Perhaps I should ask this over in Benchrest Central but I thought I might get a more even response over here.
Let's take, for instance, a remington action. We sleeve it for stiffness, true up the bolt to the action, install a after market 2oz trigger, install a goofy looking purple stock with orange blotches, and mount a precision barrel. What is the difference between this rifle and a rifle made specifically for benchrest? Is it mostly smoke and mirrors or are the specialty rifles really that much better?

There is no difference at all. Benchrest shooters are all stupid and the only reason they spend $900.00 to $1200.00 for a custom action is because it looks really neat on the equipment list. Hell you can even set world records with a Savage! Jim

In fact, if we do the work you describe, we will have created a rifle made specifically for benchrest. There are a bunch of sleeved Remingtons which shot, or are shooting, just as well as the custom actioned jobs. The custom actions just make it easier to accomplish.
There are a number of factors which have contributed to the performance of the BR rifles on the line today and certain features which are accepted as beneficial.
First; The barrel. I seriously doubt that any of today's barrels are any better than the best produced by Clyde Hart in the 1960s and '70s but there are more companies making them and consistency may be slightly improved ( I don't really think this is so).
Second; The action. The best custom actions made today are not that much different from what they were 20 years ago but they are a step up from the previous generation ( the Harts and Shilen DGAs. I think the Wichitas were a bit better than the other two). In addition there is a greater understanding of what has to be done to make an action perfect and a willingness among a greater number of 'smiths and action manufacturers to do so.
Third; The stock. The fiberglass stock made it's debut in the early 70s and has been mostly unchanged since about 1976. Various designs have been campaigned and the successful stock has certain features which are accepted as being best for the purpose. These include such things as the flat, 3 inch wide forend with parallel sides and square edges. A relatively level toeline on the butt. Also a relatively low center of gravity, the incorporation of a vibration dampening material, and engineered rigidity are definite positives.
Triggers; These haven't really changed significantly since the 1960's when the Remington or Hart 2 oz trigger came into common use. The Canjars, Shilens,Rifle basix< and even the Jewels all fall within similar design parameters.
Scopes; The advent of the shorter lighter scopes such as Lyman's LWBR 20x which could be mounted entirely on the receiver was a great leap forward. Scopes have been refined somewhat since then and powers have increased but the concept is the same. Optics are marginally better. My current Weaver 36's are significantly better than the Leupold 36 I used 22 years ago. Strangely, some companies are going the other way now and making scopes which are longer and heavier than their predecessors. An evolutionary wrong turn IMO.
One sees a few wood stocks in use and laminated stocks are becoming more common once again. That these rifle are absolutely competitive shows that some of the knowledge put to use in the "traditional" glass stocked purple and orange rifle can also be used to achieve similar performance from a slightly different direction.
I think the biggest change in BR in the last 25 years has been the emergence of many more gunsmiths who are capable and willing to take the pains to produce a top performing rifle. There was a time in Western Canada when I felt it was unlikely there would be more than a couple of rifles which would shoot as well as what I had. Now everybody has one! Guys like Jim Borden, Speedy Gonzalez, Mike Bryant, Clay Spencer and a host of others (one shouldn't overlook those amateur 'smiths like Pat Byrne, Jackie Schmidt and a bunch more who make their own rifles) make rifles so good that I can only try to achieve their level of excellence and doubt that it is possible to do better. Regards, Bill.

Bill If you are listing the reasons why todays BR guns shoot so much better then thay did twenty years ago, you left out what I think is the most important reason. That's the quality of bullets obtainable today over a few years ago. As far as barrels go, the quality of the manufacturing today may not be that much better, but the materials used to make them is a ton better. There was a thread on the BR forum not too long ago, that compared an original, unfired Pope barrel to a modern 416 stainless barrel. The workmanship was surprisingly similar, but the flaws in the steel that Pope had to work with was tremendous. It took a very few shots berore the contaminents in Popes barrel started leaving voids and pits in his steel. Bob

Mr. Eagle
You have to consider that this is coming out of the mouth of a man that is about to set a couple of world records with a Savage rifle. Be careful what you say to him, he may be world famous someday and you will want to be able to say that you are a friend of his.

Bob,
I don't really think the best bullets are necessarily better than the best of 25 years ago but the quantity and selection of bullets of that quality is certainly far beyond that of the late 70's. Keep in mind that the best shooters were beginning to agg in the 1's 25 years ago. that wasn't done with poor bullets. Bullet design has changed somewhat with better BCs for the weight being the result. Whether or not the intrinsic accuracy of the bullet is better is open to question. The importance of perfectly concentric jackets was well known 40 years ago and demonstrated by Sam Wilson who deliberately bored jackets to be eccentric by .001" and tested these. I don't know if Rorschach and Pindell suddenly started making better dies but I doubt it. Again, it is the sheer number of available competitive bullets that impresses me.
There is little doubt that barrel steel is better than that available in the late 1800's but it's doubtful it's much if any better than steel of 3 decades ago. In 1980 I saw a .19something agg shot with a pre-1960 Hart barrel.
I really think the greatest advance has been in the level of understanding of both the shooters and gunsmiths. Regards, Bill.

Lone Eagle and BBeyer- I didn't think it would be necessary to explain that my response was somewhat "tongue in cheek" but there I go assuming again. Of course the custom actions are worth the money. Thats the reason there are thousands of competitors that are willing to pony up the money to have these things built. That is not to say that a sleeved and blueprinted Remington is not competitive but why bother dumping all that money into a project when you don't have a chance of getting back but the smallest portion of your investment should you decide to change rifles or get out of the sport all together! If you spend your money on any one of the custom actions and then sell it you can recoup a goodly portion of your money. Try re-selling a sleeved Remington and see what you get back.

Lone Eagle if you don't like the opinions that are expressed here I would cordially invite you not to read them. And if you can't learn to read between the lines a little bit you certainly don't need to comment about them.

You can hit a golf ball with a hockey stick but your score might be better with a good set of clubs... Just an analogy...

The custom actions are made with good tolerances but some of the other ideas employed in their manufacture are strickly to make them more user friendly on the firing line. Most have a coned bolt hence the barrel face is also coned which allows better feeding when you are trying to load quickly to finish a group in the same condition you started in. A great many competitors use a left port action. Again, that came about to aid in quicker loading. To carry that idea even further some of the custom action makers have started making dual port actions. With them you load into the left port and the fired case is ejected out the right port. This is also to facilite speedy loading of the rifle. At times this is very important during a match. If a shootable condition will stay around for 15 seconds many seasoned BR shooters can get off 5 well aimed shots to finish their group. Doing so allows you to shoot in the same prevailing condition rather than having to shoot your group in winds from several directions and intensities. So, custom actions offer more than just a foundation for an accurate rifle. They give you a better chance to be competitive in the matches for which they were designed.

Pat

Remington vs custom action: two different methods of arriving at the same point. Beefing up existing actions was more important before the advent of actions with all of this stuff manufactured into them from the start.

All of these modifications have seemed to produce progress, as defined by a steady decline in group sizes that will win matches. Groups that would win matches in competition 30 years ago will not even be in the running these days.

Rome wasn't built in a day and neither were the battles of benchrest shooting decided in a single innovation. Benchresters have been steadily hacking away at every possible variable, one or more at a time, until the perfect group comes along.

Although it seems that benchrest shooting should encompass all dedicated science, personality flukes pop up now and then. A racy stock simply expresses what little there is left of individuality in a sport that finds a solution to a problem, adopts it, and moves on.

The specialty rifles are better, on average. Exceptions exist of course. It takes a lot of time and money to beef up a standard action and make it competitive. Modern benchrest actions cost about the same as building one up, so why not start there and go on?

I am a Savage fan. Best bang for the buck that I can see. I also have a BR rifle built by Gary Ocock on a special Farley action. There are worlds of difference between the two styles of actions. The Savage will give yeoman performance any day of the week and occasionally it will be spectacular. The Farley will give spectacular performance any time I ask that of it.

"Benchrest shooters are all stupid "

Priceless.....What mentality does it take to make a statement like that? It is obvious ignorance is prevailing here.

Will a full-blown modified Rem. shoot competively? Sure it will. Can you shoot a Rem. as fast as a dual-port custom? No way!

Before you critique Jim to hard, take a look at the comments on the "Benchrest records set with a Savage" by "(Dead above his)Redneck(for the last)64(years)" and how he insists that a stock Savage barrel is just as good, and maybe better than, a Hart.

Jim is being sarcastic in his above comments, after the hassel he got in that thread.

Some choice Redneck64 quotes from that thread.

"He could have accomplished the same rusult,with an out of the box Savage.Savage chambers and bores are tight and true."

"a Savage barrel is just as good as a Hart!And you will never change my mind about that.Granted some shooters cant hit the side of a barn,so this and that attachment is needed."

"You are a pompous man Jim White.And apparently Illiterate when it comes to the grate shooters of times past.Your pomposity also tells me you are Illiterate when it comes down to rifles."

"I have bin wrighting bin all my life."

"Oh Jim my boy,did I make your P***Y wet?Sorry about that."

WayneShaw,
I see you are a new member to the board. One of the things that most people do here is read an entire thread before making comment but I see you have decided to use the direct approach and "speak up and remove all doubt" on your first few posts. Jim

To the contrary Mr. White. I read all there was when I posted, but replied to the particular post from which I cut and pasted the quote. I may be new to this forum, but not new to the benchrest sport.

Please remember that wayneshaw has been advocating breaking in barrels with the bore lightly oil coated.

Hey Rufus,
This is somewhat off topic but what is the pheasant population looking like in your neck of the woods for this fall? Jim

I've been interested in BR shooting for a while. What I have been able to discern is this: BR is about shooting the smallest groups. Fine quality components and ammo are a part of the game, but do not guarantee any results. What I see continually being ingnored is the skill of the shooter.
It's the size of the hole, not the gun.
Loner

For the benchrest crowd to call this place unfriendly is a very amusing case of the pot calling the kettle black....... JMO, Dutch.

Why do you think benchrest people call it unfriendly? I can only speak for myself, but I found this forum and decided to see how it was. I have posted a few times, stating my opinion. Perhaps my opinion doesn't set well with some, it's what I have learned from shooting benchrest for over ten years. Using the guns we do, lends itself to a very different realm of shooting and reloading. Reloading manuals don't mean much with these guns, and for good reason. But the common link here is rifles, whether hunting or target, rifles are what we share.

The greatest improvement to the BR sport in the last 25 years is the three "B"s. Bullets have gotten substantialy better. I have a few boxes of "BR" bulets that were given to me from an old participant in the sport that are at least 25 years old. They are not weight consistant and the ojive actually varies a slight bit. Even modern hunting bullets (Nosler, Hornady, etc) measure better on my equipment. But these old bullets I have were used by a fellow that won BR matches with them in the past.
Barrels have made the greatest gains IMO. Just the types of steels and the purity of the composition have improved dramatically. The methods for measuring the twist and the uniformity of the bore have improved dramatically.
And lastly, the bedding, or the type of stock in general, has improved. And what we know about the relationship of stock to action has made quantum leaps.
The "record" groups that were shot thirty years ago bears this out. If the Bullets, barrels and bedding were as good as we have today, the scores would have shown it.