Author Topic: Arrested development?  (Read 10810 times)

Offline Bill Leeper

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Arrested development?
« on: December 25, 2009, 11:11:03 PM »
When I attend a BR match today, it is often surprising to me how little the sport and especially the rifle, has changed in the past thirty-odd years. This is not to say that the scores have not improved; especially at the top levels. The technology has changed very little however. The basic rifle has been refined to a certain extent but is still remarkably similar to the winning rifles of over thirty years ago.
What has changed is the availabilty of real quality rifle components. In 1977 you could get glass stocks from Chet Brown,  Lee Six, or Gale MacMillan. Today there are a half dozen others at least.
In 1977, barrels came from Hart or Shilen. The occasional maverick would shoot something else (Atkinson, Sherer, Pat MacMillan). Today, one can still win with a Hart or a Shilen but he can also use Krieger, Pac-Nor, Lilga, Rock, Bartlien, Gaillard, Lothar-Walther  and a bunch of others.
The plethora of actions, and quality actions at that, is another change. Not too often will you see anyone competing with a common 40X action today.
These changes though, are not changes in technology; they are just changes in the landscape. Many of the actions are just Remington clones made with a greater attention to precision alignment and dimensional uniformity. The barrels are made in essentially the same way as they always have been.
The changes in stocks have amounted to slight changes in conformation and the utilization of materials which were unavailable or, at least, uncommon. in the 1970's. Still, there has at least been a certain amount of experimentation in the field of stocks. The rest of the rifle, not so much.
Essentially, the actual design parameters of the rifle have changed little if any since the late seventies. A short, stiff barrel is chambered (for a 6mmPPC, of course) and threaded as precisely as possible and is mated to a single shot bolt action which is rigid, concentric, and true. The resultant unit is glued into a synthetic stock. The 2 ounce trigger, which works just like the two ounce triggers of 40 years ago, is installed and the high powered scope is affixed to the receiver. This was the formula in 1977 and it is the formula today. That techniques have been refined and are more universally employed is meaningless. The design parameters are the same.
The upshot of all this is that benchresters have become shockingly conservative. Look past the brightly painted exteriors and you will a rifle which is technologically moribund. The response, of course, is that there is little reason to experiment, things work pretty darn good as they are and this is the truth. Have we reached the pinnacle of rifle developement? I don't know but it almost seems like we have hit, if not a pinnacle, at least a plateau.
Please understand, I'm not saying this is good or bad; I'm just saying it is so. Regards,   Bill.

Offline cyanchycki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
    • Selkirk Game and Fish
Re: Arrested development?
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2009, 08:15:19 AM »
Good read Bill.  

Now I am by no means a Machinist or Gunsmith.  I was going to say is not the equipment that is available for the gunsmith today better than when you were first building benchguns yesteryear?  Then I get realizing yes they are but as in your read, How much effect would that have in assembling a rifle that is known to us as a rifle built for the pinnacle of acccuracy?  Am I right to say not a lot.  If anything I can see the tooling may be better and constructed of better metal designed for withstanding wear.  

Is the same attention to detail used back then as it is today?  I would hope so if not more.

Has the basic stock changed?  No.  I would hope though that the glues, epoxies and glass used are better than they were used yesteryear.  There has been some experimentation but very limited.  The biggest I would see is the Gene Beggs stock which I still for the life of me understand how it can work??????????

If anything the availability of GREAT components is running rampant unless you live outside of the US.  We do have Robertson Composites and our own Boutique bullet maker in Alberta which helps us immensely.  With the introduction of the new IMR 8208 XBR we HOPEFULLY will have a powder available to us at a better price and work just as well if not better than VV133. 

I guess if anything, yes the basic concepts are the same but who is out there with the ability to experiment?  I am not one as I do not have the machining background or the ability to do so.  I have not seen a fraction of what you or Sorensen have seen over the years.  I hate to say it but you fellas have done your time and it is time to enjoy your lifes.  What is needed is the next generation to step up which we all know is tough to do and take up the slack.  Our best and most knowledgeable gunsmiths are at there retirement stages in there lives.  If the next generation is not willing to come in with an open mind and LEARN the right way if anything I can see it spiraling slightly backwards.  Anyone can call themselves a gunsmith but can they stand behind what they have done?

We are fortunate to have a few guys in the west who actively shoot benchrest and are good gunsmiths.  I will not mention names as I know some prefer to build guns at there own pleasure and not be swamped with work.

I am not sure if what I said makes any sense or not, nah probably not, but I had to ramble something this morning before making a trip to the range.

Calvin


 
« Last Edit: December 26, 2009, 08:27:16 AM by cyanchycki »
My house is protected by the good Lord and a GUN............
When I Die I don't wanna go Sober..................................

Offline rpollock

  • Long Term Resident of BR Addiction Center
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Country: ca
    • View Profile
Re: Arrested development?
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2009, 09:43:05 AM »
Bill,

One of the overriding issues is the rule book. Anything that meets a definition of truly innovative probably falls outside our rulebook. Plus we are confined by the notion that there are only so many ways to hold a cartridge in a chamber and so many ways to drill and rifle a bar of steel. BR is no longer the refuge of the experimenter, it is dominated by people who don't really feel the urge to experiment all that much. They are too busy wearing barrels out at the top levels. The experimenters still exist, but you don't hear that much about them. I think dimishing returns are at work here. I agree the macro evolution appears stagnant, but the there is still experimentation at the micro evolution level.

As someone who was on a hiatus for about 5 yrs, I see a lot of changes. The equipment has changed or refined. Pretty much the trend is to ejector guns and shooting quick. Actions have been optimized for high pressure cartridges and speed. Barrels are better than ever. Continued refinement in the PPC never seems to stop. We have gone from .262 necks to no-turn necks, and now light turn necks. Almost nobody had coax rests 5rs ago, now it seems like everyone has them. The scope problem continues to be attacked, hopefully without spending $2500. The powder situation has people blending powders, sifting powders, now it looks like we will all be weighing charges at the range or pre-weighing and bringing the charges in vials. Winds flags are becoming quite sophisticated. I am not sure sure a BR rifle from 30 yrs ago, although appearing quite similar to today's rifle, would be all that competitive.

As you point out, the proof is in the pudding. The aggs are something to behold these days, even as compared to 5 yrs ago. In particular at the National level. It is daunting to say the least. Top 20 positions are teen aggs? Wow! Numerous records fell this year in the US, and Gary O'Cock was within 2 bullets of shooting a zero agg this year. Shooting a zero in competion was used to be very special (it still is to me) but to the top ranks it is somewhat routine.

The question as I see it, is where does the evolution go from here? Further refinments on the existing equipment, or will the rule books allow for true innovation? I am pretty sure we are locked in to the situation as it currently exists. This is probably fine with most competitors, since nobody wants to start over with all new equipments that takes most people a few years to acquire. Plus as I have mentioned before, the playing field as it exists today is incredibly level. This leveling of the playing field has improved over the years as the selection and availability of quality components has exploded over the last 10 years. Other than the border issues, there is more to choose from than ever before.

Good topic!

Rick

Offline Bill Leeper

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Arrested development?
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2009, 01:53:24 PM »
I do believe there has been much more experimentation and change in accessories (rests, bags, etc.) than in the rifles themselves. The rests, especially.
It is my contention that the rifles have not changed but have simply settled into a configuration which was shown to be effective more than a quarter century ago. In the mid-eighties, Lester Bruno fired a .17something agg at the super shoot. His rifle was an XP100 action, unsleeved, glued into a glass stock. Hard to believe that rifle would not be competitive today!
The top shooters are vastly improved. They are capable of seeing wind changes that I, most likely, never could. They have the patience and ability to develope loads which bring out the best in their rifles. I can't help but think bullet quality has improved somewhat though, I must confess, I'm not sure how. Bullet balance is still dependent upon jacket quality and while jacket concentricity may have improved substantially, it happened when I wasn't looking! (feel free to speak up here, Dan).
The rule book specifies stock configuration to a certain extent but it still leaves a lot of room for individuality if the shooter so desires. Barrel dimensions are limited but don't seem to make a huge difference anyway. For the right shooter, tuners are an interesting and effective innovation (again, not a really recent innovation since I recall reading an article describing a barrel tuner when I was in high school).
The rapid fire technique employed by so many shooters today, is a technique which has taken a quarter century to become as popular as it has. In 1978, a fellow from Portland, Oregon, fired a number of groups in under 30 seconds each. His rifle was the first dual port rifle I had seen. In 1980, Allen Bench showed up with an ejector rifle which also feature a gravity feed, open, magazine which fed into the left port. You can understand why I think rifle developement is minimal. By the way, the original dimensions for the PPC featured a 264 neck (light turn) which was later reduced to .262 because too many of the cases available at the time wouldn't cleanup if turned to .010 thickness.
Cyanchycki,
Actually, I doubt the equipment has improved to any noticable extent. A lathe is a lathe. It's ability to spin true is dependent upon bearing quality. You would have to ask Timken if they think they make better precision class bearing than they did 50 years ago. I suspect the precision bearings are no better but are more easily produced. Work and tool holding methods are the same as they have been for fifty years. The reamers used today are just like the one's I bought in 1978. I have and use reamers made from '78 on and, since they all come from the same area in Oregon where, I suspect, all the reamer makers are related by marriage, if not blood, these reamers are essentially the same product. Again, the reamer makers are able to more easily produce a precision product and more easily measure it. All gunsmiths, myself included, have varied our techniques in an attempt to more easily get the best out of the tooling thus making results more repeatable. The goal, however, remains the same; precise alignment and concentricity of the finished product. Regards,   Bill

Offline rpollock

  • Long Term Resident of BR Addiction Center
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Country: ca
    • View Profile
Re: Arrested development?
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2009, 02:08:55 PM »
In the mid-eighties, Lester Bruno fired a .17 something agg at the super shoot. His rifle was an XP100 action, unsleeved, glued into a glass stock. Hard to believe that rifle would not be competitive today!   Bill


I don't disagree with your major points Bill, but we should note that Lester isn't shooting that XP anymore (at least as far as I know). The XP action really isn't doing the shooter any favours today. At least not without spending so much time and money on it, that it essentially becomes a custom action in terms of cost and performance. For all we know in this discussion, that XP may have been an XP in name only. Maybe someone on here knows more about that rifle?

Rick

Offline Bill Leeper

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Arrested development?
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2009, 02:48:43 PM »
Rick, there is little doubt that XP was modified to some extent but that doesn't change the fact that it was 1980-something rifle building technology. That people today choose to use one of the precise and commonly available (commonly available to those willing to wait, in some cases!) custom or semi-custom, precision actions instead of a modified Remington doesn't change the original premise; there is a lack of technological change. I'm sure Lester no longer uses, or even owns, that rifle but he probably doesn't wear the same shoes either. My only point was that real good rifles of thirty years ago may very well have been capable of competitive accuracy even by today's standards. This especially when used by today's best shooters.
In a backhanded way, I'm trying to point out that potential new shooters needn't fear the equipment they see on the line. None of it is in the least "magic". They are only rifle assemble using common machine shop techniques just as they have been for more than a quarter century. The new shooter doesn't need to cough up 1800 dollars for an action. He does need to have an action which is straight and concentric. He does need to have a good barrel, properly installed. The barreled action does have to be properly fitted and affixed to a stock designed to work well from the bench. He does need decent optics solidly attached to the rifle. All of these things can be accomplished just the same way they have been in the past. Now, the cold hard fact is this; a Remington rifle costs as much as many good precision actions so is hardly worth acquiring to use as the basis of a BR rifle. If, however, the Remington is the "bird in the hand" it might be worth considering. Regards,   Bill.

Offline rpollock

  • Long Term Resident of BR Addiction Center
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Country: ca
    • View Profile
Re: Arrested development?
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2009, 03:04:52 PM »
Rick, there is little doubt that XP was modified to some extent but that doesn't change the fact that it was 1980-something rifle building technology. That people today choose to use one of the precise and commonly available (commonly available to those willing to wait, in some cases!) custom or semi-custom, precision actions instead of a modified Remington doesn't change the original premise; there is a lack of technological change. I'm sure Lester no longer uses, or even owns, that rifle but he probably doesn't wear the same shoes either. My only point was that real good rifles of thirty years ago may very well have been capable of competitive accuracy even by today's standards. This especially when used by today's best shooters.
In a backhanded way, I'm trying to point out that potential new shooters needn't fear the equipment they see on the line. None of it is in the least "magic". They are only rifle assemble using common machine shop techniques just as they have been for more than a quarter century. The new shooter doesn't need to cough up 1800 dollars for an action. He does need to have an action which is straight and concentric. He does need to have a good barrel, properly installed. The barreled action does have to be properly fitted and affixed to a stock designed to work well from the bench. He does need decent optics solidly attached to the rifle. All of these things can be accomplished just the same way they have been in the past. Now, the cold hard fact is this; a Remington rifle costs as much as many good precision actions so is hardly worth acquiring to use as the basis of a BR rifle. If, however, the Remington is the "bird in the hand" it might be worth considering. Regards,   Bill.

I understand your point Bill, I am just not sure I agree with it. A single teen agg shot 30 yrs ago with a modified Rem does not build the case that the rifles built back then are competitive today. I think we would all still be shooting them if that was the case. I am probably one of the most conservative equipment whores out there, and even I feel compelled  to get a right eject rifle, just to see if I can learn to shoot faster and get that extra shot in while the condition is holding. The top 20 positions at the nationals this year were in the teens. You could argue a good portion of the field in 2009 had rifles that could agg in the teens. I don't think you could make that same statement 30 years ago. i do agree we are still shooting the same basic layout; action, barrel, scope, stock, etc, however in terms of refinement I don't think they are essentially the same. Even with a Rem in hand, I don't think it is worth considering, other than to get your feet wet or dabble. That is likely where we differ.

Offline Bill Leeper

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Arrested development?
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2009, 10:51:47 PM »
That wasn't the only teen agg fired at that match and was far from the first teen agg fired in competition. In addition, even by that time, most shooters were not using Remington actions. Keep in mind, actions from Stolle, Hall, and others had been around for some time and those actions were as well made then as they are now.
I don't in any way recommend a Remington over one of the numerous custom actions available, I am just pointing out that a new shooter can use one if it is economically feasible and not be totally out of it. Just as he can use Weaver scope rings instead of Kelby's or an old Hart trigger instead of a Jewel.
The same percentage of rifles thirty years ago would not agg in the teens. However, I suspect this was as much because the shooters had a tendency to "settle" rather than work at getting more out of the rifle. We see this amongst shooters still. The tendency to forget the flyers. The tendency to remember the best groups and believe they are likely to show up during the match. Top echelon shooters don't do this.
It is my contention that most, if not all, of the refinement is to be found in the shooters rather than in their rifles. Apart from increased shooter capabilities, the benchtop equipment has been hugely refined. The old Hart and Wichita rests such as used by yours truly are a true anachronism and I'm quite certain that the new front rests are of considerable benefit. I should point out, however, they are of no benefit if the rifle shoots poorly or the shooter ignores the wind flags. In other words, if you are shooting in the threes, a new front rest is unlikely to enable you to turn the corner. Regards,   Bill.

Offline rpollock

  • Long Term Resident of BR Addiction Center
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Country: ca
    • View Profile
Re: Arrested development?
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2009, 11:07:29 PM »
The same percentage of rifles thirty years ago would not agg in the teens.

Again we will have to disagree!

Regards,

Rick

Offline Bill Leeper

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Arrested development?
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2009, 11:49:50 PM »
Jeff,
The flat bottomed buttstock was new in about 1992 (on benchrest rifles, that is. Or maybe not,  they were fairly common on rest rifles of the 1880's) It ain't new now. In addition, it's hardly a technological change. Benchrest rifle have had flat forends for as long as I've shot them. Most stock design changes have been stylistically mandated rather than an attempt to improve performance. The higher sides are in response to the rest top designs which had a tendency to grab the forend enough that the combo could have been considered illegal if anyone cared enough to complain. Nonetheless, I agree that stocks look different than the stocks of thirty years ago and I'm sure manufacturing technology has improved. The use of carbon fibre can be considered technological change; at least from the manufacturing standpoint if not from the standpoint of performance.
Action tolerances are better overall but, as I said, a Stolle action from 1980 looks and acts remarkably like a Stolle action from 2008. More custom action makers do produce actions which no longer need the attention of the gunsmith but this trend started with the Stolle and Hall actions of thirty years ago. It is indeed a nice trend. Ejectors and roller cams are fluff. Older actions didn't have ejectors because the shooters didn't want them. Now, enough shooters are convinced they are beneficial to their style of shooting that they are once again being offered (just like on 40x factory actions of 45 years ago).
Frozen scopes are in response to scope manufacturer's perceived inability to make a scope which will maintain zero. Non adjustable scopes are essentially a return to 1950's methodology though optics are, frankly, superior (optics, not mechanics). I think the frozen scopes are an indication that scope manufacturers have done a poor job of improving their products. The necessity of gluing a scope's adjustments can hardly be considered a technological advance.
Honestly, I don't think there is a lot of room for improvement and most changes will continue to be more style driven than performance driven. Mechanically, I think there are a couple of areas which might be improved. One is barrel attachment. An angled face on the receiver would provide a more stable seat and a corresponding seat at the breech end of the threads woud make it even better. A second improvement could be in the trigger. The Remington trigger system is not really all that great and the trigger manufacturers have done a super job of taking it as far as they can. Pivoting the sear at the rear instead of the front and making the contact vertical would be good moves. Anything which reduces lateral deflection and improves striker energy consistency might pay dividends.
The perfect stock and the perfect stock attachment has yet to appear but may exist. Again the answer might simply be in improved execution of old techniques.
I hope no one thinks I am trying to denigrate the efforts of shooters and builders. I'm just commenting on the lack of change over the last thirty years. A rifle from thirty years ago could be absolutely competitive at a match today. A rifle from 1960 would never have been competitive in 1980. In fact, the best rifles from 1970 would likely have come up way short ten years later.
Rick,
I think I put that wrong. I meant to say a smaller percentage of rifles would have been capable of agging in the teens. I'm sure we agree on that. Where we disagree is that I think they were technically capable of doing so but the shooter's expectations were a bit lower and lower expectations inevitably lead to poorer results. The point I am trying to make is that, in many respects, the equipment race is optional but shooter effort is not.
Now, Let's move on to components. Specifically, bullet design. Over the last 25 years or so, the trend has been toward bullets with longer ogives ans shorter bearing surfaces. In addition, the boattail fell out of favour entirely. Recently, there has been a bit of a resurrection of the boattail and, as well, some experimentation with shorter ogive bullets. Who likes what? Does anyone see a competitive monometal bullet in the future of the sport? Regards,   Bill.


Offline rpollock

  • Long Term Resident of BR Addiction Center
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Country: ca
    • View Profile
Re: Arrested development?
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2009, 12:38:13 AM »

Rick,
I think I put that wrong. I meant to say a smaller percentage of rifles would have been capable of agging in the teens. I'm sure we agree on that. Where we disagree is that I think they were technically capable of doing so but the shooter's expectations were a bit lower and lower expectations inevitably lead to poorer results. The point I am trying to make is that, in many respects, the equipment race is optional but shooter effort is not.
Now, Let's move on to components. Specifically, bullet design. Over the last 25 years or so, the trend has been toward bullets with longer ogives ans shorter bearing surfaces. In addition, the boattail fell out of favour entirely. Recently, there has been a bit of a resurrection of the boattail and, as well, some experimentation with shorter ogive bullets. Who likes what? Does anyone see a competitive monometal bullet in the future of the sport? Regards,   Bill.



Bill, I had dug up the winning aggs from 30 yrs ago then somehow lost the post last night, and decided to pack it in. Anyhow, here are some figures to try and put some context around this.  IBS winning 3-gun agg in 1979-1981 was in the 3's (Can't find if any teen aggs shot, but it can't be many with winnning 3-guns in the 3's) .

NBRSA winning agg in 3-gun in 2009 was .198". 19 out of top 20 positions in LV100 this year were in the teens. 13 Records fell this year at NBRSA Nats (yes it was a good week, but not a trigger pull - DanO will attest to that).

I think the shooters have the same tenacity to win today (in many cases it is the same 1 guy!), and in some cases the bullets and powder are inferior to 30 years ago (no Eubers or original 8208 today), and the wind is the same, and sand is still used to support the rifle at each end. By your own account most shooters had already started to move away from he Rem action around 1980, and yet the aggs continued to fall to the present day! Just based on the above I would argue that the rifles alone are responsible for about .100" improvement in the agging capability over the last 30 years. To be sure, we are at the point of diminishing returns, that was until this year when the NBRSA record book was demolished at the Nats!

I will give you this, an off the shelf BR rifle from 1980 "may" be competitive at the club level in 2010, since many people at the club shoot will have 1980's rifles in hand (myself among them!). I wouldn't want to take it to a Regional shoot or a National shoot. Very hot loads, 5 shot groups in 15 seconds, dual port ejector guns, cnc rifled barrels, stocks with keels, high mag scopes etc will all be working against you!

Bullets will have to wait for another day.

Rcik





Offline John VM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: Arrested development?
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2009, 06:45:18 AM »
 It seems to me the topic is more like "the bolt action rifle has not changed". The only changes to the basic design can be relatively minor as all functions are still the same, just improved. As the rules have all been designed in the varmint series to keep a rifle looking like a rifle that can't change much either. The only gun to have major changes in the stock design was one that Shelley built in Texas before his untimely death. This was a 2 piece stock that has not really been approved by the 'Board" yet on a permanent basis as far as I recollect and most people hesitate to attach the forend to the barrel. A barrel is a barrel, cut rifling is more accepted than it used to be and now with slight gain twists proving to be worthy they may get more popular, but they still are a tube with rifling in them.
 

Offline RJohansen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Arrested development?
« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2009, 06:26:16 AM »
Now we have dual ports,drop ports,frozen scopes with all adjustments in the mounts,(not unlike the scopes of old mind you) better glass and light transmission coatings . Our bullets are made in carbide dies some multi ogive. In the 80's most guys were sizing and seating in wilson style dies now (at least here in the eastern region ) most full lenght size or bump in order to shoot faster (easier to close the bolt on a loaded round and run a condition).  Wind flags have become more refined bearings added generally more sensitive.
New composites in the stocks ie carbon fiber. Certainly some of these items were creeping into the matches of the 70's and 80's but never available to the masses as much as now. Brass is better ,we even have more powder options, Aggs are slowly but steadily getting smaller. The rule book is there for a reason ,it does level the field to some degree. If you need or want to experiment then parameters are set , of course the unlimited matches offer more latitude. I think we are moving slowly forward.
Though the biggest single factor in winning a match (shoot) is reading the windflags and being careful.
 Just my random thoughts for the morning here guys. Regards   

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk