So most of the little knowledge that I have about precision rifles comes from this and similar sites.
I understand that barrels need to be free floated so that they remain consistent in the way that they vibrate and such. That’s a pretty easy concept to grasp.
99% percent of the centerfire rifle shooting I do involves guns that were in vogue 70 yrs ago. In other words, milsurp rifles.
What I don’t understand is that some of them supposedly like to have some pressure/contact with the stock or stock bands near the front of the rifle. The Soviet Mosins, German Mausers, and English Enfields come to mind.
I dont understand why these seem to shoot better with contact whereas all of the relevant rifles today are 100% free floated.
Wouldn’t these old guns themselves perform better if they were completely free floated too?
the only thing that matters is that it’s consistent shot to shot. if something is touching the barrel, it needs to do so the same way all the time. if nothing is touching the barrel, well that just makes it easy.
many aren’t actually 100% free floated as many gunsmiths believe its best if you bed the first few inches of the barrel shank. others believe you shouldn’t bed anything past the action lug.
i couldn’t begin to speculate about how an old piece of wood behaves after 70 years of water, sweat, cosmoline and recoil.
Some modern guns have a point where the stock touches the barrel. They intentionally put a point up in front of stock. I think the new Sako A7 has a point that touches towards the front, and they are guaranteed 1 moa 5 shot group…
On average, most guns would do better free floated.
Barrel stiffness likely has something to do with it. I have a Rem model 7 lightweight hunting .308 that wouldn’t shoot better than 2 MOA. Wouldn’t shoot free-floated, either. I bedded in 3 lbs of pressure at the forend tip, and viola…groups were cut in half.