Controlling initial retardation....skill or luck?

B

Bill Calfee

Gun Fool
Controlling initial retardation....skill or luck?


CYA accuracy fool friends:


Is controlling initial retardation skill or luck?


It's both...........


There's one thing for positive, if you can't control the initial retardation, either by skill or luck, you aren't going to produce numbers big enough to win Big National Championships...

You may have the finest ammo and contraption, but without controlling initial retardation you aren't going to win......


So what is meant by "skill or luck"?


This is going to take awhile......


More later.....

Your LBK and pistol fool friend, Bill Calfee
 
Last edited:
Bill Calfee said:
Controlling initial retardation....skill or luck?


CYA accuracy fool friends:


Is controlling initial retardation skill or luck?


It's both...........


There's one thing for positive, if you can't control the initial retardation, either by skill or luck, you aren't going to produce numbers big enough to win Big National Championships...

You may have the finest ammo and contraption, but without controlling initial retardation you aren't going to win......


So what is meant by "skill or luck"?


This is going to take awhile......


More later.....

Your LBK and pistol fool friend, Bill Calfee
Click to expand...
I am very much looking forward to this discussion. And I say this without a hint of sarcasm. I am seriously interested in this topic and I will appreciate, immensely, the time spent on it. Thanks for starting this.
 
MikeMcAllister said:
I am very much looking forward to this discussion. And I say this without a hint of sarcasm. I am seriously interested in this topic and I will appreciate, immensely, the time spent on it. Thanks for starting this.
Click to expand...


Friend MM:

You're welcome....

MM, controlling initial retardation is one of the most important subjects in producing accuracy, but one that is little discussed...

Keep something in mind here......to be able to hit a target 50 yards/meters away, that is about the same height above the ground as the bench, the muzzle of a RFBR gun is actually pointed upward a few degrees.......

Therefore, when the rifle recoils the bore/muzzle is not moving straight rearward.......and does this ever complicate controlling initial retardation...

And that isn't the half of it.....actually that isn't a tenth of it.......the compounding factors surrounding controlling initial retardation are mind boggling..

I need to say this again.......one can have the absolute best ammo and contraption, but, if you can't control the initial retardation you will not produce the big numbers required to win Big National Events.

Your BK and pistol fool friend, Bill Calfee
 
Bill Calfee said:
Friend MM:

You're welcome....

MM, controlling initial retardation is one of the most important subjects in producing accuracy, but one that is little discussed...

Keep something in mind here......to be able to hit a target 50 yards/meters away, that is about the same height above the ground as the bench, the muzzle of a RFBR gun is actually pointed upward a few degrees.......

Therefore, when the rifle recoils the bore/muzzle is not moving straight rearward.......and does this ever complicate controlling initial retardation...

And that isn't the half of it.....actually that isn't a tenth of it.......the compounding factors surrounding controlling initial retardation are mind boggling..

I need to say this again.......one can have the absolute best ammo and contraption, but, if you can't control the initial retardation you will not produce the big numbers required to win Big National Events.

Your BK and pistol fool friend, Bill Calfee
Click to expand...
Black Death and other angled-stock rifles aside; it seems to me the 'best way' is to have a perfectly straight-lined stock that recoils perfectly straight back. Anything else is a compromise...and I would think the other way to do it would be to have the rifle locked down tight; or have a bungee snug enough the rifle does not recoil back. Any ammo lot testing should be done with the rifle initial retardation the same as it will be during a match.
I guess what I am indirectly saying is I think allowing an angled stock rifle to recoil is only asking for trouble; due to the amount of vertical movement not being consistent shot to shot.
 
MikeMcAllister said:
Black Death and other angled-stock rifles aside; it seems to me the 'best way' is to have a perfectly straight-lined stock that recoils perfectly straight back. Anything else is a compromise...and I would think the other way to do it would be to have the rifle locked down tight; or have a bungee snug enough the rifle does not recoil back. Any ammo lot testing should be done with the rifle initial retardation the same as it will be during a match.
I guess what I am indirectly saying is I think allowing an angled stock rifle to recoil is only asking for trouble; due to the amount of vertical movement not being consistent shot to shot.
Click to expand...


Straight line stocks are perfect when your barrel is perfectly horizontal, when shooting.

How often do you think that is ??
 
This may be of interest........
22hv_table (1).gif
 
Trazor said:
Straight line stocks are perfect when your barrel is perfectly horizontal, when shooting.

How often do you think that is ??
Click to expand...
Is it possible for a machinist gunsmith to machine surfaces on the forearm and stock sliding surfaces to be parallel to the barrel in both horizontal and vertical dimensions? Then the third dimension (when the rifle recoils backward) would not be moving vertically or horizontally in relation to the bullet traveling down the barrel.
I can imagine mounting the rifle in a milling machine, upside down; dial indicating the barrel true to the travel of the milling machine table, in both dimensions; and then machining both the forearm 'pads' and rear slider without moving the barrel. As long as the bore of the barrel would be true with the outside of the barrel this would maybe provide and accurate way for the rifle to recoil. And of course this might be overkill, considering other variables, like ammo and wind, but it still might make a difference and improve accuracy. Maybe. And of course this is just an opinion of mine; not at all proven by me by actually doing it.
 
MikeMcAllister said:
Is it possible for a machinist gunsmith to machine surfaces on the forearm and stock sliding surfaces to be parallel to the barrel in both horizontal and vertical dimensions? Then the third dimension (when the rifle recoils backward) would not be moving vertically or horizontally in relation to the bullet traveling down the barrel.
I can imagine mounting the rifle in a milling machine, upside down; dial indicating the barrel true to the travel of the milling machine table, in both dimensions; and then machining both the forearm 'pads' and rear slider without moving the barrel. As long as the bore of the barrel would be true with the outside of the barrel this would maybe provide and accurate way for the rifle to recoil. And of course this might be overkill, considering other variables, like ammo and wind, but it still might make a difference and improve accuracy. Maybe. And of course this is just an opinion of mine; not at all proven by me by actually doing it.
Click to expand...

I think my post wasn't clear enough.

Yes, you can easily machine everything to be parallel and horizontal, but when shooting (as Bill Has said), you will then raise the barrel at a slight angle, to zero it.
When the rifle then recoils, it will come back at a slight angle, rather than perfectly horizontal.
 
Trazor said:
I think my post wasn't clear enough.

Yes, you can easily machine everything to be parallel and horizontal, but when shooting (as Bill Has said), you will then raise the barrel at a slight angle, to zero it.
When the rifle then recoils, it will come back at a slight angle, rather than perfectly horizontal.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I understand now. Good feedback.
 
Trazor said:
I think my post wasn't clear enough.

Yes, you can easily machine everything to be parallel and horizontal, but when shooting (as Bill Has said), you will then raise the barrel at a slight angle, to zero it.
When the rifle then recoils, it will come back at a slight angle, rather than perfectly horizontal.
Click to expand...

Friend Trazor:

Yes, you're right.....this is one of the complications of controlling initial retardation......along with a dozen others...


Here's what I did when I installed the front bumpers on Death......

If you notice, the bottom of the bumpers are not parallel to the bore/muzzle of the barrel..

DSC05055 - Copy (7) - Copy - Copy - Copy - Copy - Copy.JPG



Here's the reason I installed them this way:

If I had installed the bumpers so the bottoms were parallel to the center line of the bore, then under recoil 100% of the fall off would be taken up by the bottom of the angle butt stock...

Now under recoil the front bumpers "share the load" of the fall off......so the fall off is not as sudden, making the initial retardation easier for the bungee to control...

And it seems to have worked.....two ARA Indoor Nationals Championships plus holding the ARA Indoor Nationals Record for over 3 years.....plus several other major event wins...


Your LBK and pistol fool friend, Bill Calfee
 
@Trazor
The table you show, unfortunately has not much to do with benchrest, as we shoot subsonic ammo. The one on the table is supersonic. Ballistics differ a lot.
Also, even if you angle the barrel to reach a target on a parallel stock (straight-line), both stock planes remain parallel. Indeed, life is not easy for us benchrest shooters, but an angle stock only make things more complex.
 
Does the 'luck' portion of this thread just mean a person needs to experiment with initial retardation to find what a particular rifle likes? Does best initial retardation vary between rifles just like rifles vary in the ammunition they like? Or is there actually a 'best way' to handle initial retardation?

Also, I have another question about the actual need for initial retardation.

First, assume we mount a good top-tier rifle in a one-piece rest, and then look through the scope and aim at the center of a bullseye, using the proper elevation of the rifle to allow a fired bullet to hit where the scope is aimed; meaning the rifle is zeroed properly for 50 yards. Per the previous discussion, the rifle is aiming 'up' a few degrees to allow for bullet drop. Next, if we slide the rifle back and forth in the rest, without using a bungee, and if the cross-hair of the scope does not move on the target, then why would we need any initial retardation other than the friction of the front rest and the weight of the rifle? It should be fairly easy to test this.

Using an angled butt stock this would never work, but I would think a properly straight-lined stock would allow this to happen. And even when the rifle is tipped up to properly aim for 50 yards, if the scope reticle does not move on the target; problems solved...maybe??

Perhaps it is not that easy to achieve, due to the angles involved. Maybe there is a way to calculate the required stock adjustments to achieve this? And there is always trial and error.
 
Last edited:
PedroS said:
@Trazor
The table you show, unfortunately has not much to do with benchrest, as we shoot subsonic ammo. The one on the table is supersonic. Ballistics differ a lot.
Also, even if you angle the barrel to reach a target on a parallel stock (straight-line), both stock planes remain parallel. Indeed, life is not easy for us benchrest shooters, but an angle stock only make things more complex.
Click to expand...

Yes, unfortunately it was the only table I could find which shows bullet drops from a horizontal barrel.

At 50 yards it's almost 3", so even more for subsonic.

I wonder what angle the barrel would be when shooting 200 yards or further......:confused:
 
Is it skill or luck?

Controlling initial retardation, is it skill or luck?

Bottom line:

You either make it happen with skill, or, you roll the dice and hope you get lucky.

Your LBK and pistol fool friend, Bill Calfee
 
Todd Earhart said:
I think with us for a while it was just luck. After a lot of testing I would now call it calculated.
Todd
Click to expand...

Friend Todd Earhart:

Yes, you and Tad make your own luck, as the old saying goes....

For about 95% of RFBR though, controlling initial retardation is simply luck...

Your LBK and pistol fool friend, Bill Calfee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom