Factory non-free floated barrels

[3Crows]

Okay, occasionally I am dumb, actually more often dumb and only occasionally sorta smart. Why does (did) Remington and for that matter Ruger (at least on earlier M77s) and others I cannot think of now choose to hard mount the barrels into the stocks rather than free floating? Was there a reason or was it just because that is how they did it?

I have an earlier M77 in .270 and it is accurate at any range it needs to be and it is not free floated in it's wooden stock now for 40 years. I have two ($99) Remington 700 ADLs, a .243 Winchester and a Remington 7mm RM, and both barrels are tight to the stocks. I have not had the opportunity to take them to a long distance range but at my backyard 100 yard range they are both zeroed, cross hair on the bullseye, to be one inch high. And they both group sub-MOA easy until I let them get hot, no different, maybe better, than my M77.

I am thinking to use the 7mm RM as a mountain rifle, rough going, a hard life, no point in pretty rifles in hash environments when what really matters is what is inside (how it shoots) when it counts, not what it looks like. Might Cerakote it and camo the factory synthetic stock. So, should I endeavor to float the barrel, which might mean spending a ton of money on a new stock.

 

[LoonWulf]

This is just my theory, but constant pressure forends tend to align barrels with barrel channels and are more accurate than a barrel that just lightly touches one side of the inletting.....so its cheaper and easier to make a decently accurate gun by putting a pressure point at the front of the stock, then risking a "floated" barrel touching the side. or not following the barrel channel to the buyers aesthetic standard.
Again that's just a theory

Im not a huge fan of the modern remington 700 synthetic stocks. The older ones with molded in checkering were pretty stout tho, and you could usually just open up the front (remove the two tabs) and the barrel would float. With the newer softer ones I think you'd likely need to give them a larger than stock gap just to be sure the barrel doesn't touch the stock from an odd position.
Its still not a lot of work, and honestly Ive found very little mechanical accuracy advantage in going to an aftermarket stock unless one puts quite a bit of pressure on the forend of the stock.

That said were I building a mountain rifle specifically Id spend some to get a low weight laid up carbon or fiberglass stock. Yeah they are going to cost 3x+ what your whole rifle did, but IMO they feel enough nicer to warrant the cost increase. They also bed easier and are stiffer. Im still looking for an excuse to try a Grayboe stock, tho id be hard pressed to come up with a reason to buy another 700 at this point.
Another advantage to getting and after market stock, is you can buy a different shape that you happen to prefer better. I

 

[3Crows]

I get it, I may just spend the bucks for a good quality stock since I got the rifle for free almost, though this rifle is not even beginning to be portly for a 7mm RM (8lbs, 9 onces)! I am thinking to Cerakote the action and barrel or Parkerize, either to reduce maintenance in harsh/wet environments where (at my age) I might be to exhausted to tend to the rifle. The 26 inch barrel towers over everything I have . I could buy an aftermarket stock, do the Cerakote and be only a little beyond what the rifle normally sells for. I do not want that Magpul stock, I want something with a more classic shape and feel, not unlike the factory stock. Maybe the Bell and Carlson since they are a Kansas company.

 

[LoonWulf]

I get it, I may just spend the bucks for a good quality stock since I got the rifle for free almost, though this rifle is not even beginning to be portly for a 7mm RM (8lbs, 9 onces)! I am thinking to Cerakote the action and barrel or Parkerize, either to reduce maintenance in harsh/wet environments where (at my age) I might be to exhausted to tend to the rifle. The 26 inch barrel towers over everything I have . I could buy an aftermarket stock, do the Cerakote and be only a little beyond what the rifle normally sells for. I do not want that Magpul stock, I want something with a more classic shape and feel, not unlike the factory stock.Maybe the Bell and Carlson since they are a Kansas company.

I actually happen to really like B&C stocks, I've had a few and generally been quite happy. They arnt "LIGHT" but they tend to be solid and often available for a lower cost used on ebay.

 

[jmr40]

There are 2 schools of thought on this. With some barrels, particularly lightweight barrels, full length contact that is even is often more accurate. And some shoot better with a little upward pressure right at the end of the stock. As long as that pressure is even and consistent they shoot well.

Rugers 77 series uses an angled action screw that bulls the action and barrel down and back toward the butt of the rifle. Because of that design most Ruger 77's shoot better with full length contact with the barrel. Lots of guys have free floated those barrels only to find they were less accurate.

But accuracy and consistency aren't the same thing. Free floated barrels will always be more consistent. A barrel with full length contact may well shoot 1 MOA. But as the stock expands and contracts due to environmental conditions, or someone using the sling as a shooting aid those 1" groups will be impacting in different places on a target.

 

[BWS]

LoonWulf has it. It's "safer" than free floating from a customer return standpoint. Synthetic or wood,dosen't matter..... even gaps sell. Wanged forends don't.

Free float enough channels and you'll see. And yes.... time period of the rifle makes a slight difference but even older woodstocked rigs from around the 1970's you're going to see the forend wang if you file out those forward pads on enough examples. Which is about when NC machining was really getting traction.

All in a day's work. Lots of ways to deal with it. And yes,the factory could do it but since about that time period(70's) quality,in the old fashioned sense of say,hand fitting.... was not the "driver" in manufacturing. Speed,and return #'s are. Good luck with your project.

 

[3Crows]

I actually happen to really like B&C stocks, I've had a few and generally been quite happy. They arnt "LIGHT" but they tend to be solid and often available for a lower cost used on ebay.

Looking at the Grayboe Outlander, they give a weight of 25 to 27 ounces and B&C claims 1.8 pounds which is 29 ounces and the price is not significantly more for the Grayboe. McMillan but then it does get pricey!

 

[stillquietvoice]

I free floated my 700 sps stock, had to open the barrel channel some, not a lot of work to it, had to inlet the stock and trigger guard when I had the Timney trigger installed. The trigger shoe, box and pins put pressure on the stock, and bound up some one the guard. The whole package was eider than the original trigger group.

 

[sage5907]

I've been working on rifles and tuning rifles for a long time and I have both solid bedded barrels in wood stocks and free floated barrels in composite stocks. They both work good, but being a traditionalist I prefer wood stocks with solid bedded barrels that have a pressure point near the front of the forearm. In my experience I think that at least 95% of the accuracy of any rifle is in the quality of the barrel, the way the receiver sits in the stock and in the components and preparation used to make the ammo. I prefer 22 inch non free floated barrels for hunting at distances less than 400 yards but if I was a long range PRS shooter I would use longer heavier free floated barrels. I shoot a lot of steel targets and I see very little difference between solid bedding and free floated barrels for shooting less than 400 yards with a 22 inch barrel.

 

[3Crows]

Not sure about a 22 inch barrel 7mm Remington Magnum? A 22 inch cutdown would leave some juice on the table would not it? Maybe cut back some for a muzzle brake but I have never much cared for muzzle brakes on a hunting rifle, pros and cons there but my ears are damaged enough .

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

If you are interested in lengthy discussions about stocking practices, the Bloke on the Range YouTube channel has several, especially dealing with military Lee Enfields and Swiss straight-pull rifles. Here's one example:

 

[sage5907]

Not sure about a 22 inch barrel 7mm Remington Magnum? A 22 inch cutdown would leave some juice on the table would not it? .

No, I wouldn't recommend cutting the barrel on a 7MM Magnum because "it is what it is." When I was doing a lot of hunting in Colorado I carried a standard rifle that weighed 9 pounds 6 ounces with scope and sling and it was not a mountain rifle. Since then I have gotten a lot smarted and changed to featherweight rifles with 22 inch barrels that weigh a little over 8 1/4 pounds. Once you get used to carrying a 22 inch barrel in high country it is really hard to go back to a longer barrel. My 22 inch barrel rifles with wood stocks and composite stocks all seem to weigh about the same.

 

[3Crows]

No, I wouldn't recommend cutting the barrel on a 7MM Magnum because "it is what it is." When I was doing a lot of hunting in Colorado I carried a standard rifle that weighed 9 pounds 6 ounces with scope and sling and it was not a mountain rifle. Since then I have gotten a lot smarted and changed to featherweight rifles with 22 inch barrels that weigh a little over 8 1/4 pounds. Once you get used to carrying a 22 inch barrel in high country it is really hard to go back to a longer barrel. My 22 inch barrel rifles with wood stocks and composite stocks all seem to weigh about the same.

The Remington 700 is 8 pounds, 9 ounces with scope and Warne steel rings. I would be happy to get it below 8 pounds, easy enough with Tally rings and maybe one of the aftermarket glass stocks? My Kimber Hunter 6.5CM is very light, 6 pounds 2 ounces and has the 22 inch barrel. That is really my mountain rifle for carry on treks. But I would like an alternate with a bit more punch and reach and that is where the7mm RM is finding a niche maybe. I only bought it because Walmart gave it to me nearly for free, like the candy they give me when I got my flu vaccine and nearly fainted (they went and got a candy bar from the checkout counter!). Here, have a rifle too, no, take two! Gotta make use of it somehow .

Maybe my wife will let me get a stock for it to free float it and reduce the carry weight. Hmmm, what excuse shall I cook up this time.

 

[Varminterror]

Savage released a set of B-mags which were meant to have free floating barrels, but there was a curing warp in the polymer stocks, such the resulting rifles exhibited uneven barrel position in the channel, such the right side was nearly touching and the left side was a ~3/16” gap. Quite eye catching. Other models have had a “pressure pad” in the forend tip which forced the stock to center itself around the barrel. You might imagine how well those warped stocks sold from shelves... but consider for yourself, is it really any better when a pressure bedded barrel is forcibly centered in a channel - visibly appealing - than it is for a free floating barrel to be unevenly positioned in a warped channel?

I refuse the premise that lightweight barrels shoot their best with pressure pads or full length bedding. I’ve done pressure bedding and full length bedding myself, and have RELIEVED full length and pressure bedded rifles, literally hundreds of them over the last ~20yrs, including a majority of Ruger M77’s which are fabled to be a model which specifically benefits from pressure bedding... none I have ever touched have shot better after pressure or full length bedding, nor have any rifles I have free-floated shot worse after. It’s a wives’ tale which poor smiths and hobby shooters have passed down over and over to disguise their poor action bedding work.