I'll bet it does--but will also state that I've owned several full-length stocked bolt-action sporters, made by various companies in several chamberings from .222 Remington to 9.3x62 Mauser. They all grouped very well (especially the .222, of course) without any modification of the bedding, either action or barrel.
Which is contrary to what I've often heard and read! Though of course they all had shorter-than-average barrels, which tend to be stiffer.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
I'll bet it does--but will also state that I've owned several full-length stocked bolt-action sporters, made by various companies in several chamberings from .222 Remington to 9.3x62 Mauser. They all grouped very well (especially the .222, of course) without any modification of the bedding, either action or barrel.
Which is contrary to what I've often heard and read! Though of course they all had shorter-than-average barrels, which tend to be stiffer.
John,
I have little doubt of that. My FL-bedded rifles have also shot extremely well. Bedding the barrel, and the subsequent damping of the motion would result in less movement, but also in a modified shape of motion. Finding a load that exits the muzzle at an antinode (contrary to common convention in the shooting industry, whereby antinodes are called nodes) would still result in excellent consistency and precision.
All of which is part of why Melvin Forbes, when he developed his Ultra Light Rifles in the mid-1980s, found that the finest precision/smallest groups occurred when the barrels were fully-bedded in his extremely stiff synthetic stocks. This involved considerable experimentation--perhaps as much as involved with the development of the PPC cartridges.
In fact years ago a gunsmith named Kenny Jarrett told me during a conversation at the SHOT Show that Melvin got the absolute most out of Douglas barrels. (Kenny also said that in his opinion, Melvin was one of the few gunsmiths back then who should be allowed to make accurate rifles, but Kenny has never been shy about expressing opinions....)
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Am I alone is the mind set that it is amazing how we hit anything?
Lotta guys bought a rifle, scoped, at Kmark or Walmark. Factory ammo, and went forth. Slaying everything from chipmunks to moose. Happy in their ignorance, and success.
Then we get into the bench rest and long range world. And you see all the stuff that matters, so many factors, in each system within the greater system.
Sometimes wonder how it's possible to hit stuff at 100 yards under Fudd conditions.
I'm not questioning Al, or his findings. Not making light of pursuing precision at all.
Only musing.
Parents who say they have good kids..Usually don't!
All of which is part of why Melvin Forbes, when he developed his Ultra Light Rifles in the mid-1980s, found that the finest precision/smallest groups occurred when the barrels were fully-bedded in his extremely stiff synthetic stocks. This involved considerable experimentation--perhaps as much as involved with the development of the PPC cartridges.
In fact years ago a gunsmith named Kenny Jarrett told me during a conversation at the SHOT Show that Melvin got the absolute most out of Douglas barrels. (Kenny also said that in his opinion, Melvin was one of the few gunsmiths back then who should be allowed to make accurate rifles, but Kenny has never been shy about expressing opinions....)
Jarret's comments make total sense. Several of the ULA / NULAs I've owned have been some of the most accurate rifles I've owned not chambered for 6.5 Creedmoor (every Creedmoor I've owned has been incredibly accurate for some unknown to me reason). My dad has been building stocks for decades and on many of his, he has for the last few years been successful with reinforcing forends and then using full-length, neutral bedding in many instances.
I had an ULA .270 that may be the most accurate rifle I've ever owned (though have had Creedmoors that would give it run for the money). I was cleaning up ammo left over from load workup and put something like 11 rounds with different loads, 4-5 bullets and 4-5 powders, into 1.1" at 100. I did have two NULAs that were built a decade or so back and exhibited mediocre accuracy. In those instances, I suspected it was because of bad barrels and not Melvin's doing.
Am I alone is the mind set that it is amazing how we hit anything?
Lotta guys bought a rifle, scoped, at Kmark or Walmark. Factory ammo, and went forth. Slaying everything from chipmunks to moose. Happy in their ignorance, and success.
Then we get into the bench rest and long range world. And you see all the stuff that matters, so many factors, in each system within the greater system.
Sometimes wonder how it's possible to hit stuff at 100 yards under Fudd conditions.
I'm not questioning Al, or his findings. Not making light of pursuing precision at all.
Only musing.
All of that proves that when it comes to riflery, ignorance is truly bliss.
All of which is part of why Melvin Forbes, when he developed his Ultra Light Rifles in the mid-1980s, found that the finest precision/smallest groups occurred when the barrels were fully-bedded in his extremely stiff synthetic stocks. This involved considerable experimentation--perhaps as much as involved with the development of the PPC cartridges.
In fact years ago a gunsmith named Kenny Jarrett told me during a conversation at the SHOT Show that Melvin got the absolute most out of Douglas barrels. (Kenny also said that in his opinion, Melvin was one of the few gunsmiths back then who should be allowed to make accurate rifles, but Kenny has never been shy about expressing opinions....)
Thanks Mule deer and Jordan for your answer.
Its all right to be white!! Stupidity left unattended will run rampant Don't argue with stupid people, They will drag you down to their level and then win by experience
This is interesting info and thank you for doing this test. I've always likened it to the fact that when the bullet contacts the lands and moves into the rifling, the bullet is doing all it can to straighten the rifling out while the rifling is trying to spin the bullet......a lot of confliction is happening while the bullet is in the barrel. In my mind I had thought it would be some sort of an oval movement pattern that the barrel would set up........This is great information. Thanks again.
Darrel, this can be seen with hunting weight barrels. In fact, they show it more clearly than a heavier barrel.
Virtually everyone has witnessed the POI go up as the charge weight increases...then the POI seemingly 'stalls' as powder charge keeps going up or goes lower before heading back up again.
So 7 and 14 are either top or bottom of the movement? Did you settle on #7 or #14 setting for competition?
The following day, I tested past #14 which yielded additional results. Conditions were identical with the exception the winds being from the 3:00 rather than the 9:00 from the previous day. on #12, the muzzle is at the top of the rise. On #13, it's still pretty stable. After shooting two shots, I missed the tails picking up on the 70 yard flag and the third shot went low and left a bit...which is exactly where it should have gone with the conditions. I then shot another one which went right into the two previously fired. Again, it's stable and very close in elevation to #12. Group #14 again demonstrated the stability of the tune up....the muzzle is past the top dwell cycle and beginning it's downward movement. #15 gets ragged with horizontal (cross talk), #16 has some vertical in it so you know the muzzle is changing directions even though the impact appears to be in the ball park...a major fake out if you didn't carry it out further. . On #17, the muzzle is continuing it's movement to the lower dwell point.
I tested further out with the tuner but the dwell cycles were increasingly narrow as the tuner moved forward. FWIW, each mark on this tuner indicates .001 of movement. The tuner weight is 7 oz. and tungsten powder is used as the dampening media.
In competition, I start on the 100 yd. warm up target with it at #13. Depending on the weather conditions of the day, 3 shot groups at either #12, #13 or #14 will have shots dotting up at one of those numbers and a decent adjustment window on both sides. When we move to 200 yds, the process is repeated. It's not often that I have to move the tuner for 200 but it does happen. Temp doesn't seem to be much of an influencer but the barometer and the amount of water grains in the air are definite factors. Multiple yardage wins, a couple of Grand Agg. wins and Top 5 finishes in NBRSA tournaments this season have backed up the testing with results.
I'd add that muzzle movement and charting it is one of the reasons that approaches like 'OCW', etc, etc. really can't give solid, repeatable results. The premise is flawed from the start as the 'beam' portion of the equation (the barrel) is considered immovable. Which, as Charlie Sisk pointed out...is far from correct.
And you don't need a BR level rifle to get this info. With hunting stuff, you can see these same patterns with powder charge changes.
For what it's worth.....
Good shootin' -Al
I thought the OCW method was finding a range of charges where the bullet impacts are roughly in the same place, with the thinking being that the bullet is exiting the muzzle at one of the dwell times and causing the similar POI over the different charges. So isn't that similar to what the tuner is doing with one powder charge? Either varying the powder charge or changing the tuner location are accomplishing the same thing aren't they? Getting the bullet to exit the muzzle at a dwell time?
I thought the OCW method was finding a range of charges where the bullet impacts are roughly in the same place, with the thinking being that the bullet is exiting the muzzle at one of the dwell times and causing the similar POI over the different charges. So isn't that similar to what the tuner is doing with one powder charge? Either varying the powder charge or changing the tuner location are accomplishing the same thing aren't they? Getting the bullet to exit the muzzle at a dwell time?
Per Al: I'd add that muzzle movement and charting it is one of the reasons that approaches like 'OCW', etc, etc. really can't give solid, repeatable results.
I'm with you Jay on the OCW method. You find the load where the barrel acceleration is at a minimum. 1/2 grain on either side is still in the "sweet spot". Maybe Al could expound on his experience with OCW. Sure works for me on hunting rifles.
None of the methods mentioned in this thread chart/plot muzzle movement, but rather muzzle position at the time of bullet exit. The intent of the OCW method is to effectively plot muzzle position at bullet release, while varying charge weight (or seating depth), while Al’s method varies effective barrel length. I’m also curious to hear Al’s reasoning for his statement, which would make more sense to me if discussing the 1-shot ladder method instead of OCW.
Rather than getting into the weeds on different styles of load work, which would really spiral off track from the intent of posting this, I'm just going to leave things as they are.
Hopefully, muzzle movement pattern is something those interested can glean info from. Keep in mind that even though this test involves moving a weight (the tuner), that aspect of it is no different than changing powder charges as it relates to the muzzle moving when firing. With a hunting rig that a load has been settled on, making up a simple line target like this, zeroing the gun to the line and then shooting three shot groups going up or down past the powder charge you've settled on as your load can be pretty revealing.
I forgot I had posted on this thread so just checking back. Thanks, Al, for your comments. As usual this was an interesting post and I learned a little more than I knew before.
-Al![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/vB105nkh.jpg)
