Shooting Customisations - Part 1 - Weight Balancing

In this series of posts, I will talk about why it is my opinion that technical data, bullet trajectories, grouping sizes & long range performance are perhaps less important than good operating capability (ergonomics) of the gun to get the best possible score.

These posts are not meant to undermine the importance of an accurate rifle, it is merely being written to highlight some of the more important human factors that are a critical part pf being a good shooter.

This topic will likely be a few part series, & I hope you find them useful to improve your shooting.

These are just my experiences, no one is paying me to write these. I welcome your experiences too, please share your thoughts. What do you think worked or didnt work?

Simple argument:
A gun that groups 0.25 inches at 25 metres off a rest in a factory test but has a stock that doesnt fit you & has a crappy trigger will shake so much & pull so badly that you will never steadily be able to achieve the 0.5" group. You may infact shoot a 2" group & be very disappointed.

A gun that when benched only gives you 0.5 inch group at 25 metres but has the most brilliant trigger & a stock that just feels like part of your body, will let you get a 1" group easily.

Whats better? Id say its the second option. Yet, when you have to go buy a gun, the first thing we emphaise on is reviews & technical data.

Lets look at some other factors that often cant be given a number or a score, they are going to be different for each individual & what fits one may be horribly bad for the other.



Part 1 - Weight balancing

A recent experience that confirmed my opinion:

I bought a NZ$100 used Stirling bolt action rifle, probably over 20+ years old.
It had a shortened stock & a shortened barrel of only 15". It was modified by the original owner to train young juniors, or ladies, or anyone slightly shorter who needed something lighter & properly fitting their body.
Simple standard sporting rifle with wood stock & blued parts, nothing fancy. The barrel looked slighty thicker than that of a CZ, maybe what we might call close to being a varmint barrel, but it was cut short to 15" from its original full length.

There was rusting, & even some pitting, but the bore didnt look too bad for its age.
The trigger was not as light as my CZ bolt action's modified kit trigger. It had just a little bit of creep, but it was a crisp break otherwise.

Mathematically, the twist rate of this barrel was designed for a full length 20", so cutting it down has dramatically reduced the spin induced on the projectile. Big deal? Lets see..

I screwed on some butt plate extension pieces to increase the length of pull, & put on a cheap but decent simmons scope & gave it a shot in the 25 metre range.
That night, I shot my personal best target of the whole year. Better than with my CZ!

But how can that be despite the trigger being inferior to my CZ bolt action. You'll quickly point out how I above stated the trigger is important.
Also, the stock wasnt much better. Well, the stock was fitting me about as nicely as CZ, but there was 1 new discovery.

The shortened barrel meant less inertia on the tip of the far end, so I could control & keep it
steady from shot to shot relatively easily. Being ticker, the weight on top of my left hand was closer to my hand, again toward the more managable point, yet it wasnt too thin a barrel such that it would float too much in my left hand.

You must have heard me rave about weight balancing & fit in many of my posts, & this is no exception. So in this case:
The perfect weight balance + an adequate enough trigger + a stock that was good enough 
Vs
Less than ideal balance + very good trigger + decent stock

I want to make this more obvious by putting numbers on it:
Lets say a score of 1 to 10 for each of the 3 above categories:

For this cheap Stirling bolt action rifle:
Weight balance = 10/10
Trigger release = 6/10
Stock Fit = 6/10
Total = 22 points

For my CZ bolt action rifle:
Weight balance = 6/10
Trigger release = 8/10
Stock Fit = 6/10
Total = 20 points

The stirling wins, & it makes sense.
So, what Im keen to do now is cut off my CZ bolt action rifle's barrel.

Wait!! wont that completely screw up the long range accuracy of the rifle??
I dont mind!

Wait, what? Youre going to cut off the barrel & youre telling me that despite it shooting badly at 50 metres, maybe not so bad at 25, & you 'dont mind' !?
YES!

Bullshit. - I hear you say...

Well, let me explain...
The inherent level of inaccuracy induced by cutting this barrel down is significantly lesser than the inaccuracy induced by the discomfort of shooting this gun at a long range!

Going back to the very start of this article, thats what I was talking about.

As long as my rifle is capable of shooting tighter groups than I am capable of shooting with it, its good enough.
There is a big gap between what I can do & what my gun is capable of doing.
And I can almost bet you this is tue for most acverage shooters.
Reduce this gap, however it has to be, as long as the combined result gets you a better shot!

Simple isnt it?

What do you think? Tell me your opinions. Do you believe we should just learn to use the best equipment, or make the equipment work for you? What are your experiences if any? Please do share them here.