Recoil & Stock Design

Get or give advice on equipment, reloading and other technical issues.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
bobeager
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: Goulburn NSW Australia

#61 Postby bobeager » Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:30 am

Rod, your spec is close to the venerable Shehane 1000 br Trakker stock design. I am making one myself at this time using a genuine one as a guide.
It is 110 mm deep at rear, and has essentially a low rider fore end.
Another issue with stock design, or moreover, how the bedding block is installed. You need to ensure that the bore line is parallel with the flat surfaces that slide rearwards in the bags. If not, the gun will track sideways. I do the bedding first, while the wood is still in the "square" so I know the the barrel is "straight". This is why most TR stocks used in f class jump all over the place in firing.

DaveMc
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:33 pm

#62 Postby DaveMc » Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:57 am

Geez Peter - Dave g's rifle could be one of yours!! (and I mean that in a good way) :D

Barry S - thanks for the link to that barrel vibrations simulator - yes it is the one I was looking for and your descriptions seem fine to me (your memory may be better than mine as it was only 25 years ago for me and you have a better recollection!)

Ian - have a good look at the simulator (I am sure you will enjoy it) and run up some profiles with a large diameter end weight (reverse tapers etc etc) and also play with cg. Of course these are 22 barrels also just deal with barrel vibrations not stock tracking but some principles are the same and it is very informative.

Don't give up on the ideas/principles we are putting forward yet. and please read this carefully - I agree stability is important but we are not talking about putting that much weight above that the cg is above the barrel line. In reality it will still always be below. If the CG is at bottom (or at least low in front rest then it is still very stable re gravity but gravity is only one force at play here.

After doing some rough calculations for Peter Smith to verify his figures it got me thinking a bit harder (as did this thread).

1) Re Torque: My (rough) calcs agree with his torque calculations and depending on how far we offset the weights I get a calculation of 1/20th (perhaps less) to 1/6th of a degree by the time the bullet exits the barrel. 1/6th in a small diameter, light (say 5kg) round (tubular or hunting) stock and barrel with very little offset weights (low, light scopes (e.g. hunting) and possibly this can be reduced to 1/20th of a degree or less (ballpark) with heavy rifles, offset weights etc. Taking this to the extreme maybe even 1/40th - most of us are probably in the 0.1 degree area as Peter suggested.area.

Although the energy and force is significant it is so fast that there is barely time for rifle to get moving before projectile has exited. This movement is miniscule (bags would hardly take this up) and obviously most torque is observed well after the fact that the bullet has exited the barrel. Unless you are exerting significant inconsistent cheek pressure or other different forces I think this should have small and consistent effects on most shooters. (compression of this amount in rest should be small and consistent - same in light cheek pressure and should be taken up before significant load is put on). Interestingly the weights have the ability to significantly slow this relationship (it is a squared ratio - the further out you get). I have watched rifles that seem to torque terribly shoot extremely well and always put it down to the shooters follow through and consistency.
I am now thinking regarding torque - a slightly lower than barrel cg (centre in middle bottom of front rest) and low barrel height in stock with offset weights will do best at slowing this reaction down. Perhaps as Peter (and others suggested) a well anchored rear bag as well. BUT I don't think this is our big problem in taming the "BEASTS"

2) muzzle jump! as discussed earlier nothing is without compromise. A lower cg and deep drop on butt, low shoulder position will result in some muzzle rise. If pinning hard and low shoulder pressure could exhibit before projectile exit whereas low cg will. This will exhibit in both the "nodal" vibrations of the barrel and stock jump or at least rise in front bag after projectile exit. My figures also agree with Peters here and when I used to assume the first 1/4 inch or so I now think it is more like 2mm and no more than 3mm recoil before bullet exits (NOTE: "speed" of recoil important here - faster recoil will have more effect". Look at the simulator again. low cg imparts larger vibrations. variable pinning technique below the centre of recoil force can change significantly the vibrations in your barrel. low cg causes larger vibrations and first vertical impulse of barrel even well before stock lifts off front rest (DAVID W touched on this in his discussions). Those of you who have tried to shoot a low drop high comb hunting rifle off a rest will know what I mean. we have one in a measly 222 and still can't hold it on a bag.
Last edited by DaveMc on Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

IanP
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:30 am
Location: Adelaide

#63 Postby IanP » Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:21 am

Summary - Recoil & Rifle Stocks

Wow what a thread! I'm pretty sure this has to be the best single source thread on the subject, on the entire internet for shooters. Thanks to everyone and especially, Dave W, Barry S, Dave Mac, and Peter Smith.

1. As Peter S pointed out to me, I mistakenly was more concerned with "static stability" than "dynamic stability". The first 2mm of rearward movement under recoil and the 1/10 degree rotation in that 1-2ms period of the bullet leaving the barrel is the major consideration.

2. Rotational resistance, (countering "torque") is achieved by moving a weight, (scope) a distance from the barrel bore axis. Its even better to have two weights, one top and bottom to balance the effect.

3. Rearward recoil is a much greater force than the torque effect and muzzle lift is the corresponding result of this force and the centre of gravity of the rifle being below the bore line.

4. The Barrel Vibration Simulator is an incredible tool and everyone should have a play with it to see how design effects vibration.

I now understand why tube guns have been designed and short fat barrel tuners/weights are popular. Tube guns have been designed to keep mass centrally located around the bore line which can take advantage of tall mounted scopes and low centre of gravity. Short fat barrel weights/tuners help with reducing muzzle lift, vibration tuning and last but not least, provide rotational resistance to help reduce torque.

Reality check is that we mostly shoot conventional stocks and we can apply what we have learned here to help handle recoil. I found a tube stock really harsh to shoot and prefer conventional design. As Dave W pointed out, a little muzzle lift means less recoil directed back into the shoulder.

There's lots to recoil and stock design but now at least I know enough to ask some relevant questions. This has been achieved through the generosity of those that contributed to this thread!

Ian
Last edited by IanP on Wed Jun 04, 2014 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
__________________________________________
A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!

pjifl
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Innisfail, Far North QLD.

#64 Postby pjifl » Wed Jun 04, 2014 9:07 am

Perhaps an inline tube gun benefits in some ways but often demands a much higher rear bag.

So we have a compromise. Gain here, loss elsewhere.

Peter Smith.

RDavies
Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 7:23 pm
Location: Singleton NSW

#65 Postby RDavies » Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:49 pm

DaveG. When I saw your stock on the range, it also reminded me of Peters gun, once again in a good way, obviously thought had gone into the engineering instead of following the crowd.
Being able to shoot a 7.5kg 7mm quickly in 1000yd BR as yours was made for I would say it handles well.
I would like to hear the experts views on grip designs as well. Mine are each on opposite sides of the spectrum. My 7mm, by design places the hands very low, 8" below the centre line of the bore. This would likely assist with reducing torque effects (whether the weight of the hand as a keel would make much difference if torque is as small as you measured is of any assistance??) but possibly makes slightly different hand pressures have too much influence on both torque as well as rear thrust and muzzle jump. (sorry, don't know the correct terminology).
My 6mm however has no pistol grip, so the hand rests of top, offering minimal chance of different hand inputs affecting torque, rear thrust, or muzzle jump. This stock is great for semi free recoil, which my other stock is terrible with. Obviously pros and cons with each design.
I was thinking my deep keel stock with its torque limiting design will be good if I decide to go with an 8" twist 7mm barrel, while something like a normal streamlined butt and medium pistol grip of my new stock should be a good compromise with regular style cartridges.
For those out there with knowledge of engineering (unlike my guesses), what are your thoughts on hand grip design?

williada
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:37 am

#66 Postby williada » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:31 pm

Coming back to Johnk’s comment, ”Dave Tooley claimed the deep butt "fin" on his stock design served to modify rotational moment, but without any particular mass to it, I wonder if it isn't accentuating muzzle flip.” Perhaps, is the answer depending on whether your bag moves? I was not game to answer it before. As Peter says, you need a well anchored bag. But our rules and on some range’s would limit spiking it down. If it was tightly packed in this area, so as to reduce the downward thrust it would reduce the muzzle lift. Using your trigger hand may be a better method of controlling the twitch.

As I said in my first post, what is old is new again. I would like to consider, Dr Franklin Mann and Harry Pope.

From Mann’s book, The Bullet’s flight from Powder to Target (circa 1907).
“As all riflemen know that the barrel recoils one-tenth of an inch before the bullet leaves the muzzle, they will readily recognise the desirability of a front brace which will properly care for this sliding motion, which occurs at its maximum just as the bullet is leaving the muzzle.

The late Horace Warner recommended that the arms of any front brace should invariable project from the body on a line that passes through the rifle bore. ......our “bob sled” device will give us will give us a balanced bob-sled front brace...

After all our devising and experimenting to present an accurate and convenient front brace to the rifleman, Dr. S. A. Skinner steps in with a simple block of wood, screwed to the rear end of the butt stock ... and eliminates all our front brace business.
In shooting with this butt brace, the barrel simply rests is a wooden V placed six inches from the muzzle.”

See Fig 1. Mann’s Bob-sled
Image


Fig2. Butt Brace
Source: The Bullets Flight , Mann & Pope.
Image

Fig. 3 Pope’s Bench Rest Source: R. M.Smith
Image


Mann and the Pope later developed machine rests to test gear based on these principles of fore and aft control with the bore centre in the same place.

Fig 4. Mann’s Test Rig Souce
Source: R.M Smith
Image
Fig. 5. Pope’s Test rig
Image
Fig. 6. Mann’s Rest , The Bullets Flight

Image
Also note, “...and allows the concentric rings on the rifle barrel to find an easy position, giving the barrel perfect freedom to recoil backward...or to rotate without changing its line of fire by a hair”, according to Mann.
If you look carefully at the heavy cast iron V rests, you will note concentric rings turned to the same diameter on the barrel and where they touch the V they are on the centreline of the bore.

Looking at another Dave’s picture of his rig and comments about Peter’s rifles, do I have to say more?

Take a look at Pope’s 200 yard group. How many could do that now with modern rifles and powder?

Fig.7 Harry Pope’s 200 yard group
Source RM Smith The story of Pope’s Barrels
Note: Mr Smith produced gain twist barrels in Canada.
Image


I can’t help think that the Gene Begg’s (USA) gear confirms the old Mann principles of the “Bob-sled” together with the modern tuner concept. He is a gunsmith and legend in case design, uses his own tunnel to prove concept. Go figure.

Fig. 8 Gene Begg’s Gear
Image

Mann and Pope concentrated on the short range, but it was the Fulton Family who made a name in long range a couple of decades later. I can’t find my picture of older Fulton using his rest, but it was essentially 2 V angles added to a beam. The rifle was pushed forward so the front of the trigger guard touched the rear V, but on the rear V a vertical stopper was offset to accommodate the trigger guard sideways to use the trigger guard as a reference point, but of note, the recoil from torque moved away from this point. Pretty close to the concept of free recoil? It was Robin Fulton’s work and documentation of compensation that took my development further.

As Robin Fulton said, “Compensation is the term used to describe the effect of barrel movement in the vertical plane. The vertical position of the vibrating muzzle when the bullet makes its exit depends on the bullets travel time in the barrel; and this depends on the bullets initial velocity and the amount of friction it has to overcome. Variations in these two factors will cause the bullets to emerge from the barrel at slightly different angles of elevation.”

Well there is a bit more to it in terms of accommodating muzzle jump as Border Barrels have examined with their devices and computer modelling of barrel contour and length. In Fulton’s day barrels were standardized.

For those that use barrel blocks, you can move the barrel fore and aft in these blocks to adjust the flip or you can add a fundamental weight to the muzzle. Mann indicated the force was greatest as the bullet exits the muzzle. So it’s not surprising a fundamental weight or an adjustable weight will work here to dampen recoil and torque. I think it works at the muzzle as a stabilizer because the initial torque is at the breach, the opposite end but if the tuner was to extend past the muzzle like an Obermyer tube or barrel extension it also has to counter the muzzle lift caused by escaping gas. As I said earlier there are 3 moments of inertia on firing. Also remember the bore diameter of the Obermyer tube has another function to condition the atmosphere behind the projectile. So there is another interrelationship in tuning. From memory, years ago I used 0.86" for a thirty calibre, then I trimmed the weight back on the extension to modify the lift. The Begg's tuner does control rotational forces to some degree and I use one. But the combination of a Begg's tuner on an Obermyer tube because the weight can be adjusted saves trimming the fundamental weight. The downside of the Obermyer tuner is cleaning and you have to be very careful you do not pinch the muzzle on fitting. In pinching the muzzle it not only increases fouling, an oval shape can be created at the crown and lead to gas yawing the projectile and the projectile itself can be misshaped so as to not fly to its potential. One final note and generalisation was, that the faster I fired from the machine rest the better the elevation. I fired at random times and set intervals and different ranges. It was a barrel heat thing about maintaining a range of temperature.

Just to confuse you guys, there is a school of thought that the pressure waves or vibrations due to twitch of the barrel can create an oval shape in the bore and a good nodal tune does not have this shape.

Obviously, the longer and thinner the barrel, there are more sine waves to tap into and conversely for short thick barrels. Perc Pavey told me how they had to cut down barrels in England once, to accommodate the ammunition that was somehow changed. Where did the knowledge go?

In further testing around 2002 -3, I used a Paramount with duel lugs on a machine rest. One of the first barrels tested was a new 34 inches 1-12 Kreiger. It had an extreme spread of over 65 fps, but at a hundred yards as Peter Pearce will testify it put everything into an enlarged hole. Not expected. So I took the rig apart and found only the rear recoil lug was contacting. Effectively I had added length to the barrel and although the front screw was set at 45 inch pounds, it was a floater in terms of flex. So changing the position of that front takedown screw without a front recoil plate would work or you could use a Barnard type recoil setup by moving it backwards and forwards. It’s just another way to skin a cat without changing an old stock too much.

I have to re-enforce, that with reloads and modern gear, there need only be a subtle change for the longs in terms of compensation, and more than subtle if you are a match rifle shooter at extreme distance for general setup. However, if you accept that heavy cold air near the coast or light air at altitude or hot moist air will require a barrel with a different twist rate for stability, then you might accept that air density together with mound angle will change your nodal tune or your compensation tune. I am reminded of radical air density changes in Malaysia for a Commonwealth event. Perhaps James C could comment.

Compensation

Fig. 9 R.G. Reynolds and R. Fulton

Image

To determine a general starting point for compensation examination you need to know whether your rifle is negative, neutral or positive as I mentioned in a previous post (see details there) and determined by loading and shooting three different rounds separated by 1 gn. of powder at 25 yards. Remember you do not want a negatively compensating rifle as range increases. To fix this you can alter your fulcrum point with a butt plate or use another stock with the centre of the bore a bit higher or you can shorten the barrel, change powders or free flight of the projectile. Whatever your poison use it to increase or tap into a rising muzzle on bullet exit. If your rounds at 25 yards or 140 yards are leaving a black smudge on the paper target, may I suggest they are going too slow for accuracy purposes generally speaking irrespective of compensation?

You can conduct a different compensation test at 500 yards with your regular ammo or at consecutive ranges to confirm the direction of the spreads using a chronograph and the plot sheet I made below.

Instructions:
Set up a chronograph 15 ft from your muzzle. (n.b. your velocity at 15 ft is not actually muzzle velocity, it is less but won’t matter for the purpose of the exercise. Fire three sighters and adjust your sights for a waterline group. Shoot a string of 10 shots without adjusting your sights. Record each shot with a consecutive number in terms of elevation on the vertical scale and velocity on the horizontal scale. For a rifle that is compensating negatively slow shots will be low, fast ones high. For a positively compensating rifle, the slow shots are above waterline and the fast shots are below waterline. For nodal or neutral groups shots mostly hover around the middle within your rifle’s grouping capabilities. But note, separation of some clusters may have a bias higher or lower. i.e. not much difference between positive and neutral but a bigger difference between neutral and negative and sometimes vice versa. It takes practice to read them. Note these plots will vary due to air density changes. These records need to be kept. Mirage can alter elevation plots. So light angle, hence diffraction influences this. Do not test in boiling mirage conditions or fishtails. In this case go back to 25 yards. For rifles that place the first warm up shot within the rest of the group in cold conditions is a sure sign the rifle is compensating as one would expect it to go low. In my past tests I also measured barrel temperature. You generally need three sighters for the barrel to settle within a reasonable temperature range. So your first business, the 4th shot means something, then shoot another 9. That would be information overload now. But some of you could combine that test.

Fig 10. Williada
Image

On consecutive ranges you can string a number of completed plot sheets side by side to see the overall trend.

To roughly simulate using a computer you need the angle your muzzle is pointing to the target for each shot, the muzzle velocity of the ammunition and the distance to 1000 yards plus. Plot the trajectories and you can come up with a compensation diagram like Fulton’s. If your program only plots one trajectory path at a time, print the result on acetate sheets and overlay them. Or you could use an angle gage on your action and point it at the target to get a base angle for mound changes and play with some fake angle changes to see what happens. Combine these with changes in velocity. You could add more to the fake trial by changing angles based on physical plots. Now, Ian’s use of a fast camera and a screen behind the rifle with graduations marked on it would be useful here. Or you could rig up a stop gauge suspended above the muzzle to measure its maximum height to work out angles. Those with mathematical skills can work back from the target plot using trigonometry if up close (less than 140 yards).

Then you can play groups around the nodes or do batch tests with 3 groups of rounds with an average 30 fps between them or set up a rest which mimics changes in mound angles.

Now I ask a final question, could a V rest on a round forend like Mann’s keep the rotational movement on variable mounds constant if you are worried about torque or use a Pavey grip?

I think I have said too much already.
Last edited by williada on Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

IanP
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:30 am
Location: Adelaide

#67 Postby IanP » Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:26 pm

Dave W, another excellent contribution and one that has me thinking of using a Gene Begg's style bag rider. Would be so easy to experiment with weight distribution over the bags with one of these devices. I will make one up for use in my up coming videos, as it solves one problem for me straight up!

Another thought came to mind that I would like your opinion on and thats the contact area of the front rest. The rules permit a contact patch of 3"x 3" and no one to my knowledge is using a front bag of this dimension. Most front bags are approx 1 to 1.5 " inches deep and 3" wide. Would the increase in friction help reduce "torque"? If the front bag was clamped tight, (within allowable rule limits) then the torque would be restricted by the increase in friction. The rest is heavy and stable enough to resist being lifted so it might be interesting to try. Any comments?

Ian
__________________________________________

A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!

williada
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:37 am

#68 Postby williada » Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:09 pm

Ian, the trade off with torque control is setting the shot off to maximise the rifles capabilities and getting the next shot off quickly to maintain elevation and beat the wind. A bigger surface area would absorb recoil and increase a resistance feel for the shooters security. A bit of clamping pressure is good, but it must be consistent.

For myself, I don't worry so much about the torque so long as it does the same thing each time. I am more concerned with technique. I don't rush the bag handling thing either because I am confident I can read the weather and just hate being done by a crook shot in a long string. If the weather gods do me I just ask what did I miss? So I will be better next time. Its just the fullbore habit I can't kick.

My emphasis is the fulcrum point, and if you look at Genes setup, that big sled stabilizes his rifle so he can position the rear bag easily which I imagine he squeazes for position on the shoulder. Note the toe of the butt rests on the bag like Mann's and does not really act like a guide, so I think it would be used without free recoil but his trigger hand is limited for sideways stability for torque. Between his front rest and his shoulder placement the fulcrum point is squarely at the top of the butt.

I'll think about it some more as this is a quick observation as I am about to go into town. I did make a mini Fulton rest as a front rest, but was afraid to use it as it could have been deemed not to be in the spirit of competition. I have second thoughts now. David.

IanP
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:30 am
Location: Adelaide

#69 Postby IanP » Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:55 pm

williada wrote:My emphasis is the fulcrum point, and if you look at Genes setup, that big sled stabilizes his rifle so he can position the rear bag easily which I imagine he squeazes for position on the shoulder. Note the toe of the butt rests on the bag like Mann's and does not really act like a guide, so I think it would be used without free recoil but his trigger hand is limited for sideways stability for torque. Between his front rest and his shoulder placement the fulcrum point is squarely at the top of the butt.

I'll think about it some more as this is a quick observation as I am about to go into town. I did make a mini Fulton rest as a front rest, but was afraid to use it as it could have been deemed not to be in the spirit of competition. I have second thoughts now. David.


I agree on fulcrum point, (weight over bags not the best way to view it) and he would not be shooting free recoil with that rear stock and bag. His grip like you say is pretty limited not having a pistol grip.

I use the Pavy, (much the same as the Pavey version :D) grip and dont shoot free recoil with the big 30 cals. I have a Mastin T/R stock with Barnard V block that I will cut the forestock off to enable fitting of the Begg's style bag sled. That will give me a nice trigger and pistol grip stock to work with and hold the 32" by 1.25" parallel barrel at the other end from the sled.

I'm looking forward to seeing just what a difference it will make to barrel vibration dampening and compensation. It gets the mass centrally around the bore line and if I want I could also add a short fat weight to the muzzle as I now know that its beneficial for a number of dynamic forces that come into play. Try without muzzle weight first as it may not be needed at all but its an option Begg's went with on his setup. Begg's was shooting a Begg's 220 Russian with that rifle so its a lot less recoil than my 30 cals.

Ian
__________________________________________

A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!

williada
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:37 am

#70 Postby williada » Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:40 pm

Ian, I am really looking forward to see how you go. There are just so many configurations and ideas from a wide range of people to capture your imagination. Its great.

Yes, you are right about a .220 Russian. I edited the post. Ta. I have probably made a few blues as the posts are written in haste. But they cost nothing and hopefully I can pass on the main thrust of my experiences. My maternal grandparents name was Davy but people often put that (e) in it. Until Barry pointed it out I did not know your surname was Pavy. :lol:

Cheers and good shooting. David.

williada
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:37 am

#71 Postby williada » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:07 am

Ian, I forgot to say in the last post that if you clamp the forend down too hard in the rest you will muffle the fulcrum force and make it inconsistent in a rest as opposed to a rifle that may be barrel blocked that way. I did the opposite by accident in a test when my front lug was not touching but that was in the gear, not the rest. The front screw even with 45 inch pounds was not sufficient to control the flex even though it was consistent.
David.

IanP
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:30 am
Location: Adelaide

#72 Postby IanP » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:15 am

williada wrote:Ian, I forgot to say in the last post that if you clamp the forend down too hard in the rest you will muffle the fulcrum force and make it inconsistent in a rest as opposed to a rifle that may be barrel blocked that way. I did the opposite by accident in a test when my front lug was not touching but that was in the gear, not the rest. The front screw even with 45 inch pounds was not sufficient to control the flex even though it was consistent.
David.


Thanks again David, so much info and now made understandable!

Thanks Alan Fraser for making this thread a "Sticky" its the best single source of info on recoil on the internet!

Ian
__________________________________________

A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!

IanP
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:30 am
Location: Adelaide

#73 Postby IanP » Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:37 am

Here's an example of an extreme high stock mounted weight to help overcome that mass at the bottom of the rifle. That is one complex and very busy rifle setup!

Ian

Image

Picture from 6mmBR website here: http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek057.html
__________________________________________

A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!

williada
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:37 am

#74 Postby williada » Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:13 pm

Ian, did you notice the insulating tube around the barrel. These people know their theory and have applied it. The primary effect is to maintain a constant barrel temperature where possible which stabilises friction and bore time; and the secondary effect will reduce the mirage haze that can be caused by a hot barrel. Good work. David.

IanP
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:30 am
Location: Adelaide

#75 Postby IanP » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:40 pm

Link to a YouTube video of a rifle shot in profile view, in slow motion with a cheap Casio compact that can do video at 1200 fps. Pity these cameras are not available now!

Clearly shows some good technique, (as far as YouTube videos go) and rifle recoiling straight back before it jumps in the front bag. Also if you watch carefully you can see the barrel vibrate in his first few shots.

Ian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQExkfcRYsU
__________________________________________

A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!


Return to “Equipment & Technical”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests