After reading the thread about NULA in the other section of the forum and your Rifleshooter article mentioned in it, it got me to thinking. Have you, or anyone else for that matter, tried checking or comparing balance "FOC" style as an archer would with an arrow? That is, how far the balance point is in front of or behind the center point of the rifles OAL and how that affects how well you shoot the rifle?

I just checked two rifles. The Remington 223 ADL is just over 43" and the balance point is roughly 1 1/2" behind center (right at the recoil lug). The 1895GS is roughly 36" and the balance point is about 1/4'' in front of the center point (on the forearm almost to the receiver) the way it is set up. These balance points are with the rifles unloaded so of course it would move some with them loaded. I believe the 1895 is a little steadier for me off hand (especially when loaded) than the ADL but I'm not the best off-hand shot to judge by.

Using this calculator https://www.bowhunting.com/arrow-foc-calculator/ and figuring the recoil pad as the nock the foc for the 1895 would be .7% and for the ADL it would be -2.3%.

Food for thought, or am I just being loony?

Dave.

Dave,

You are being loony, but thinking a lot is one symptom of being a rifle loony! That sure might be another variable to consider.

Now I'll probably have to get some rifles and measure 'em....

John

Interesting discussion and article. To add to some of the measurements in the mentioned article, B.S.A. advertised the balance point of their smallbore rifles—No. 12 was 6.25" in front of the trigger (No. 8 was 5.5"), No. 13 was 4.75", and No. 15 was 7.25".

US military specifications for .22 LR match rifles (bolt action, heavy barrel) were 4 to 8" in front of the trigger for the balance point.

Sandlapper,

Interesting!

I had a BSA No. 15 for a while, that had been converted to centerfire and rechambered in .22 Hornet. It grouped well--but I didn't measure the balance point!

You wrote a great article on balance not long ago! Had me checking all my rifles.

Must be an individual preference thing maybe...the offhand target rifle that I shot my best scores with has the balance point 10 1/2 inches forward of the trigger? I had a Scheutzen that was even more muzzle heavy...the palm rest was about 3 inches behind the balance point...I suppose that was what the hooked butt and crescent buttplates were all about back when men stood on their hind legs to shoot.
The original records of Harry Pope and Dr Hudson took over a century to beat, IIRC. I think Pope shot 696 consecutive bulls (3.36") at 200 yards, I don't know if that was ever beaten.

Thanks!

Somebody else posted the link to the article on another thread--which is why dave284 brought the subject up again here:
https://www.rifleshootermag.com/editorial/tips-on-rifle-balance/372426

As important as rifle balance is weight distribution. Two rifles may balance at the same point and weigh exactly the same, but the distribution of the weight will significantly affect how the rifle feels. If the weight is primarily at the ends of the rifle (at the muzzle and butt) the rifle will feel slower than will a rifle where the weight is concentrated between the hands. A gunmaker may vary weight distribution depending on the intended use of the rifle. Lighter at the ends will make for a rifle which is quicker handling while concentrating weight at the ends will slow the feel and make the rifle steadier. Some people will prefer to have more weight at the ends to make the rifle swing more smoothly or to slow down the wobble. Others may prefer to have the weight more between the hands to speed up handling, or lessen fatigue from holding. My experience has been, while I might feel the difference, it won't actually make me shoot any better one way or the other. It does give me a possible excuse for those really bad days at the range! GD

The distance to the palm rest is best measured from the trigger, too—4 to 5" forward of the trigger for a smallbore target rifle.

Some balance point measurements and considerations for small-game rifles from an American Rifleman article:

Balance of a rifle means a good deal, if we learn to handle
it; it depends on weight distribution. For deliberate, super- .
accurate work no weight we can carry up and down the hills is
too much, though it can be in the wrong place. If the rifle
teeters at a balance point from 7 to 9 inches ahead of the
trigger and weighs from 9 to 12 pounds, it should hang well
for small-game sniping. For snapshooting we'd like to shift
the balance point to 7 1/2 or possibly 6 inches and get rid of
about three pounds, on the average. Amateur gunsmithing
can adjust the hang and fit of most rifles, hollowing or weight-
ing stock or forearm, slimming or building up, adding or
reducing stock length and the highly important pitch of the
buttplate—shortening the length to toe, for instance, if we
try for running game with reasonable calmness and still
overshoot.

Most of us find that a long, slim barrel balances better for
both quick and deliberate firing than a short, chunky one of
equal weight. And a breech-heavy rifle with massive action is
no precious boon to the snapshooter—unless he has one
and is determined to defend it! Try as I will, I can remem-
ber no occasion when a long barrel proved a handicap in
my brush shooting, though once I was nicely fouled up with a
20-inch tube.

https://archive.org/details/sim_american-rifleman_1951-07_99_7/page/26

Some people are sensitive to a long gun's balance and some aren't.

One of the best balanced rifle style that I've owned are the Husqvarnas with Mannlicher-style stocks.

One of the worst balanced rifle style that I've shot is the CZ 550 FS, since they have (IME) the balance and handling characteristics akin to a 6' cedar fence post.

If it's gonna be muzzle heavy, it's gotta have a butthook or similar. One of the best balanced rifles I've shot was a ML that was muzzle heavy. It didn't have a full hook, but it did have a little nub. It shot great offhand.

Every other rifle should balance between the hands. Total weight makes a lot of difference. I like very close, tight positions.

I have, on many occasions, been asked to change the handling of the rifle while retaining the same weight and balance point. Other times, I have been asked to shift the balance point forward or back; again, while keeping the weight the same. Silhouette shooters are often over sensitive to balance and too much weight can lead to fatigue. Sometimes, weight can be added to the stock, but often some recontouring of the barrel is required. In general, silhouette rifles are better with the weight toward the ends. I like hunting rifles better with the weight between the hands. A rifle use on running coyotes is better with some weight up front, to smooth out the swing. A rifle for quick shots at whitetails might be nicer if the weight is in the middle, so it points more quickly. As with so many other things, this reflects my opinion only and it may not be right. GD

I rebarreled a light sporter weight deer rifle years back. Factory barrel was 22", I stayed with factory contour but 23.25 ". Went with the odd length cause I couldn't decide on 23" or 24". The extra 1.25" hanging out there at the end improved the feel of that rifle considerably. It is easier to shoot offhand, and I really like it. Kind of wish I'd went 24", but it sure handles nicely as it is.

One of the best descriptions I've ever heard was from an elk guide who picked up my 338 and said, "I like this. The weight isn't all in one place."


Okie John

Okie john, I think that is why a Model 94 with a full magazine handles so well. The weight is well distributed.

Since everyone else is answering, why not? Rifle balance is just that. Now why do we always hear about all you guys that love that barrel heavy rifle??? That's not balance, that's off balance.

I may see things differently since I was a competitive trap shooter for years. I like a rifle to be lively in the hands and point like a shotgun and fit like a glove and to be an extension of my arm:


Here's one of my elk hunting rifles. Set up just like my pre 64 338wm. Balance is right at the front action screw and the rifle weighs 8 pounds all up. Most of my "hunting" rifles are like that. My precision rifles that wear bipods are not balanced like that. They serve a different purpose.

Balance can also mean, is it top heavy feeling? I've hunted with some rifles and knew on the first day that they were unbalanced because the scope was too damn big and heavy. Completely throwing off the "balance". Yet, some guys think they need a 30oz scope sitting on top of a 5 pound rifle. That just doesn't make any sense. That is an unbalance I just don't care for.

When hunting, the last thing you want to think about is your rifle. That should be natural feeling, not a hindrance and for damn sure not barrel heavy or top heavy. You guys have a right to like what you like, but I know what works for me. YMMV..

BSA,

Here's my reply to another experienced hunter on the same subject in another thread:

There's there's both "static" and "dynamic" balance, but the dynamic is discussed more among shotgunners and rifle people who shoot moving targets--whether animals or paper. There are professional running-boar target shooters in Europe--especially in Germany, of course--who have their own ideas about rifle balance. Have shot the running-boar targets over there and even in Texas, on a pig hunt hosted by Sauer, which set up a standard running-pig range for pre-hunt practice.

But the trigger is a far more meaningful point for static balance than any action-screw...

All of which means "what works for you, works for you." Which is exactly why I described Eileen's experience in the article....

Might also add that my experience in hunting rifles also involves observing a lot of other shooters in the field, both due to some guiding in my younger years, and going on a number of hunts with a lot of other people. This has been far more revealing than my personal preferences, and enhances my objective "balance."

What you've done is a lot like what I've done on several Remington 7s, replacing the 18.5" and 20" barrels with 22" and 24" 700 take-off barrels. The extra length improved how the rifles felt to me, even a small change, like swapping into a 22" 700 Mountain Rifle contour barrel, can make a noticeable difference in how the rifle feels if, BIG IF, the shooter is sensitive to such things.

I've got a little Remington 504 .22 with a Lilja barrel. It wore about a 14 oz scope and some Burris sig z rings and is my third favorite squirrel killer. A couple 3 months ago I ordered an Arken ELP4 4-16 scope for the .22 Creed I'm building. Wanting to play with the scope while waiting for the barrel, I picked up a cheap set of rings that would fit the mounts on the 504. Just those extra few ounces (maybe 12 or so) turned the rifle into a butt heavy pig. It moved the balance point back and as BSA said top heavy. I hadn't thought of the top heavy description till he said it. Although I can shoot it slightly better from a bench everything else seems to be worse. Off hand, standing with a rest on the side of a tree and sitting are not near as comfortable or accurate with the rifle.

I personally like a little more barrel length for a forward balance, as the muzzle tends not to wave round as much offhand. Not so much that the butt of the rifle wants to lift up off my shoulder though. Putting the muzzle blast a few more inches away from my (protected) ears is also nice.

I noticed this first with an old Winchester 61 pump .22. I loved the way that rifle settled down. Don't own one anymore, but I have fond memories. The Model 61 and 9422s are a couple of the best rimfires ever made.

The 18.5" Model Seven vs a longer sporter with a thicker barrel profile also changed my opinion on 'as short and light as possible'.

So I wouldn't kick a 24"-26" barrel out of the safe. Hunting grouse and pushing bush is 'lively and nimble' with a 26" 20 gauge 870, but a shorter 24" sporter is somehow a real inconvenience? I think it may all be perspective...

You guys have a right to like what you want, but when you say you like a barrel heavy “balance” that doesn’t make any sense.

Over all fit is as important as balance to me, when I mount a rifle with my eye's closed then open them every thing has to be lined up with out adjusting and wiggling the rifle to get it lined up, I like my rifles to handle like a perfect Shotgun.




Once you add a suppressor it changes the balance and feel of a rifle, i've cut barrels down a couple of inch's at a time to get the balance right for me, one rifle started out with 26" barrel and ended up at 18.5". Rio7

Speaking of shotgun balance, the term "dynamic handling" is often used. The preferred balance point for fast-handling, British game guns seems to be in the neighborhood of 4.25-4.5" ahead of the trigger, which few autoloaders or pumps can achieve.

This 20-gauge, 26" Remington 1100 happens to balance 4.5" in front of the trigger.

Sandlapper,

However, the other more-or-less standard "balance" for British game guns is to have half the weight between your hands--which makes handling more "dynamic. Which generally doesn't occur with semiautos or pumps--and also isn't consistent because of the magazine in front of the action.

When I saw this BSA spec sheet I had to compare it to my BSA Model 12. Fairly close to what they specify: balance point 6.25" ahead of the trigger, but mine weighs a little more at 9lbs 4oz.

For sh*ts and grins I checked my favorite .32-40 target rifle setting here close to hand. Winchester High Wall, 32" bull barrel, hooked butt plate, weight 14 lbs 2oz, point of balance: almost 12" ahead of the trigger. I had the barrel off of it once and it weighs right at 8 pounds alone, which explains the egregious weight forward aspect of the gun. Boy, she sure does lay steady though when you're trying to slop a lead bullet into a bullseye at 200 yards.

I don’t know anything about rifle balance… but that BSA 15 with a set of those sights sure looks about right.

Gorgeous rifle. What stock is that?


Okie John

I have never seen or handled a Semi-Auto or Pump that balances and handles as well as a well done Double our Over and Under. Rio7

Mule Deer,

Thanks for elaborating on the subject! Seem to recall you mentioning somewhere that a 16-gauge Model 12 balanced well for a repeater?

Couldn't help but laugh at one writer's eloquent description:

The double’s subtle advantages spring from its compact, centrally located metallic nucleus.
Repeaters must have working parts strung from stem to stern.

Harry Pope (mentioned in an earlier post) opined that, "For the finest offhand shooting the rifle must be muzzle heavy," with the weight distribution being in the barrel.

Now that's funny!