Longer Barrels On Small Caliber ML

[david_1]

I'm glad you like your rifles with 46" and 48" barrels, as well as you don't find issue with them in the woods where you hunt. However, I can promise you for this thicker, brushy, mountainous terrain, they would be problematic packing them around. I often have problems with getting my 32" Crockett through the brush and thickets. I can also see where too long of a barrel could be difficult trying to reload them on some of the steeper hillsides.

Our Michigan river bottoms are Very Brushy where I hunt, and we have some hill county, hence our ski slopes. If I can't walk thru it, I certainly can't shoot thru it. Retrieving squirrels after our duck season is over, I release the hounds.
As far as loading long flinters, the butt of the rifle on the downhill side of our steeper hills makes it pretty easy.

 

[bpd303]

As far as loading long flinters, the butt of the rifle on the downhill side of our steeper hills makes it pretty easy.

That's one way I could load my grandfathers 36 cal Ohio flintlock. The other was to find a big rock and stand on it when I was a kid.

 

[ETipp]

Our Michigan river bottoms are Very Brushy where I hunt, and we have some hill county, hence our ski slopes. If I can't walk thru it, I certainly can't shoot thru it. Retrieving squirrels after our duck season is over, I release the hounds.
As far as loading long flinters, the butt of the rifle on the downhill side of our steeper hills makes it pretty easy.

Dave, your opinion is certainly accepted and I do appreciate it.

However, trust me when I say this. I used to live and hunt in MI and hunting there is nowhere near like hunting in these mountains. In fact, I grew up hunting rabbits in places much like the pic you posted on the left without the use of dogs.

Also, I can and do, successfully hunt in areas that are so thick that I can barely walk through it, or shoot from around the edges of such thickets out into the more open. Whether it be from very close together saplings, briars or other brush, I often hunt such areas. Recently I have posted on this in the 2023 Fall Squirrel Hunting thread, complete with pics of such terrain. I call it "thicket hunting for squirrels".

I have no doubts what so ever that any rifle with a longer barrel would make hunting in these thick hills more difficult. It certainly can be done, but it would be much more hassle. That's especially true for reloading on the side of steep, rocky hills.

I have shorter ML's (26" and 28") and other than the weight, they are easier to manipulate through the steep, rugged, thick, mountains here than my lighter and longer 32" squirrel rifle. I'm sure one aspect is the straighter stock design when compared to a drop butt stock. But I do know that I'm often banging and clanging the drop stock against trees and other things much more than I do with any shorter barreled rifles I have owned with straighter butt stock designs. Either way, the length of the barrel comes into play considering its on the other end and has to clear trees, brush, boulders, etc, not to mention getting hung up in vines and saw briars.

I'm hoping to find a longer ML that is more stable and easier to hold on target for mostly offhand shooting. But knowing what I know, I might actually wind up with a SMR in the end. However, I do not think a 48” barrel would work. There has to be a happy medium out there somewhere.

Again, thank you for your input.

 

[ETipp]

I have had 3 rifles that would qualify. A .40 7/8" x 40" barrel, a .38 13/16" x 42" barrel and a .36 13/16" x 36" barrel. Most of my shooting was done in competition and like many match shooters I prefer a rifle that is nose heavy for offhand shooting. All 3 were super accurate off a rest providing the wind wasn't blowing, the .36 seemed to be the most affected by the wind. Offhand the .40 was the most accurate, it was nose heavy and bringing it down on target it would just hang there. I probably won more matches with it than any other rifle I have owned. The .38 was a little nose heavy and was a good offhand rifle Just didn't have it that long before it found a new home. The .36 the balance point was actually behind where I held the rifle when shooting, it just wandered all over and just wouldn't hang on target. That combined with how the wind affected it made for a terrible offhand target rifle. Gave it to one of my ex's grandsons.

Ronald, that’s some very good information. I think it be conducive if I look into rifle balance point a little more. Never really gave it much thought until now.

 

[ETipp]

Longer barrel has more inertia than a short one, even if they are equal weight (think swamped barrels). It takes more energy to get the longer one moving, and likewise more energy to stop that movement. Long equals steady. Inertia is your friend especially when shooting offhand. Portability is a whole nuther matter. I'm still looking for my free lunch.

All I can say up to this point is, my .54 GPR holds steady as can be while aiming offhand. It’s heavy, but steady.

My .32 Crockett has the same length barrel but is a few pounds lighter. It wobbles all over the place when I try to shoot it offhanded.

After reading some of the great replies in this thread, it appears to boil down to perhaps three things.

1. Balance point (which I have not compared as of yet).

2. Weight.

3. Maybe stock angle (although they appear to be close to the same).


Keep the information coming folks. It is appreciated.

 

[ETipp]

I think it has to do with the hunter, the style of the hunt, and the chosen area of the hunt.

For example, is the hunter in woods, meadows, or large fields? Is the quarry being stalked, or flushed, or is the hunter waiting in ambush? How far is the hunter walking in a day?

Will there be time to set up a tight position on a distant critter or will the critter likely be moving and be aware of our presence and the danger?

For me, with my 42" barrel on my .40. it has a straight walled, Green Mountain brand barrel. So that's pretty heavy compared to a swamped barrel. It's very nice to hold when standing, unsupported, as the "nose heavy" rifle tends to be pretty steady. I think if I was in a meadow I'd likely be OK taking a shot at a rabbit in the classic "offhand" or standing-unsupported position.

BUT..., I really don't like that position, and wouldn't do it in the woods as long as there was a tree nearby where I could use my off-hand flat against the tree, and my off-hand thumb as a "gun rest" for the rifle while sighting. That's highly stable, and one of my favorite positions. Full disclosure, IF the grass wasn't too high in my theoretical meadow with a rabbit presenting itself, or if I was on a high enough rise in the same situation, I'd likely use a tight, kneeling position, and be more sure of a stable sight picture. My rifle is positively NOT a rifle to swing on a fast nor even slow walking target. IF I engaged a walking deer, I'd have to set up with a sight picture ahead of the animal, and it would need to then cross my sights at some point. Sometimes this works quite well, and sometimes the spot I've picked turns out bad because the deer decided to change direction, and didn't cross in front of me... sometimes the squirrel on the ground is moving too fast when it comes into my chosen shooting spot.... oh well that's part of hunting, eh?

The "advantage" then is in my rifle is really the sight plane..., the distance between the front and rear sight making it much easier for my human eye to get a head shot on a squirrel, then ADD to that the overall weight of the barrel mitigates the already low recoil from the 90 grain round ball, and then ADD again the "nose heavy" aspect reducing the effect of recoil on my sight picture, helping with follow through.

OH and flintlock "long rifles" look cool. Other parts of the country may differ, but when I walk out of the woods with half a limit of squirrels or a couple rabbits, and a 42" flintlock, the reaction I get from the guys with modern, scoped rifles that see me is like the Hobbits being reunited with Gandalf..., and I'm Gandalf.

SURE..., I could have a rifle in .40 with a 24" barrel, that would shoot as well, perhaps better..., it would be easier to work with in thick brush, lighter to carry all day especially in an area with steep hills, and since I very much dislike shooting game in the offhand position, having the much lighter and well balanced rifle would not be bad since I don't want to use it offhand.

So from what I've seen, read, and done, it comes down to how and where one is hunting, and no matter the rifle style it has to be accurate.

LD

Dave, it absolutely has to do with what you contend. Hunting style and/or location is key.

With that said, it’s difficult to find a do-all ML Squirrel rifle but its to my belief we can do the best we can to find one that comes close to it. My squirrel hunting grounds varies from mature, open woods, to thick woods with smaller trees, to open woods with thick, small saplings, to brushy thickets, to thickets with few smaller trees. All of which are in fairly steep terrain and many times encountered on the same hunt.

Hopefully there’s a happy medium squirrel rifle out there that will suffice. At the very least I can practice shooting offhanded with my Crockett to help reduce some close up, ridiculous misses.

 

[French Colonial]

Actually the answer to this question is elementary.

You do what most of us old farts have done, you keep buying "the" rifle until you have a small herd and you will find some of "the" rifles get sold, some set in the safe, and only one or two get taken to the squirrel woods and or target range.

But it is fun and exciting to plan for that next one.

 

[yellowhammer]

Etipp, I didn't read all the posts in this thread, but wanted to bring up one aspect of squirrel hunting I encounter a lot. Especially when dog hunting, I find most shots I'm pointing way up, sometimes close to vertical at the "treed" squirrel. I find longer guns noticeably steadier pointing upward. All the other characteristics that are good for off-hand level shots don't seem to apply. Just my 2c. Yellowhammer out.

 

[ETipp]

Etipp, I didn't read all the posts in this thread, but wanted to bring up one aspect of squirrel hunting I encounter a lot. Especially when dog hunting, I find most shots I'm pointing way up, sometimes close to vertical at the "treed" squirrel. I find longer guns noticeably steadier pointing upward. All the other characteristics that are good for off-hand level shots don't seem to apply. Just my 2c. Yellowhammer out.

Thank you, YH, for the input. That is something I have not considered yet.

I do my fair share of darn near vertical shots as well. The only way I can achieve success doing so is when I have a very steady rest off of a nearby, lager tree. Surprising enough, I often have better results with those longer, steep angle shots than I do most other shots. Even when squirrels are way up yonder. No doubt it has to do with having a very steady rest with my shorter and lighter rifle. I can see where a longer barrel could be conducive for steep angle shots.

It certainly seems to me that a somewhat longer barrel may be conducive for better overall hunting accuracy, especially for offhand shooting.

 

[ETipp]

Actually the answer to this question is elementary.

You do what most of us old farts have done, you keep buying "the" rifle until you have a small herd and you will find some of "the" rifles get sold, some set in the safe, and only one or two get taken to the squirrel woods and or target range.

But it is fun and exciting to plan for that next one.

Understood. And if I had it my way, that's most likely what I would do. However, my banker (AKA wife) sees it differently. I already brought that up this morning and she was less than impressed.

 

[ETipp]

I was enamored with a 32. I like the idea of using small amounts of lead an powder. Be aware a 32 with a slow twist requires more powder than you think for best accuracy. I would not get one slower than 1:36. Also, the 32 is fiddley to load. For me 36 is as small as I can manage easily. If you can not load it consistently it will not shoot well. 32 is blown around by the wind quite a bit.

I gave up on a 32 caliber barrel. It had wide lands and narrow deep grooves and a slow twist. When I first looked at it my heart sank. Then I got angry. I made some calls. Against my better judgement I decided to try it. As expected, accuracy was poor. After several range sessions it was obviously a tomato stake. A 32 needs to hit a squirrel consistently at 50 yards, this one could not do that. Also any rifle I use for NMLRA competition or club shoots needs to hold the 10-ring.

If I am delivered any barrels in the future with narrow deep grooves I will reject them immediately. Funny thing, the guy who rifled it insisted that the rifling form does not matter for accuracy. His excuse was that the rifling cutter wears and it is narrowed by sharpening. I no longer buy any barrels he makes.

I had Bobby Hoyt rebore it. It is good now. It was a shame to rebore a new barrel.

I sure wish Green Mountain made ML barrels under 45 caliber. I'd roll the dice on a Green mountain 32. It is a pity they have mostly turned their back on us.

Interesting. Thank you for the information.

 

[Col. Batguano]

I think that regarding ACCURACY we need to look at what modern day shooters use and interpret that back to our charcoal guns. Modern bench rest shooters use barrels in the 20"-22" range. Smallbore 3-P shooters in the 16" range with a "bloop tube" on the front (unrifled pipe where the bullet doesn't contact it). I believe the MOST important aspect of BARREL accuracy is barrel stiffness. The most important aspect of ammunition is bullet stability and ignition and velocity consistency. The most important aspect of that combination is barrel flex / position at bullet exit AND the aforementioned stability/ velocity issues. Then we can add in lock speed AND consistency of that part.

A modern gun is going to have a total "barrel dwell time" somewhere in the 0.009 second range. A cap gun in the .030" range, and a flint gun in the 0.090" range. When you factor in the shooter's technique and CTC wobble, a lot can happen in that time space of barrel dwell. If the shooter has a 6 ring CTC wobble think about how many times it goes back and forth or distance it moves inside that total barrel dwell time. A modern shooter might break their shot as the sights are just crossing from the 9 ring to the 10, and score a perfectly centered 10. A flint shooter might break the shot at the same place, and score a 5 (because the sights are now at the 6, but the direction and momentum of the barrel movement carries the ball outside the sight picture wobble diameter (This is why "calling your shots" is important.)

If you think about the physics of a shorter stiffer barrel, logic dictates it's going to be stiffer (same material and barrel thickness). All guns when they recoil want to go straight back. Because our shoulders are below the sight plane there's resistance to the barrel wanting to go straight back, a lever and triangle there that tries to bend the barrel. The result is barrel flip. The more mass is forward of the center point the more inertia there will be resisting that barrel flip, and the more the barrel will bend. What that tells you is that the ideal barrel shape to resist that bending force would be a tapered barrel. But modern guns shoot straight barrels, Why? Because the harmonics of the barrel oscillating during that barrel dwell. It wants to flex up and down, side to side, and fore and aft. It's easier to manufacture a barrel that has consistent harmonics if it's straight, and predictable with various ammunition.

Regarding holding and hanging on target with your sight picture; The more mass you have forward, the greater the resistance of the sights to resist small directional input force changes. Use a pool cue to demonstrate this. Hold it with the tip end as your simulated barrel muzzle and look how much it wants to wiggle around. Then turn it around and use the butt end as your muzzle. See how much better it seems to "hang" on the target? So that would seem to tell us that the heavier the gun (and position of the center of mass), the steadier we can hold it, yes? But the gun has to be supported by a shooter. So there's the strength and fatigue factor of the shooter to consider too. I doubt many of us could hold a 30 pound gun steady for very long. Even with technique that minimizes muscle use and maximized bone and skeletal support you still need muscle input. Likewise a gun that's super light. There's not enough use of bones for support relative to muscle input, so you're going to wobble more. So shooter conditioning is a critical input factor too.

Human anatomy hasn't changed a whole lot in the last 300-400 years, but our understanding of metallurgy, physics, kinesiology, sport training, and ergonomics has advanced quite a bit since these guns were designed however long ago they were.

Since "everything is connected to everything else, every gun is a compromise, and every shooter is going to need something just a little bit different for them to get their "most accurate combination". And all of that can continue to change and evolve dependent on the technique and conditioning of the shooter. Most of us aren't in the same shape in our 70's as we were in our 20's.

Hope this helps.

 

[ronaldrothb49]

I think that regarding ACCURACY we need to look at what modern day shooters use and interpret that back to our charcoal guns. Modern bench rest shooters use barrels in the 20"-22" range. Smallbore 3-P shooters in the 16" range with a "bloop tube" on the front (unrifled pipe where the bullet doesn't contact it. I believe the MOST important aspect of BARREL accuracy is barrel stiffness. The most important aspect of ammunition is bullet stability and ignition and velocity consistency. The most important aspect of that combination is barrel flex / position at bullet exit AND the aforementioned stability/ velocity issues. Then we can add in lock speed AND consistency of that part.

A modern gun is going to have a total "barrel dwell time" somewhere in the 0.009 second range. A cap gun in the .030" range, and a flint gun in the 0.090" range. When you factor in the shooter's technique and CTC wobble, a lot can happen in that time space of barrel dwell. If the shooter has a 6 ring CTC wobble think about how many times it goes back and forth or distance it moves inside that total barrel dwell time. A modern shooter might break their shot as the sights are just crossing from the 9 ring to the 10, and score a perfectly centered 10. A flint shooter might break the shot at the same place, and score a 5 (because the sights are now at the 6, but the direction and momentum of the barrel movement carries the ball outside the sight picture (This is why "calling your shots" is important.)

If you think about the physics of a shorter stiffer barrel, logic dictates it's going to be stiffer (same material and barrel thickness). All guns when they recoil want to go straight back. Because our shoulders are below the sight plane there's resistance to the barrel wanting to go straight back, a lever and triangle there that tries to bend the barrel. The result is barrel flip. The more mass is forward of the center point the more inertia there will be resisting that barrel flip, and the more the barrel will bend. What that tells you is that the ideal barrel shape to resist that bending force would be a tapered barrel. But modern guns shoot straight barrels, Why? Because the harmonics of the barrel oscillating during that barrel dwell. It wants to flex up and down, side to side, and fore and aft. It's easier to manufacture a barrel that has consistent harmonics if it's straight, and predictable with various ammunition.

Regarding holding and hanging on target with your sight picture; The more mass you have forward, the greater the resistance of the sights to resist small directional input changes. Use a pool cue to demonstrate this. Hold it with the tip end as your simulated barrel muzzle and look how much it wants to wiggle around. The turn it around and use the butt end as your muzzle. See how much better it seems to "hang" on the target? So that would seem to tell us that the heavier the gun (and position of the center of mass), the steadier we can hold it, yes? But the gun has to be supported by a shooter. So there's the strength and fatigue factor of the shooter to consider too. I doubt many of us could hold a 30 pound gun steady for very long. Even with technique that minimizes muscle use and maximized bone and skeletal support you still need muscle input. Likewise a gun that's super light. There's not enough use of bones for support relative to muscle input, so you're going to wobble more. So shooter conditioning is a critical input factor too.

Human anatomy hasn't changed a whole lot in the last 300-400 years, but our understanding of metallurgy, physics, kinesiology, sport training, and ergonomics has advanced quite a bit since these guns were designed however long ago they were.

Since "everything is connected to everything else, every gun is a compromise, and every shooter is going to need something just a little bit different for them to get their "most accurate combination". And all of that can continue to change and evolve dependent on the technique and conditioning of the shooter. Most of us aren't in the same shape in our 70's as we were in our 20's.

Hope this helps.

Good info. most factory rifles are made for an average LOP of 13 1/2" with a straight stock. At 5'11" I should fit that average but I don't. I make all my own rifles to fit ME. I think my arms must be longer than the average person because I shoot best with a LOP of about 13 3/4" and all my rifles will have a 1/4" cast off. I also like the balance point to be just in front of where I support the rifle. Another thing people could learn is if the sight picture isn't right take the rifle down and start over instead of trying to force the shot.

 

[ETipp]

Good info. most factory rifles are made for an average LOP of 13 1/2" with a straight stock. At 5'11" I should fit that average but I don't. I make all my own rifles to fit ME. I think my arms must be longer than the average person because I shoot best with a LOP of about 13 3/4" and all my rifles will have a 1/4" cast off. I also like the balance point to be just in front of where I support the rifle. Another thing people could learn is if the sight picture isn't right take the rifle down and start over instead of trying to force the shot.

LOP is the next thing I plan on measuring between my two ML's with the same length barrels.

 

[ETipp]

I think that regarding ACCURACY we need to look at what modern day shooters use and interpret that back to our charcoal guns. Modern bench rest shooters use barrels in the 20"-22" range. Smallbore 3-P shooters in the 16" range with a "bloop tube" on the front (unrifled pipe where the bullet doesn't contact it). I believe the MOST important aspect of BARREL accuracy is barrel stiffness. The most important aspect of ammunition is bullet stability and ignition and velocity consistency. The most important aspect of that combination is barrel flex / position at bullet exit AND the aforementioned stability/ velocity issues. Then we can add in lock speed AND consistency of that part.

A modern gun is going to have a total "barrel dwell time" somewhere in the 0.009 second range. A cap gun in the .030" range, and a flint gun in the 0.090" range. When you factor in the shooter's technique and CTC wobble, a lot can happen in that time space of barrel dwell. If the shooter has a 6 ring CTC wobble think about how many times it goes back and forth or distance it moves inside that total barrel dwell time. A modern shooter might break their shot as the sights are just crossing from the 9 ring to the 10, and score a perfectly centered 10. A flint shooter might break the shot at the same place, and score a 5 (because the sights are now at the 6, but the direction and momentum of the barrel movement carries the ball outside the sight picture wobble diameter (This is why "calling your shots" is important.)

If you think about the physics of a shorter stiffer barrel, logic dictates it's going to be stiffer (same material and barrel thickness). All guns when they recoil want to go straight back. Because our shoulders are below the sight plane there's resistance to the barrel wanting to go straight back, a lever and triangle there that tries to bend the barrel. The result is barrel flip. The more mass is forward of the center point the more inertia there will be resisting that barrel flip, and the more the barrel will bend. What that tells you is that the ideal barrel shape to resist that bending force would be a tapered barrel. But modern guns shoot straight barrels, Why? Because the harmonics of the barrel oscillating during that barrel dwell. It wants to flex up and down, side to side, and fore and aft. It's easier to manufacture a barrel that has consistent harmonics if it's straight, and predictable with various ammunition.

Regarding holding and hanging on target with your sight picture; The more mass you have forward, the greater the resistance of the sights to resist small directional input force changes. Use a pool cue to demonstrate this. Hold it with the tip end as your simulated barrel muzzle and look how much it wants to wiggle around. Then turn it around and use the butt end as your muzzle. See how much better it seems to "hang" on the target? So that would seem to tell us that the heavier the gun (and position of the center of mass), the steadier we can hold it, yes? But the gun has to be supported by a shooter. So there's the strength and fatigue factor of the shooter to consider too. I doubt many of us could hold a 30 pound gun steady for very long. Even with technique that minimizes muscle use and maximized bone and skeletal support you still need muscle input. Likewise a gun that's super light. There's not enough use of bones for support relative to muscle input, so you're going to wobble more. So shooter conditioning is a critical input factor too.

Human anatomy hasn't changed a whole lot in the last 300-400 years, but our understanding of metallurgy, physics, kinesiology, sport training, and ergonomics has advanced quite a bit since these guns were designed however long ago they were.

Since "everything is connected to everything else, every gun is a compromise, and every shooter is going to need something just a little bit different for them to get their "most accurate combination". And all of that can continue to change and evolve dependent on the technique and conditioning of the shooter. Most of us aren't in the same shape in our 70's as we were in our 20's.

Hope this helps.

All good points. However, I can tell you that my GPR that is heavier and has the same length barrel as my Crockett, holds much more steady. This takes the human factor out of it. By all rights, if it were shooter fatigue then the heavier rifle should be more difficult to hold steady. But that is not the case here.

 

[DCAN]

I was lucky enough to have been given an original SMR style rifle when I was too young to fully appreciate what I had. It had clearly started life as a full stock and at some time been converted into a half stock with a poured pewter cap. The barrel was about .36 cal, rifled and long. Wish I had measured it but I didn't. What I remember most is how steady it was to hold and sight with. That gun is what sparked my interest in ML rifles. Wind the clock forward about 50 years and my Kibler SMR is almost the spitting image of that old gun. It also has the same balance and steady hold I remember.
I enjoy shooting a heavier barreled rifle. For me they are just easier to obtain a solid sight picture with. If I'm shooting a lot and feel any fatigue I just take a break and do a little cleaning and organizing.

 

[smokepolehall]

Ed i told you of the long barrel rifle in my younger days. It being a percussion model S poorboy. My other rifle with change out barrels is a hoot. Both barrels have 32" length, both are .40 cal, one barrel is 13/16" with a 1:48 twist. The other is 7/8" with a 1:24 twist bullet shooter. Rifle is the Under-Hammer, the 13/16" actually easier to hold n not as nose heavy. The 7/8" sets well when braced as off a tree for support. I have not decided if one is better than the other yet. I do think over the next year or two, i will send my T/C Hawken .45 down the road. The 15/16" barrel is heavy even though its only 28" long.

 

[Col. Batguano]

All good points. However, I can tell you that my GPR that is heavier and has the same length barrel as my Crockett, holds much more steady. This takes the human factor out of it. By all rights, if it were shooter fatigue then the heavier rifle should be more difficult to hold steady. But that is not the case here.

That speaks to my point about a heavier gun holding steadier. There is more mass that needs to be set in motion, and smaller muscle twitches or inputs have a lesser effect in moving it. There is going to be a sweet spot range for your current musculature though. Too light and it will whip all over the place. Too heavy and you won't be able to control it adequately.

Why don't you try a science experiment to find out what weight and balance point works best for you? Take what you feel is a reasonably light gun that you are comfortable with, and start adding 1 pound weights along its' length (just use blue masking tape and some lead casting ingots) until you feel like it's too heavy to control. Adjust their locations until you feel like you've found the right spot for the balance point, and a weight range that works for you.

As a point of reference, on my small bore rifle intended for offhand shooting, for me, about an 11 1/2 pound weight is about right (hooked butt plate) with a balance point about 9" in front of the trigger guard. (Our league rules allow for overall gun weight up to 13 pounds.) But that's a gun that just gets used at the range. The only carrying I do with it is when it's in it's case. That's not a hunting gun!

 

[ETipp]

That speaks to my point about a heavier gun holding steadier. There is more mass that needs to be set in motion, and smaller muscle twitches or inputs have a lesser effect in moving it. There is going to be a sweet spot range for your current musculature though. Too light and it will whip all over the place. Too heavy and you won't be able to control it adequately.

Why don't you try a science experiment to find out what weight and balance point works best for you? Take what you feel is a reasonably light gun that you are comfortable with, and start adding 1 pound weights along its' length (just use blue masking tape and some lead casting ingots) until you feel like it's too heavy to control. Adjust their locations until you feel like you've found the right spot for the balance point, and a weight range that works for you.

As a point of reference, on my small bore rifle intended for offhand shooting, for me, about an 11 1/2 pound weight is about right (hooked butt plate) with a balance point about 9" in front of the trigger guard. But that's a gun that just gets used at the range. The only carrying I do with it is when it's in it's case. That's not a hunting gun!

Thanks for the information and I agree. All valid points.

I had already decided yesterday to do an added weight test. I have a steel bar that I want to tape to the bottom of the stock and/or barrel. I haven't weighed it yet but I intend to do so. Either way, I want to go through the test just to see. I can also move it forward and aft to check different balance points.

I also agree that my muscle makeup has most likely changed.

 

[DCAN]

Thanks for the information and I agree. All valid points.

I had already decided yesterday to do an added weight test. I have a steel bar that I want to tape to the bottom of the stock and/or barrel. I haven't weighed it yet but I intend to do so. Either way, I want to go through the test just to see. I can also move it forward and aft to check different balance points.

I also agree that my muscle makeup has most likely changed.

I know my muscle mass has changed. Now, if I stand just right I have a "muscle mass' to rest my left elbow on.