Mr OHeir:
If you read post # 15,you will discover this rifle had the receiver only bedded.The barrel channel ids Rem inletted with a pressure point. Clearly it is not free floated.
I can appreciate your lack of acceptance for free floating may be about typical curmudgeon xenophobia....and indeed,going back to your days of the SMLE free foating was not the formula. Back then,the skinny,long SMLE barrels resting in full length stocks were not good candidates for free floating.
Ive already mentioned the foundation of a proper barrel to receiver joint
Without that,free floating is futile.The stock is used like a splint or a cast for a broken leg.,and the Armourer/smith used salamander skins and bat wings to shm and damp the SMLE to shoot quite well.
But that says nothing about free floating.
A pressure point is like pushing a wobbly fence post to ne side. Its a patch that sort of works. Better the fence post was solid in the hole.
But cutting match books,playing cads,etc to put in the barrel channel is easier than squaring a receiver ring. Till you sling up.
Every time someone mentiones free floating,you respond with a comment saying it does not work.
So please explain something to me..
I've built,been in on building,and seen the results of others building a lot of AR type rifles. Some were made with Badger or Kreiger cut rifled barrels.
Others have been made with Wilson,White Oak,Crterion,Olymic,etc barrels.If free foating is so mediocre and unreliable,how come folks who are not gunsmiths,but reasonable mechanics,can assemble free floated rifles that more often than not,shoot sub-MOA,,and a few shoot ragged holes at 100 yds?
From the barrel nut forward,nothing but the gas blockand tube influence the barrel.
Admittedly,my chrome lined ,hammer forged Daniel Defense barrel is about 1 1/4 MOA at 100 yds. I'm not disappointed.
We just don't get "stinkers" that won't shoot well under 2 MOA
P[ese tell me how that happens if free floating is so wrong?