I don't know if this is the section to post this question, but here goes. I read in a forum, maybe this one--can't remember, that the Caldwell Lead Sled was hard on rifles and that some gunsmiths didn't recommend them. Has anyone read/heard this? Is there any documented cases of it damaging a rifle? If this is the case, what damage do they cause. My son-in-law has one and I've used it--it sure does make sighting in easier; however, they probably wouldn't be good for your shooting skills if you used it all the time.

I have used the Lead Sled with everything from a .22 WMR to .416 and a 12 Gauge with Slugs. If used with the proper padding and following instructions I don't see how it would damage a rifle. Having said that, I am sure there is someway, somehow, somebody could do it. Remember, foolproof means there will be a fool to prove it!

Yes, it is a lot harder on rifles. If you are shooting a wood stocked, or even worse a laminated stocked rifle, there will eventually be failure. When the rifle is not allowed to move rearward, the full force of the recoil is absorbed by the stock. It has a cumulative effect. It may split in the first box of ammo, or maybe on the 2000th round. Depends on how good the piece of wood is and how good the bedding is. Laminates are bad about delaminating anyway, and the sled GREATLY increases the accordian effect, thereby putting a lot of stress on each glue joint

with all respect to Marc, I diagree, but it probably in the amount of weight. It is no more harder on a rifle, if used poorly, than locking it into sandbags..

properly ----- don't try to STOP all recoil, don't add more than 25# .. the thing is meant to slow down recoil, not stop it..

i've broken several stocks on the bench, when put the toe actually on on the bench and locked in with a bag .. yeah, just like the bag benchrest style we all use for our normal rifles...

I have NOT broken any, touch wood, on a leadsled

Even using sandbags adds tremendous stress to the rifle stock. I can remember back when I was still in jr. high reading an Aagard article where he broke a wood stock with sandbags.

If you draw a free body diagram of the set up, then you will see that any time you add the resitant mass-bags, sled, big rock, whatever-there is more force transferred to the rifle. When shooting a large enough rifle with a wood or laminated stock, ther ewill eventually be failure. The only question is "when." If the recoil is low enough and the stock is strong enough, there will not be a problem. Most folks use the sled on on rifles that "kick," and these will batter the stock.

It is harder on scopes, too.

You're right; its been on the forum several times. Like a lot of things here, it has become an ideological issue.

Dall85 gave the objective answer, with a good follow up by Jeff. I've been using one for several years now, shooting the gammut from 22 lr to 550 Magnum. I only use it for load development or preliminary sighting-in because your POI changes when you shoot from field positions.

Including friends and loaners, that is about 200 rifles, mostly big bores. Absolutely no doubles. I don't think there is a purpose served when shooting doubles. But 95% of the rifles that were shot across it were wood stocked guns and no issues at all except the rear adjustment screw sheared off from recoil. It should be a higher grade bolt.

Hey Red, I gotta agree with Mark about the Lead Sleds. And I've also found the Lead Sled users seem to lack a sense of Humor as well as being mostly unable to answer rational questions concerning their use.

But, you might get a few grins from Bubba & Bubbetta Sue - The Lead Sled Experts.

"More Power to you!" - Briscoe Darling

I agree with Dall85 on this issue.
I use my lead sled a lot but I don't put any weight in the pan.
The sled is free to move whenever the gun is fired.

I think that there will be those that will actually fasten a lead sled down so that it can't be moved. This will surely lead to broken gun stocks, etc.

Hot Core
The Bubba & Bubbeta Sue - Led Sled Experts was great!

If I use my son-in-laws again I'm not going to weight it down--just use it without weights.

I personally use sand bags for shooting at the bench and my shoulder is the only back stop.

Thanks for all the good input.

Perhaps a good follow-up question would be:
Has anyone here broken a stock or scope because of use of a lead sled?

They lessen recoil with the use of a 25# bag,
but they don't stop it. Either way, your shoulder
stops the backward movement of the rifle.

Are we to believe that one's shoulder stopping
the backward movement of the rifle is hard on
either the stock or scope? That's what some of
you are saying about the lead sled just slowing
down the recoil. If it were bolted down, you
would have a good point, because the sled would
then not "give", yet with 25# of weight, it most
certainly does "give", and your shoulder stops
the rearward movement.

i'm glad this topic came upi'm planning on buying sled this spring to primarly use will be load devolepment thanx for the info

Was at the range this weekend when a guy had a leadsled setup with 100# of lead shot. He was shooting a nice looking 375 RUM with some buddies. One buddy kept telling him it was a bad idea, the gun owner was like "if it was bad for the gun they wouldnt advertice that it can hold 100 lbs." On the third shot the stock broke at the tang. He was POed saying he was going to sue caldwell, buddy was just like told ya so.

quote:

Originally posted by skog:
Was at the range this weekend when a guy had a leadsled setup with 100# of lead shot. He was shooting a nice looking 375 RUM with some buddies. One buddy kept telling him it was a bad idea, the gun owner was like "if it was bad for the gun they wouldnt advertice that it can hold 100 lbs." On the third shot the stock broke at the tang. He was POed saying he was going to sue caldwell, buddy was just like told ya so.

Not long ago, I saw a .470 that a guy had tried to do load development for shooting it in a Lead Sled with 50 lbs of weight in it. The recoil pad was peeled almost off it. The entire pad was pushed way off center, the mounting plate was broken, and the screws shoved sideways in their holes. Pure luck that the stock didn't break.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Proper use of a leadsled

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
----- don't try to STOP all recoil, don't add more than 25# .. the thing is meant to slow down recoil, not stop it..

improper use

quote:

Originally posted by skog:
...leadsled setup with 100# of lead shot. .

Marc
You are 100% correct, any attempt at STOPPING the rifle will inflict greater damage..

Harder on scopes? could be, but I haven't seen it, but could be

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
i've broken several stocks on the bench, when put the toe actually on on the bench and locked in with a bag .. yeah, just like the bag benchrest style we all use for our normal rifles...

Why would you want to do something with a predictable negative result? I can't remember ever seeing anyone doing it that way.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by Red C.:
...If I use my son-in-laws again I'm not going to weight it down--just use it without weights.

Hey Red, I've seen all kinds of Rube Goldberg devices at the Range to abate the recoil. Some worked fairly well and were home-made contraptions.

But, the big thing they(the guys I saw) miss out on is familiarization with the actual rifle. They each seemed very reluctant to ever fire the rifle by itself. Occasionally one of them would, and if you watched their eyes, it simply appeared that they were afraid of the recoil. So, I'm at a loss at how someone can accustom themselves to the actual Power without shooting them enough to become comfortable with the Firing Sequence so they could actually be accurate with the rifle.

quote:

I personally use sand bags for shooting at the bench and my shoulder is the only back stop.

Me too while getting a Load Developed. Then I prefer cumulative 1-shot groups from various Hunting positions. It takes a lot of time, but it is my time to use as I see fit. So that is what I do.

"More Power to you!" - Briscoe Darling

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
i've broken several stocks on the bench, when put the toe actually on on the bench and locked in with a bag .. yeah, just like the bag benchrest style we all use for our normal rifles...

Why would you want to do something with a predictable negative result? I can't remember ever seeing anyone doing it that way.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

its a bolt action thing, mark... one places a sandbag under the toe and allows the rrifle to mostly free recoil ... with a front rest...

you haven't seen anyone shoot that way? man, you need to get out more

Has anbody tried out the MTM shoulder guard rest yet? Looks to me like it solves the need a little give issue. I was thinking about buying one and trying it out.

heres a link to a pic

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
i've broken several stocks on the bench, when put the toe actually on on the bench and locked in with a bag .. yeah, just like the bag benchrest style we all use for our normal rifles...

Why would you want to do something with a predictable negative result? I can't remember ever seeing anyone doing it that way.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

its a bolt action thing, mark... one places a sandbag under the toe and allows the rrifle to mostly free recoil ... with a front rest...

you haven't seen anyone shoot that way? man, you need to get out more

That isn't what you said. You said:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
i've broken several stocks on the bench, when put the toe ACTUALLY ON THE BENCH and locked in with a bag..

You said you put the toe "actually on the bench", not on a bag. No wonder you made no sense. You didn't write what you meant.
----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

It is harder on scopes, too.

The lead sled is reducing the intensity and velocity of the recoil, how could it be hard on a scope?

quote:

Originally posted by Craftsman:

quote:

It is harder on scopes, too.

The lead sled is reducing the intensity and velocity of the recoil, how could it be hard on a scope?

Because recoil is a function of several things, including time and distance. THe lead sled reduces the distance a rifle (and scope) will recoil and reduces the time required for the rifle (and scope) to stop moving. The rate of energy transfer jumps up.

If you do not believe me, run this little test for yourself. Stand up and shoot an '06 or larger rifle off hand. Then lean flat and hard against a brick wall, making sure the back of your shoulder has good contact with the wall. Then shoulder the rifle and shoot it again. Please post the reults from your field test in this thread.

Hi MArc,

this test sounds great... why not taking something larger than .06 ??? :-)

But I ´will not do this test!

I am hoping for some other guy´s results...

quote:

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:

quote:

Originally posted by Craftsman:

quote:

It is harder on scopes, too.

The lead sled is reducing the intensity and velocity of the recoil, how could it be hard on a scope?

Because recoil is a function of several things, including time and distance. THe lead sled reduces the distance a rifle (and scope) will recoil and reduces the time required for the rifle (and scope) to stop moving. The rate of energy transfer jumps up.

If you do not believe me, run this little test for yourself. Stand up and shoot an '06 or larger rifle off hand. Then lean flat and hard against a brick wall, making sure the back of your shoulder has good contact with the wall. Then shoulder the rifle and shoot it again. Please post the reults from your field test in this thread.

That sounded like a politian explaning why taxes are a good thing, Marc. It's the inital rate of movement or inertia in question and the lead sled reduces it dramatically. There is no "increased rate of energy transfer".

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:

That sounded like a politian explaning why taxes are a good thing, Marc. It's the inital rate of movement or inertia in question and the lead sled reduces it dramatically. There is no "increased rate of energy transfer".

Please show me your calculations and diagrams. Failing that, please show me data from tests run to ASTM standards.

But come on, didn't you think my '06 "test" protcol was at least a little funny?

And BTW, I just thought of how you can put your "money with your mouth is," so to speak. YOU shoot the rifle with your shoulder firmly against the brick wall. If the recoil on the system is NOT a function of the forces invovled in moving your shoulder back, then you have nothing to fear. You say the movement of the system is not a factor, so YOU show us how you shoot like that. Please have someone video tape you destrying shpulder and post it on youtube. If you are unwilling to do it, please tell us why.

And no, I am not really saying I want you, or anyone else, to shoot a rifle like that. But i do want you to think about what will happen when your shoulder does not move vs. when it moves over time and distance during free recoil. As a non-harmful test, shoot off hand vs. locked down as tight as possible on the bench. It will hammer oyu a hell of a lot harder. Try shooting the stoutes 12ga. load off a bench. Man, thoise are brutal!!!

Anyway, even back in the early '80's when I started reading magazines the writers knew that the whol e"equal and opposite reaction" thing was real and not theory. I have read scores of times how lighter people seem to be hammered less by big bores than heavier people. They have always talked about less resistance lets the skinny people bend and flex more, as opposed to a larger mass.

OK, just thought of the PERFECT example of this in action. Shoot a large gun or rifle with a steel buttplate and a gun that exactly the same except for having a 1.5" Limbsaver recoil pad. Go back and forth between the two. Even close your eyes and tell us if you can feel a difference. The pad changes the rate of the energy dump of the system. I am sorry if this gores someone's ox, it is just the laws we all live under in this universe.

Yes. This idea has received quite a bit of coverage. The use of an unweilding object to prevent the recoil motion of a firearm can certainly damage it. For example I would NOT recomment placing the buttplate of any heavy-recoiling arm up against the trunk of an oak tree, then firing the gun. The stock would be ruined. The energy generated by accelerating the projectile and the propellant gases has to go somewhere, and if the firearm is forced to absorb all of it, something's got to give. Newton's Third Law of Motion has NOT been repealed!!

To use a Lead-Sled or other similar restraining device is OK, but the rig has to be permitted to move to the rear to some degree until the recoil energy has been dissipated. It does work, but I have seen situations where the point of impact was quite different when shooting off a Lead-Sled vs using a plain rifle rest. This has to be due to a difference in the way recoil was handled. In addition, I believe one could use sufficient weight on one to cause damage to the firearm. Maybe not, though, as the space allowed for the shot bags is somewhat limited.

I used to shoot all the rifles for Dakota '92 thru '97. Sometimes 4 to 5 different big bores everyday, Rigbys, 450s whatever came down the line that needed a file in. Customer service targets, whatever. I did a lot of bench shooting, got the shit beat out me too buy some of the rifles. I tryed one unit called the zero coil, what a joke. The zero coil would clamp to a bench and you place the rifle in it then you get in behind it, hold on an give the lanyard a jerk. 5 shots from a .510 wells permanently compressed its coil springs and cracked some of it's cast iron reduceing in to zero coil for good.
I remember some other sled similar to the lead sled we had a #10 375 H$H at 6 pounds, that rifle was very snappy Its' recoil was brutal. I tryed the sled, It basically beat the crap out of the rifle and the sled, nothing but a huge waste of time and ammo not to mention James had to fix the stock, which he wasn't all that pleased about. After that I went to a Past Magnum pad and a uncle buds bulls bag. Take the bulls bag, open it up and bed the forend of the rifle into it, then spread the bottom two halfs of the bulls bag, this compresses the upper two halfs into and around the forend and really gets ahold of the forend, it's good to have a couple 12 inch sqaure by 1.5 thick slate rocks to set on the bench and then the bag and rifle on that, then a rabbit ear bag along with the Past magunm pad. With that setup I was good for a couple 450's every morning. I didn't get hurt the gun din't get hurt. The rifle can slide thru the bag with just enough resistance so it takes the majority of the bite out of it whatever is left the Past pad will soak up. I went to doing it this way and never gave any of the sleds another thought. Shooting a rifle off a sled is not shooting, Because you have no sight picture at the point of ignition, no follow thru.
You really need the rifle against your own shoulder then you get to know it and can use it effectively.
Timan

quote:

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:

That sounded like a politian explaning why taxes are a good thing, Marc. It's the inital rate of movement or inertia in question and the lead sled reduces it dramatically. There is no "increased rate of energy transfer".

Please show me your calculations and diagrams. Failing that, please show me data from tests run to ASTM standards.

But come on, didn't you think my '06 "test" protcol was at least a little funny?

And BTW, I just thought of how you can put your "money with your mouth is," so to speak. YOU shoot the rifle with your shoulder firmly against the brick wall. If the recoil on the system is NOT a function of the forces invovled in moving your shoulder back, then you have nothing to fear. You say the movement of the system is not a factor, so YOU show us how you shoot like that. Please have someone video tape you destrying shpulder and post it on youtube. If you are unwilling to do it, please tell us why.

And no, I am not really saying I want you, or anyone else, to shoot a rifle like that. But i do want you to think about what will happen when your shoulder does not move vs. when it moves over time and distance during free recoil. As a non-harmful test, shoot off hand vs. locked down as tight as possible on the bench. It will hammer oyu a hell of a lot harder. Try shooting the stoutes 12ga. load off a bench. Man, thoise are brutal!!!

Anyway, even back in the early '80's when I started reading magazines the writers knew that the whol e"equal and opposite reaction" thing was real and not theory. I have read scores of times how lighter people seem to be hammered less by big bores than heavier people. They have always talked about less resistance lets the skinny people bend and flex more, as opposed to a larger mass.

OK, just thought of the PERFECT example of this in action. Shoot a large gun or rifle with a steel buttplate and a gun that exactly the same except for having a 1.5" Limbsaver recoil pad. Go back and forth between the two. Even close your eyes and tell us if you can feel a difference. The pad changes the rate of the energy dump of the system. I am sorry if this gores someone's ox, it is just the laws we all live under in this universe.

OK, give me another chance to understand your point. The question I thought you answered was that a lead sled rest increases forces on a scope and its mounting system.

I damn well know about the wall and the rifle because I once threw a 3" 12 ga out the window of a truck and let'er rip at a coyote with my shoulder against the rear door pillar. It would have made a very funny video for everyone but me.

I still can't put the pieces together to demonstrate that it causes increased stress on a scope.

Harry, Marc
with your shoulder between stock and tree, ou are trying to measure what the shoulder gets, in that it can't move.. the stock still gets the benefit of the shoulder being a "pad" ...

yeah, it hurts, but its not measuring scope...

the scope takes damage from ACCELERATION, not decel.

When the force is spread over distance and time, it is easier on the rifle and scope, just as it is on your shoulder. What your shoulder feels, the rifle feels. Spread out the recoil over distance and time, and it is less stressful to all involved. THe exact same thing you feel on your shoulder is is happening to the rifle and scope. Everything is interconnected into a single system.

edited to add-

soemone came by after I wrote the reply, but before I posted it. When I posted it I saw your statement. I have already talked about this more than I wanted to. I am not going to get into an argument. If you don't believe me, that is fine with me. If you really want to argue, go talk to my professors in engineering school and engineering graduate school. They are all academics and love going around and around like this. Me, I have had enough for one day

quote:

Laminates are bad about delaminating anyway, and the sled GREATLY increases the accordian effect, thereby putting a lot of stress on each glue joint

You must be joking, a laminate is the toughest stock made.

Maybe this will help.

A hippie and his dog was hitch hiking when a trucker, who hates dogs, stop to offer the guy a ride. The trucker hands the hippie a rope and says that dogs are not allowed in the truck but with the long rope, he can run beside the truck. "Okay" said the hippie, and after tying his dog to the rope, they headed off.

Shifting the truck into 2nd gear the trucker asked the hippie how his dog was doing, "fine" he say's "he's runnig right here beside the truck". The trucker picks up speed and shifts into 3rd and asks the hippie how the dog is now? "Fine" he say's pointing, "he's right here".

The trucker, beginning to get a little annoyed shifts into 4th and say's "How's that dog now hippie?". "Fine" he says, "doin good". Upon hearing this the trucker sets the brakes bringing the truck to an abrupt halt. He looks at the hippie and asks, "hows that dog of yours doing now HIPPIE???. The hippie says "he's sitting right here beside the truck, resting". The trucker in disbelief jumps from the cab to have a look, and upon seeing the dog sitting beside the truck tells the hippie, "that's the most amazing dog I have ever seen". "But", he asks, "what's with the pink collar". The hippie say's "that ain't his collar, it's his asshole, he ain't used to stopping so quick."

It is sort of like that?

here here

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:
Maybe this will help.

A hippie and his dog was hitch hiking when a trucker, who hates dogs, stop to offer the guy a ride. The trucker hands the hippie a rope and says that dogs are not allowed in the truck but with the long rope, he can run beside the truck. "Okay" said the hippie, and after tying his dog to the rope, they headed off.

Shifting the truck into 2nd gear the trucker asked the hippie how his dog was doing, "fine" he say's "he's runnig right here beside the truck". The trucker picks up speed and shifts into 3rd and asks the hippie how the dog is now? "Fine" he say's pointing, "he's right here".

The trucker, beginning to get a little annoyed shifts into 4th and say's "How's that dog now hippie?". "Fine" he says, "doin good". Upon hearing this the trucker sets the brakes bringing the truck to an abrupt halt. He looks at the hippie and asks, "hows that dog of yours doing now HIPPIE???. The hippie says "he's sitting right here beside the truck, resting". The trucker in disbelief jumps from the cab to have a look, and upon seeing the dog sitting beside the truck tells the hippie, "that's the most amazing dog I have ever seen". "But", he asks, "what's with the pink collar". The hippie say's "that ain't his collar, it's his asshole, he ain't used to stopping so quick."

It is sort of like that?

Yup. It's the sudden stop that tears the hell out of things.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Here's an old post on the same subject: https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a<A HREF="http:///t...6585#882106585" TARGET=_blank>/t...6585#882106585</A>

I had written: "The destructive force on the scope is related to its acceleration. Since the scope is rigidly attached to the gun, their accelerations are the same.

By adding lead to the sled, you are effectively increasing the gun's mass, which will slow down its acceleration and, thus, the destructive force on the scope."

Imagine you were a fly [edit: who weighs as much as a scope] (with legs as spindly as scope mounting screws) sitting on a 458 Lott receiver... If the gun weighed 6 pounds and was shot by Gilligan, your legs (or the screws) would be stretched to breaking because of the acceleration.

On the other hand, if the gun weighed 6 pounds and was firmly mounted in a 50 pound lead sled, you would be rocked gently to sleep. You, your legs, and the scope could survive many, many of those!

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiggertate:

OK, give me another chance to understand your point. The question I thought you answered was that a lead sled rest increases forces on a scope and its mounting system.

#

Well not 100% right, but

the lead sled will definetly increase the stress on the stock dramaticaly, but it will DECREASE the stress of the scope and mounting system, because the stress for them comes from the acceleration, the gun´s recoil is giving. And if there is no way to move, there is no acceleration on the mass of the scope and mounting system, so no stress...

quote:

Originally posted by scubapro:

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiggertate:

OK, give me another chance to understand your point. The question I thought you answered was that a lead sled rest increases forces on a scope and its mounting system.

#

Well not 100% right, but

the lead sled will definetly increase the stress on the stock dramaticaly, but it will DECREASE the stress of the scope and mounting system, because the stress for them comes from the acceleration, the gun´s recoil is giving. And if there is no way to move, there is no acceleration on the mass of the scope and mounting system, so no stress...

Bingo! That was the point I was trying to make, even if poorly.

1. Anything that causes resistance to movement of the stock under recoil will increase the stress on the stock. If you place the butt of the stock against a hard surface (example: shooting straight up with the gun butt on resting on a concrete driveway) the stock will be very quickly damaged, even if the recoil is relativly low. I once observed this with a .223.

2. The resistance of your shoulder places some strain on the stock, and we've all seen stocks fail even in normal use. They shouldn't, but they do. The added resistance of a recoil dampening device like the Lead Sled will increase the strain on the stock and a stock that MIGHT not show damage from free recoil could be damaged with the small added resistance. Again, a properly bedded stock should NOT be damaged by the added resistance of an unloaded lead sled Each increase in the recoil resistance (weight on the sled) increases the chance of stock failure. I would not recommend ANY significant weight be added -- perhaps a few pounds with a sandbag would be fine. The weight of the sled alone will attenuate quite a bit of recoil, so why risk tying it down with a bunch of (very expensive) lead? I have used a much simpler home made recoil attenuation device for many years. Its ten pounds or so of added inertia makes the recoil of a very light .375 H&H (largest gun I have) irrelavant, so why would anyone need more weight?

3. Anything that attenuates recoil does also attenuates the accelaration (and thus decellaration) of the attached scope. I think that some are overlooking the fact that there is no quicker decellaration with the lead sled -- just the opposite, there is never as much acceleration to begin with. It's not like you fire the gun, the scope is accelarated, and then the butt hits a tree and jars everything to a sudden stop. With the Lead Sled (or any similar device) the gun never accelarates as much to begin with because that force is absorbed in the weight of the device. Using a lead sled may be "harder" on stocks, but it is certainly "easier" on scopes. Don't be confused by the scope-mangling reputation of spring-powered air guns -- it is the counter-accelaration unique to the recoil of the spring system that eats up those scopes.