Balance, handling, and performance ???s.

30 January 2003, 07:12

I have a SS Rem 700 ADL action and a McMillan Mountain Rifle KS stock that I'm using for a new rifle(270 Win) and would like your input on the best countour and length of barrel to go with it.

I'm also going to build another SS Rem 700 ADL with a McMillan AWR stock in 338 Win and would like to have the specs be as close as possible, if feasible.

Something that's easy to carry all day and good for shooting off hand is my goal. I'm more concerned with balance/feel for off-hand shots than weight but weight is a consideration.

Thanks for your input.

30 January 2003, 09:36

GeorgeS

If you try to use the same contour for both barrels, either your .270 will be too heavy or your .338 will be too light.

I suggest a 24" for the .338 in something like a Shilen #4 contour; for the .270, how about a 23" Shilen #2? The Mountain Rifle stock has a pretty small barrel channel, so you'll either have to open it up for a #3 or go with a skinnier barrel.

George

30 January 2003, 11:12

Nebraska

Good points about the differences.

Will the larger bore diamater of the 338 offset the increase in contour in terms of weight or is that suggestion pointed at keeping the recoil manageable?

I measured the barrel channel a few inches from the end of the forearm on the stock I intend to use and it was ~.75 inches. I know there's a gap between the barrel and the stock but that seems pretty large to me. What would be the minimum barrel contour that would drop into a channel that size without doing any filling?

[ 01-30-2003, 02:20: Message edited by: Nebraska ]

30 January 2003, 11:26

<allen day>

For a .270, a good option is to go with a Hart #3 contour, 22", and for a .338, you can go with a Hart #4 contour, 24". Those are great middle-of-the-road contours that produce a rifle of great balance and moderate weight, and I own rifles with those exact barrels myself.

AD

[ 01-30-2003, 02:33: Message edited by: allen day ]

30 January 2003, 11:30

Jim in Idaho

I just put together a Remington M700 in .270 very similar to what you are thinking of for your .270.

Pac-Nor barrel which copies the Remington factory .270 sporter contour exactly except it is 23" long.
McMillan KS Mountain Rifle stock - exact same stock as used by their custom shop.
Leupold 2.5X8 scope in Leupold Dual Dovetail mounts.

Total rifle weight unloaded with scope and mounts is 7 lbs 9 ounces. Could reduce that with a lighter contour barrel or lighter mounts, but overall weight was not the issue with me either, field handling and accuracy was.

It balances very nicely. Had a M700 FS in 7mm Mag - that came from the factory with their 24" magnum contour barrel and a lightweight Brown stock. It was definitely muzzle heavy. The standard sporter contour and the lightweight McMillan stock is ever so slightly muzzle heavy but just enough to steady it. It "hangs" out there real nice but shoulders quickly and surely. It is at the gunsmith's getting glass bedded right now or I could tell you the exact balance point.

Afraid I cannot comment on the .338 except don't make it too light. [Smile]

FWIW - I got my left hand Custom KS Mountain Rifle stock from the webmaster at 24hourcampfire (hope this mention is allowed) and the barrel channel was a perfect fit for the standard sporter contour. It was not inletted for the skinnier mountain rifle contour.

30 January 2003, 11:47

GeorgeS

quote:
Originally posted by Jim in Idaho:
Had a M700 FS in 7mm Mag - that came from the factory with their 24" magnum contour barrel and a lightweight Brown stock. It was definitely muzzle heavy.

Jim,
I have two LH 700FS, a .270 and a .30-06. They have the standard BDL barrel and the .30-06 has been my 'Death Ray' for 14 years now.

quote:
FWIW - I got my left hand Custom KS Mountain Rifle stock from the webmaster at 24hourcampfire (hope this mention is allowed) and the barrel channel was a perfect fit for the standard sporter contour. It was not inletted for the skinnier mountain rifle contour.

Ah, good to know. I thought it was inletted for the mountain rifle barrel. Thanks.

George

31 January 2003, 02:02

Hot Core

quote:
Originally posted by Nebraska:
I ...would like to have the specs be as close as possible, if feasible.

Something that's easy to carry all day and good for shooting off hand is my goal. I'm more concerned with balance/feel for off-hand shots than weight but weight is a consideration...

Hey Nebraska, Sounds like a fine project. This could result in some rifles you can use for a lifetime.

I'd recommend you go to a Gun Show and handle as many different scoped-rifles as you can. Caliber doesn't matter, because you will be looking for the "weight and balance" that feels right to you. Take a small accurate Fish Scale and string to weigh the rifles.

Now you should be able to tell your Gun Smith that you want two S&S M700s with McMillan stocks. One in 280Rem and one in 338WinMag(gotta get that 270Win notion out of your head [Big Grin]

), you want them to weigh approximately x.x pounds, the balance point located at xxxxx(directly under the front of the receiver or wherever), with a xxxxx scope mounted in Burris Signature Rings & Bases.

Other things you might desire such as Chamber Neck Length(pick a specific bullet you want to use ahead of time), Trigger weight, etc. should also be discussed right up front.

Of course, since this will lighten your billfold considerably, you will only want to trust this operation to:
1. John Lewis
2. Dave Tooley
3. Kenny Jarrett

They can produce ALL the accuracy you can possibly use at a relatively reasonable price.

Best of luck to you!

[ 01-30-2003, 17:04: Message edited by: Hot Core ]

31 January 2003, 02:41

Savage99

Unless a person cannot shoot game from any other position than standing I feel that selecting a muzzle heavy hunting rifle with that as a consideration is not thinking it out.

If the game is moving and close then a light barreled rifle will get on and stay on target better than a heavy one due to less momentum.

Conversely if the game is not moving then the hunter should assume a steadier position.

It's true that some long range rifles end up with long barrels that are heavier but I would not select one on purpose.

Matching hunting rifles of widely different calibers by weight or balance is another false idea.

31 January 2003, 03:03

<allen day>

I agree with Savage99 that it's pretty tough to make every rifle you own feel exactly the same, regardless of caliber.

The thing to strive for as you plan a rifle is BALANCE, and that's a very difficult and subtle aspect of rifle construction for the average gunmaker to execute properly. The vast majority of riflebuilders these days are interested in just one aspect of performance, and that's tight groups off of a bench at 100 yds. Most don't bother with concepts such as balance, and wouldn't know how to achieve it if they tried.

The best gunmakers carefully calculate barrel contour and length based on the cartridge selected in order to achieve proper balance. It's amazing how much quicker and lighter a properly balanced rifle feels. If the stock is well-designed it almost comes alive in your hands and seems to point itself.

AD

31 January 2003, 04:29

<Big Stick>

I don't expect anybody to be able to read my mind,when I commence a rifle. I have particulars in mind and want them executed so as to suit me. What might feel "good" to my 'Smith,may not impress me.

With the KS you gotta go easy on both contour and length,as it is a pretty light handle and it is easy to stick too much weight out front. A little muzzle heavy is OK,but in such a svelte stock,it's easy to go overboard(before you even know it). Personally,I'd keep it at a #1 contour and about 23" long. But that's me and my tastes,due to much familiarity with the KS.

Actually,something akin to PacNor's Mountain contour is an even "better" choice,in my humble opinion but most guys are spooked of light tubes(I'm not).

In fact,a #2 contour in .257" is damn near too much meat out front for my tastes on a Ks Mountain pattern. Most my KS stocks run anout 26 - 27oz.

The AWR is both of increased weight and mass,as mentioned prior,it will take a much heavier tube than the Mountain Rifle pattern.

But again,it is easy to stab too much weight in the nose of them. I'd be inclined to stab a #3 contour on the 338 and also opt 23" of length.

I very much like both stock patterns,but remember they are much lighter than most wood blanks of the same proportion. So I'd personally go easy on the barrel contour,that with balance very much in mind.

I'm guessin' your mileage might vary.............

31 January 2003, 07:58

Savage99

quote:
Originally posted by allen day:

The thing to strive for as you plan a rifle is BALANCE, and that's a very difficult and subtle aspect of rifle construction for the average gunmaker to execute properly. The vast majority of riflebuilders these days are interested in just one aspect of performance, and that's tight groups off of a bench at 100 yds. Most don't bother with concepts such as balance, and wouldn't know how to achieve it if they tried.

The best gunmakers carefully calculate barrel contour and length based on the cartridge selected in order to achieve proper balance. It's amazing how much quicker and lighter a properly balanced rifle feels. If the stock is well-designed it almost comes alive in your hands and seems to point itself.
AD

-------------------------------------------------
This is a very good point and only appreciated, at least by me, after years have gone by.

I had a .300 Mag that was my long range hammer if you will. It was a Ruger #1S (26" bbl) and had a Leu 3.5X10 on it. I did not really like to carry this rifle as it felt heavy. It weighed about nine pounds, no more, but the barrel was very heavy. Then I got an old M70 in .300 H&H. Now this rifle is even longer so it should not "feel" as good or balance as well? That's wrong! It balanced much better as the barrel is very thin at the muzzle even though it's also 26" long. I sold the #1 and the M70 is a favorite. I admit it's a little too heavy but I like it as it feels so good to handle it.