New Deer Rifle..

If the weight of the barrel was irrelevant (or the least relevant factor) why would the National Bench Rest Shooters Association classify bench rest rifles by weight?

Such a classification system suggests the weight of a barrel is so relevant to the accuracy of a rifle that it must be accounted for in bench rest competition.
Click to expand...
That really has nothing at all to do with hunting, since those rifles aren't carried at all, and winning is often measured in fractions of an inch

Many sports have weight limits for different divisions to assure the equipment is the same, and not because one weight is "better"
 
Lefteye, the weight of the barrel is pretty much irrelevant when dealing with the highest quality matchgrade barrels. From a bench, having a heavy rifle is advantageous due to the fact that weight makes the rifle much easier to shoot in free recoil. It is nigh impossible to free recoil a featherweight. My latest bench gun is a light varmint contour barrel, a heavy bat action, and a heavy (weight added) stock.
Back in the days of the junk barrels, thicker was better. Now, not so much truth to the adage.
 
I believe that a heavier gun is easier to shoot well, all else being equal, for one big reason: recoil.

A 24" barrelled, 10+ lb .270WIN will kick you less in the shoulder, and a lot less in the ears, than a 16" barrelled 7-08 that weighs 3 pounds less, even though the .270 will deliver more energy, on a flatter trajectory than the carbine. That's an extreme example (and one I used because I have both of those guns), but the principle is the same even if they were both 7-08's.
 
I believe that a heavier gun is easier to shoot well, all else being equal, for one big reason: recoil.
Click to expand...
That's still the shooter, not the gun.

Unless it's a big Magnum cartridge, recoil isn't really a factor in being able to shoot well with any rifle that fits.

As long as you don't flinch, there will be little difference in the results
 
That's still the shooter, not the gun.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly my, point, snyper, which I made back in post 53:

Of course it has something to do with "getting in shape": the gun, load, sighting equipement and the shooter are all intergral parts of the system that has to work together to put the bullet on target. Impoving any of these is an improvement to the system.

IME, the part of the system generally needing the most improvement is that last one. Maybe that's not potlitically correct, but it's true.
Click to expand...

For shooting, it's easier to get better results with a heavier gun.

For schlepping, it's easier to get better results with a snub-nosed revolver.

If you spent enough time working with it (think Bob Munden), you'd get adequate results with the snubby.

It'd take less time and resources for the shooter to conditon his body to where a 10 pound rifle was not so onerous as be "too heavy" to hunt with ..... the improved muscle tone would likely improve his shooting regardless what he was shooting as well.

The shooter is nearly always the weakest link.
 
Well come on man which savage is it, caliber, etc. how does it shoot, does it speak to you, what is the rifles name?????:D
 
Its the Savage 11/111 in the .7mm-08. I went with the combo model just so I would have a decent scope until I upgrade it. I also got the 22" barrel instead of the 24" just to make it handle a tad better. It does have the accutrigger and I love the new stock design on this model. The old one was very plain and ugly so the new design did make it a little easier on the eyes. Haven't got to heat up the barrel yet because of this old 9 to 5 but I will shoot it ASAP. As for a name.... I think I am going to go with "Widow Maker".
 
Nice gun.

Unless you are using some really slow powders, the 22" barrel won't lose enough velocity to worry about, and the -08 case is not really suited to those, anyhow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top