TRUE RIFLE BALANCE

RIFLE BALANCE

I think people have lost track of what "good balance" in a rifle means. You don't even hear the term much anymore. Now and then a seasoned shooter will come into the shop and ask to see a certain rifle. They'll hold it for a moment, and then roll it to the left and right. If they like what they felt and saw so far, it will be drawn to the shoulder. It's then that we might hear the words, "Nice balance".

Up until 1964, there used to be a fair number of rifles that felt good in the hands. Almost everything available had a wood stock, which kept a sporting rifle from feeling muzzle heavy. And most stocks fit most shooters pretty well. Balance was not a mathematical thing determined by equality in weight from a given fulcrum point, although fore-and aft weight distributed equally from the area roughly near the forward portion of the action certainly contributes to a good in-the-hands feeling.

Another factor that helps to provide a good feel in the hands is the size of the "wrist", the point at which the the trigger hand wraps around the stock. A few manufacturers get this right, but some must think that the typical hand span is at least ten inches. It isn't; few are. You should not have to be able to grip a basketball topside to be comfortable with the wrist of a rifle. When manufacturers are asked why they're so chubby on many wood stocks, and plenty of synthetics, the answer has consistently been, "For adequate strength". Okay, that sounds like a reasonable motive, but how about engineering a different method of adding strength? In some custom stocks I've made in years past, I carefully drilled a blind hole from the rear of the action inletting down through the wrist, and epoxied a brass or stainless steel piece of threaded stock into the hole. I don't make stocks anymore, but I still resort to reinforcing factory or custom stocks in the same manner. There has never been a problem with any of the stocks reinforced this way, even though two customers have reported nasty falls where the stock took a heck of a blow and should have broken. This method has been used on rifles up to 458 Lott, and damage from recoil has also never been a problem.

I mentioned 1964 earlier. That's the point in time when proper rifle configuration and balance obviously took a back seat to manufacturing convenience. Up until that time, most any rifle manufactured since the days of the Trap-Door Springfield has had better balance and fit the shooter more effectively than the ridiculous M16 Rifle and all of the other equally ugly, cheap-to-build, and ill-fitting copycat junk that has been heaped on the military and therefore sought after by a non-discriminating and uninformed public. Whew! I said it and I'm glad. Maybe it's not a widespread problem. I might be the only one that thinks military or law enforcement personnel holding the toe of the stock of those crummy rifles up nearly to their collarbone looks stupid. Kind of like the the back side of someone bending over, not realizing his t-shirt is way too short. Thing is, I don't think it's funny. Not one bit. How many lives have been lost in combat because those men were sent into battle with a rifle that does not fit anyone correctly? For those readers who wish to take issue with me, I was on active duty when the first M16s were put into our hands and the M14s were retired. To a man, in the entire battalion, the reaction was, "What a piece of crap!", or something similar. Trips to the range reinforced the general level of disappointment. In my view, the improvements that have been made since that time elevate the rifle up to the status of only a little less lousy. I'll bet this... I'll bet that not one single individual working at the Pentagon for the past 50 years has made mention of how poorly balanced and ill-fitting these rifles are, every version of them, and has asked that the problem be corrected. You have to be bright enough and ethical enough to see a problem and care about it before you become inspired enough to correct it. You know how the Pentagon is; nothing wrong with inaccurate rifles that jam, or Agent Orange, or anything else they come up with. Money and politics come first. Incidentally, my very negative opinion of today's unsatisfactory military rifle, as well as the civilian versions, includes decades of both political parties being in office. We just seem to keep hiring Commanders In Chief who really can't even command the development of a decent personal weapon for combat. Incomplete Presidents who simply can't handle the job.

Back in the days before rifle scopes were the rule, stocks had more "drop" at the comb (top line of stock) than they do now. That was so the shooter could get his eye in line with iron sights; in essence, a rear sight mounted on the barrel, and a front sight. For more precise shooting, the rear sight was sometimes an adjustable peep sight mounted at or near the rear of the action. The down-slope of the stock resulted in greater muzzle rise upon firing, along with the impression of greater felt recoil. Over the years, especially as scopes have become commonplace, the profile of gun stocks has become straighter. Sometimes the entire top line of the stock has become almost parallel with and only slightly lower than the bore, while at other times a Monte Carlo-type raised portion is built into the upper line of the stock to assist in elevating the shooters head to line his eyes up better with the scope. Either method works well for the purpose intended. The straight upper line lends itself to being a more traditional or "classic" look, while the Monte Carlo is more of a fashion statement. Variations include a "roll-over" cheekpiece that provides a fancy but unnecessary flair that goes well past top dead center, precluding a left-handed shooter from using a right-hand stock, and vice-versa.

Among the best factory rifle stocks available today is the classic, comfortable, cheekpiece-less version that Ruger uses on the Hawkeye African. The wrist and forearm are just right for almost everybody, and most people handling these rifles in the shop makes favorable comments. Ruger changed the rifle a little for 2013 by adding a muzzle brake. This is okay for the 375 and 416 Ruger, as the butt is slim and the recoil pad minimal. The brake is easily removable when desired, and a thread protector and weight compensator is supplied. Especially the 416 Ruger, with its larger bore in the same outside-diameter-sized 23-inch barrel, is an example of excellent balance. It is also an example of excellent design, as the Hawkeye African is equipped with rugged iron sights as well as Ruger's tough, heavily constructed scope rings. Using either the sights or a scope, the stock feel close to ideal. Brownells sells a stubby gunsmith screwdriver handle and an almost endless variety of tips, including one for the attaching screws on Ruger rings. It's what I carry to quickly remove or re-install a scope on a Ruger in the field, which has been required at times.

Possibly the best balance of any factory bolt-action rifle in recent years was that of the laminated-stock Remington 700 Mountain Rifle. The Mountain Rifle has been switched over to a very nice synthetic stock now, and has lost several ounces of weight. While it no longer has that perfect feel, it's still very good. For those tired of carrying around a heavier-than-needed rifle in tough field conditions anywhere, a close look at this one is highly recommended. There are other good rifles available. The final decision as to what feels right rests with each individual. The sole purpose of this brief article is to encourage shooters to be consciously aware that rifle balance is an important factor that can contribute greatly to field accuracy and comfort. Don't be taken in by purchasing any rifle that is sub-standard in this regard, regardless of how many other people take a fall for the inferior.

JDC