Balancing a Rifle...

G

Gregory Gauvin

New member
I know how to balance a rifle. I'm a competitive shooter. However, my father had asked me to clean his Winchester Model 290. He asked me to check what he had stuffed into the stock beneath the buttplate as a kid. He though had may have hidden extra bullets in there. Turns out, it was just packed with cotton.

Anyhow, I asked him if he wanted me to balance the rifle and he said yes. Handling the Model 290, to me, clearly is muzzle heavy. I'm accustomed to balancing AR-15s at the delta ring, or bolt actions at the front action screw. I understand it is all a matter of personal preference....but here's my delima...

The model 290 is a .22 semi auto rifle in essentially, a stock configuration of that of a shotgun. I figured I'd balance the rifle 4-5" forward of the trigger, just where the receiver meets and front handgaurd. The rifle is scoped...so, I had been adding pennies in a roll at a time to get it balanced right there with the added weight of the buttplate. Picking up the rifle quickly, point-ability seemed to improve, however, the forward handgaurd is infront of the balance point and I find that if held one handed at the handguard, rifle tips back.

Where would you balance such a rifle? Would you balance the rifle so when held at the handgaurd, rifle does not dip in either direction, i.e., move the center of balance more forward? The rifle, being tubular fed, will naturally have a slight front dip when fully loaded.
 
If it must be done, then I would balance it for the actual shooter.
Different shooters have different preferences.


For me, the preferred center of balance on a 290 would be about 3/8" behind the front face of the receiver.
For my father, it would be somewhere between the trigger and the front of the trigger guard.
For my oldest brother, the center of balance should be forward of the receiver by 4-5 inches. Though that may not be attainable without significant modification. (He likes his rifles to be notably 'barrel-heavy'.)

(All of the above assumes 10-12 rounds in the magazine, for average 'shooting weight'.)
 
I am a little confused. Ever since a black powder enthusiast handed me his Kentucky Rifle to examine, and noting that some Olympic level competition guns have added weights to make them very muzzle heavy, un-tapered barrels in guns such as S&W K38, et. al., I have considered muzzle heavy to be a definite advantage to accurate shooting. Some have stated they like a gun to feel good in the hands. However, if the goal be accurate shooting, then what feels good is not necessarily what should determine the balance of the gun.
Comments, disagreements?
 
The idea is that a muzzle-heavy target rifle has more inertia to help damp small muscle tremors and muzzle movements out, especially in the offhand standing position. Since paper targets aren't moving, that provides a scoring advantage. If a target is not stationary, however, then you don't want the muzzle staying put, and pointability starts to matter more, making a lot of muzzle mass less desirable.
 
The idea is that a muzzle-heavy target rifle has more inertia to help damp small muscle tremors and muzzle movements out, especially in the offhand standing position. Since paper targets aren't moving, that provides a scoring advantage. If a target is not stationary, however, then you don't want the muzzle staying put, and pointability starts to matter more, making a lot of muzzle mass less desirable.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If that were true (bolded text), then a Kentucky style rifle would not have been very good for hunting. The extra mass (via length) of a Kentucky rifle does not impede the movement of the barrel in any significant degree to be problematic in following moving game. The actual movement of the rifle's sights at moving game is very slight and is even more so when the distance is great.
An observation: A few years ago when competing in a 3-gun event (carbine, pistol, shotgun), I did very well with the handgun and shotgun, but really bombed with my M1 Carbine shooting at five paper plates at 50 yards...I just could not rapidly get a sight picture, shoot, resight on the next plate, etc., in a reasonable amount of time. Studying the situation and fooling with mounting the gun and sighting at home afterward, I came to the conclusion that the M1 Carbine, while being balanced as it is, a joy (compared to the M1 Garand of my Basic Training), to carry, the weight between the hands is not conducive for quickly acquiring a sight picture and steady shooting.
It would seem that many shooters are more concerned with carrying a gun when it comes to balance than they are with how that balance will effect shooting. But then, everything is a compromise...I do not envision many sheep hunters carrying a bull barrel target rifle up the slopes.
 
,
the weight between the hands is not conducive for quickly acquiring a sight picture and steady shooting.
Click to expand...

for you.

It would seem that many shooters are more concerned with carrying a gun when it comes to balance than they are with how that balance will effect shooting.
Click to expand...

So it would seem. Many shooters are more concerned about how the rifle balances when carried, because they will be carrying the rifle, a LOT more than that they will be shooting it. And the balance of a lot of rifles, while possibly not the most efficient in aiding accuracy for some people, is within the range that does not detract from the accuracy of many shooters.

Muzzle heave does help a bit for precise target shooting. Muzzle weight aids in shots where the muzzle is being swung (again, inertia). But not everyone benefits from this to the same degree, or even at all, for some shooters.

And every shot from a "field" gun is not the same as shooting on the range.

Any kind of hunting rifle is going to be in the hands a lot more time than it is mounted against your shoulder. Balance should be so the rifles carries "level" in one hand, where most people are going to grip it. IF that is what the owner prefers!

That is what the hunter and plinker is going to notice. The match shooter might notice (and desire) something else. A balance that helps you for the type of shooting you do might hinder me for the type I do. There is no "right" or "wrong" as long as the owner/shooter is good with it.

For what its worth, Kentucky rifles don't have long barrels for their handling characteristics, they have them to get the most out of shooting practical, in terms of accuracy AND performance. Remember that Kentucky rifles use black powder to shoot round balls, which are generally the lightest weight and least ballistically efficient bullet for any bore size.

and, also, there is no "forward handguard" or any handguard on a Winchester 290. There is a forend, or forearm. Forestock, if you are British. ;)

We know what was meant, but AR terminology isn't always a proper fit for other gun designs.
 
dahermit said:
I disagree. If that were true (bolded text), then a Kentucky style rifle would not have been very good for hunting. The extra mass (via length) of a Kentucky rifle does not impede the movement of the barrel in any significant degree to be problematic in following moving game. The actual movement of the rifle's sights at moving game is very slight and is even more so when the distance is great.
Click to expand...

I'm not clear that you succeeded in disagreeing with me. You'll note I didn't suggest you can't hunt with a muzzle heavy gun, I simply said, as a matter of ease of pointing at moving targets, a highly massive muzzle is less desirable than it is in a circumstance where ease of pointing isn't a consideration (e.g., target shooting). When pointability is a consideration, more muzzle weight is not usually something a gun designer thinks to add. I would not, for example, want to add a muzzle weight to a quail gun, or any other shotgun, really. So I think you would have to argue that it is desirable to add weight for pointability in order to disagree with my statement. And perhaps you can come up with an example where that is so. I just know that none occurred to me.
 
I would not, for example, want to add a muzzle weight to a quail gun, or any other shotgun, really.
Click to expand...

A quail gun, no, but some other shotguns, certainly. Duck & goose guns, most notably. Guns for pass shooting, where the consistency of the swing and followthrough matter more than upland game shooting where shots can change direction radically, almost instantly, and the gun must be rapidly mounted and fired.

The traditional method of adding weight to the end of a shotgun barrel to enhance its swing is to use a longer barrel. Its not the only reason, sighting plane and ballistic increase are the most noticed advantages to the longer barrels, but the extra weight is a plus for the swing and follow though's smoothness.

"Running boar" match rifles, often have an enlarged barrel at the muzzle again, for the same reason, shooting a moving target, one crossing you, the extra weight aids in the smoothness of the swing. It does work against the speed of getting into action from a cold start, and you don't see it much on guns used for snap shooting.
 
The balance, I always looked for, by placing the hand in front of the trigger guard, as if to hold it to pack it. The little finger of the right hand holding the gun should be close to the front of the trigger guard, maybe 1/2" to 1" away. In the middle of that hand, is where I looked for be the balance point. That point would probably be 2-1/2" to 3" in front of the trigger guards bow.
 
dahermit, Pistol weights were used to help with muzzle jump, and adding mass. I have a set of weights for my High Standard Supermatic, and it has a fluted bull barrel for even more weight. It is also ported, to stop muzzle jump, and it is only a .22. However, that model did win the Olympics in the 1950s, and was designed to stop movement when fast shooting at silhouettes. It has a lot to do with how you shoot, and what does best for the shooter.
 
44 AMP,

That's a good example that hadn't occurred to me. It makes sense that where the target speed is constant that any weight affecting your rate of turn about a center of rotation would help keep the shooter's speed constant. I have a goose gun, actually, though I always assumed the long barrel was mainly about patterning out to goose altitude rather than adding mass. But the long barrel does both. So, I think your basic point is valid: It's game that changes direction or that appears suddenly from an unexpected direction that makes rapid pointability an advantage. That's the same reason it matters in clearing tactics.

Jeff Cooper had us shooting at clay pigeons with our .308 scout rifles, and that was a situation in which having low mass and balance somewhere between the hands was useful for the necessary speed. On safari, Cooper killed a lion which entered a clearing about the same time he did, and said that just as he brought the gun into position, in his peripheral vision he saw the lion's tail shoot up for the pounce. Not a situation in which extra mass would pay off.
 
Balancing a rifle is not hard to understand.
All rifles and shotguns balance just as all pipes will, and sticks and boards.
It is just a matter of where they balance. That is the issue.

All objects have a center of gravity. In gunsmithing the idea is to subtract weight from the heavy side and /or add it to the light side.

This is easy to understand but sometimes hard or impossible to do, depending on the gun in question.
As an example, a German G3 (HK91) is made in a way that adding weight is impractical and subtracting weight is close to impossible.
I love the balance point of an FN-FAL and that is good because they are heavy as they come from the makers, and there is not much that can be done to subtract weight.

In bolt action rifle you can subtract weight or add it to the butt by drilling out and leaving empty holes, or by adding weight to those holes and you can also use longer or larger diameter barrels. Another option is fluting which will deduct weight a bit.

Here is a picture of a muzzleloader I made with a 44" long barrel. The rifle was not finished at the time the pic was taken, but it illustrates the point well enough. The barrel on this rifle is only 4" shy of 4 feet and yet the balance point is exactly where it should be. My finger is about 1" off the balance point in the picture, which is why the gun is pointing up-hill a bit.

But in making the parts to the specs I want before I put anything together, I can make the gun balance where I want it to balance. Not so with many factory made guns. In a gun that has already been made it is mostly impractical to start cutting down barrel diameters and trying to hide ugly gaps. You can remove some wood from some shotguns and rifles, but only enough to adjust the balance point a inch or so in most cases. Shortening the barrel is an option, but not one that makes a lot of sense in many cases.

I would not hesitate to cut 6" off a 26" long 308 some, but I'd advise against
doing so with a 270 that came with a 22" barrel.

The one thing that is good in all this is the fact that most gun companies have been in business long enough to make factory rifles and shotguns that come out of the box with good balance. Those that didn't were never popular and didn't sell well, so they went the way of the Dodo pretty fast.
They are not missed much either.
 
That's a great photo as it looks to the eye like the gun should be tipping over at the muzzle end. Do you have stock weights in it, or is the barrel lighter than it appears?
 
No, the stock is not weighted at all. In fact, it has a hollow in it because of the patch box cavity. So it is actually lighter than it would be on most modern guns.

The barrel is swamped. I took out a bit more steel than on most guns to get the weight and balance where I wanted it.

It is a pretty extreme example, but I wanted to show the readers what can be done if you go into the project with all the information, instead of trying to change the balance later.
 
Wyosmith, that rifle reminds me of a painting I once saw, where a pioneer was either on a raft, or in a canoe, and had to use his rifle as a paddle. That one seems to be long enough to use for rowing competitions. It seems to me that the painting was on a gun manufacturers advertisement poster, or maybe a powder manufacturer. That rifle is a long one.

Actually, on your rifle, that is about right, as far as packing it, because of where the lock is, with respect to the packing hand.
 
Yup Dixie, that is the whole idea.
The balance is in front of the lock so the hand can close easily around it and have no more momentum in front than in back.
And when you shoot the balance is between the hands about 60% in front of the firing hand and 40% behind the support hand.

These rifles look as if they would be awkward, but if you use one you find they seem to be alive in your hands, like they were part of your arms.
They almost seem to aim themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top