a critical point in the "balanced" rifle. A scope too big (or more rarely too small) can easily ruin your best efforts at building the "perfect" rifle. It is a complete "system". The most perfectly built rifle can be ruined by mounting the "wrong" scope the ruins the balance.

Since that rifle was "perfected", it has been fairly easy to build more as I just copy the shape of the original stock down to the last detail. I then drill (or sometimes not) the butt and make small adjustments to the stock to get things "right". Different wood density means every rifle is just a bit different, but the end result is amazingly close. The weight of the barrel (and length) also effect what must be done to the stock. It's not an exact set of measurements....it's a "feel" thing.

My rifle is what works for me. Others have handled my rifles and most have loved them. However, a few wanted something radically different. It's that feel thing and is very different foe each individual.

I agree with what Texas Rick said about the wrong scope. I have noticed that, also.

I have a very long neck and long arms. Many stocks are uncomfortably short in the butt for me. I have solved that many times by adding a Decelerator recoil pad without removing any wood. I save the original buttplate so the rifle can easily be restored to its original configuration.

More than a couple of times I have purchased a particular rifle because it felt very well balanced to me. Then I have had the recoil pad and a scope added, only to find that the good balance I bought the gun for is totally ruined.

I finally learned my lesson, and I notice that now most of my rifles have 24, 25, or 26" barrels. Also, if I buy a used rifle that is already scoped and the balance is especially good, I try not to change anything that could affect the balance.

Adding a scope will always raise the center of gravity of the rifle. Replacing a scope with a heavier scope will raise it even more. I have never seen this improve the natural handling qualities of a rifle. For that reason I stick with the lighter weight scopes and mounting systems on rifles that I plan to carry very much.

I have also seen the good balance of some rifles ruined by chopping off some of the barrel to make a rifle lighter. I learned this the hard way, too. A butt-heavy rifle is not fun to carry or handle, in spite of the lighter weight.

Vern,
My AK assistant guide had his cut back to 20" for quick work in the brush. Mine was factory at 25" and it was a big difference in balance. IIRC, he had the front sling attachment moved back about 3 inches.

One trick Glen Morovitz did with my 257 Roberts was to use an extra long breech cone to bring more weight to the center of the rifle. For a rifle that weighs 9 lb 1 oz, it feels a solid 1.5 lbs lighter.



Alan

I've shot rifles muzzle heavy and rifles butt heavy, either are fine for shooting. I'd much rather carry and shoot a fairly light rifle that balances toward the front of the action, is short enough to be maneuverable, and stocked to fit.

ETA-

Merry Christmas Dogzapper!

My sentiments exactly. My favorite Mauser weighs a touch over 6 pounds, minus scope, due mainly to its very slim stock. With its 24" barrel it is the best "balanced" rifle I own and as such gets reached for more than the rest combined. Sliding its scope on takes a lot away from its "carry-ability" and so only happens when in a static situation. We Americans like our stocks beefy for our beloved bench shooting (nothing wrong with that- I fall into the same category), but for schlepping around in rugged terrain a wispy stock is friendlier and that translates into a livelier handling rifle. Sorry for the crummy pic, my camera skills suck. .30-06 by the way.



The forend extends only a couple inches forward of what you see, ending in a dainty schnabel. Front sling swivel mounted on the barrel. The scope mount is a G&H QD system w/a refurbed Weaver K2.5 that spends most of its time in the attendant leather shoulder-slung scope tube. You can just see the side mount rail visible over the top of the bolt. Old school, but it works. Zero hasn't shifted in several years- repeated attachment of the scope finds the bullet impact to be exactly where it should, no wavering. The best QD system ever invented, IMO. The downside to such a light and lively rifle: it kicks like an Army mule with factory equivalent loads, and gets fed greatly reduced handloads to tame it. (But that's ok, the deer don't seem to notice.)

I can work with nearly anything, so long as the balance is fairly neutral in my hands and the stock/optics fit my face. Once had a 12lb .243 varmint rig that felt great due to the heavy-fill McMillan that balanced out the barrel. My 6.5lb lightweight 7mm-08 carbine works for me also, because of light optics, a light action, Edge-construction stock, and the fact that I used a 20" standard sporter contour. Again, very neutral balance for me.

Some have stated that balance and handling may be two different things but stopped short of saying how that may be.
Balance can be said to be just that. A rifle which is neither muzzle heavy nor butt-heavy can be said to be well balanced. It will be easy to carry in the hand while on the trail and the hand will be in the middle of the rifle.
Handling IS a bit different. A rifle can be nicely balanced but handling may be cumbersome or quick depending upon where the weight is carried. In general, a rifle with the weight carried "between the hands" will handle quickly and feel quite lively. A rifle with the weight carried at the ends will handle more slowly. For a quick shot in timber, the former may be best but for a running shot at a coyote streaking across the prairie, the slower handling rifle can work out better (actually, I would probably miss with either so it wouldn't, matter much!).
Sometimes, a maker who is building a rifle for a heavy recoiling cartridge may install a heavy barrel and add weight to the butt to balance the rifle. If the rifle is meant for use in the alders, this may not be the ideal. Better would be to use a barrel which is heavy in the mid-section and add the weight at the grip and just ahead of the receiver; same balance but quicker handling.
Because I spend a fair bit of time carrying a pack, I carry the rifle in my hand and like a rifle that balances well and is confortable to carry in this manner. I have found the greatest impediment in this to be the scope which is always right where you might want to wrap your hand around the rifle. A light scope on a rifle which is more than a little muzzle heavy will carry nicely because your hand is in front of the scope but it will handle piggishly when it's shooting time.
Build a rifle using a light stock and you MUST have a light barrel or the rifle will feel cumbersome. Build a nicely balanced, light rifle and stick a big variable scope with a fiftymm objective on it and you have just wasted your money by ending up with an unbalanced outfit. The only way you could make worse would be to hang a bipod on it. Interestingly enough, I have seen rifles set up this way many times. GD

Friends,

There is another factor that caught me by surprise.

Some of you will remember my favorite .223 Ackley "Little Blue Thang." The Rx is as follows: Remington 700 blueprinted and fitted with a 2�-contour Schneider 22" stainless barrel. The stock is a bright blue and white gel-coat swirley (70-30) McMillan Mountain Rifle stock. For optics, it wears a Leupold 4.5-14x40 in Leupold QRs. I had it built as a predator calling rifle and soon found it to be super marvy as a prairie dog and rockchuck killer.

It was such a great-feeling gun that I had it replicated in 7SGLC (7-08 Ackley) and scoped with a Leupold 2.8-8. The 7 turned out to be my "lucky gun" and it is such a natural pointer.

Thinking I could stretch the magic, I had a .280 Ackley made to the same prescription, except (of course) on a 700 long action.

To my everlasting surprise, the magic was gone. The .280 turned out to be incredibly accurate ON TARGET, BUT I had an incredibly hard time in the field with the rifle. I killed a few deer with it, a couple of elk and a moose, but I also missed more game with that rifle than I want to recount.

I wrote about it at the time and the gunsmith got all huffy. Hey, it wasn't the gunsmith's fault, it was mine ...

I loved carrying the lighter .280 Ackley, but I was a fool with it on game, so I sold it on the 24HCF Classifieds.

Believe it or not, the 24HCF member who bought the rifle off me found it to be HIS LUCKY RIFLE. He loves the balance and he's killed a bunch of Montana game with it. Go figger!!!!

Anyway, I guess that sometimes when you change action length, bad things happen; and sometimes GOOD things happen, as well.

Merry Christmas All and God Bless,

Steve

Next time you are selling a rifle brother Steve, contact me first!

I will tell you from personal experience that this formula DOES make the rifle/gun seem to "come alive" in your hands. I have Jeffeery's double rifle that is about 9 1/2 and handles as easily as a 6 1/2 28g shotgun. I have some muzzle heavy rifles that just don't have thay snappy feel when mounting, though they are stable to shoot offhand. Butt heavy rifles don't seem to settle on target as naturally for me.

I see a Balanced Rifle as a tool, for free hand killing of game. I have two I would call excellent. A Remington 700ADL 308, 22" standard sporter barrel. I mounted it in a late model Remington ADL Plastic stock, mounted a Leupold 2.5-8 VXIII. It is just a Basic Killing Machine, No need to Improve on it at all. The Second Is My Cascade Elk Rifle. 12hr days on feet, Sneaking through the Lodge Pole thickets and Doghair Fir Takes a special tool. That and Bulls can go over 1000lb. I took a Standard Stainless Weatherby Vanguard 300 Win Mag, Cut the Barrel to 20". Mounted it in a Carbilite Stock with good soft recoil pad. Mounted one of the Hated Simmons AETEC 2.5-10x44 scopes. It is a Powerful Carbine that Is not bad to carry 12hrs a day. Kills everything I shoot at freehand and can still reach out off the Shooting Sticks.

How does one go about determining whether or not one has half the weight between the hands?

Edited to add, Merry Christmas to you too Dogzapper! Come out of lurkdem and post more!

See "The Engineering of Balance" by Harold (Hal) Davidson, pp. 52-58, Gun Digest 2005. The article is clearly written and well illustrated. Davidson also explains how anyone can measure the angular moment of inertia of any sporting rifle or shotgun, making possible comparison of one's own long guns.

I thought I understood rifle balance until I handled a pair of custom rifles...one by Dale Goens, and another by Bill Dowtin....especially the Dowtin,a G33-40 7x57.

Wow!

But the Goens was no slouch.

A year or so ago I handled a 404 jeffrey on a M70 built by Winston Elrod. The rifle pointed were you looked,and weighed about 9 pounds,but shouldered like it weighed 7.

These rifles clued me in that lack of weight, in and of itself,does not equal "balance".

Anybody got a link?

I prefer a rifle with a slim stock around 7 lbs all up, barrel around 20-22" fluted to reduce up front weight, lite scope mounted as low as possible, with the correct length of pull and grip shape.

That should about cover it.

Shod