Damage resulting from too much lead on lead sled??

[lcq]

So I guess that makes me stupid? I have been around the profession of arms my whole life, and hunted constantly during that time as well. I have the great good fortune to own a few rifles and to have fired darn near everything up through .600 (though I didn't like that much at all.) In other words, I think I know how to use a rifle without awaiting a phaser.

If I can employ a rest which shortens sight-in time while making the whole effort more precise, then I actually think that I'm pretty smart and probably don't need "fixing" as you so artfully put it. And, as I noted, I have actually used one regularly for what must be a decade with no issues at all with rifles or scopes, regardless of theoretical postulations to the contrary. It allows me to spend more range time utilizing the positions I will use on a hunt- to include sticks. For me, that all to the good and not so stupid at all.

I believe you took my post out of context as I didn't mean to offend you. I meant to point out that those who stack up the lead sled to stop "all movement" were going to damage a rifle by providing an inelastic condition where the gun absorbs 100% of the recoil (a very unnatural condition). As you probably noted I also use a LS with a bag of shot for some of my rifles for precisely the same reasons you do. I'm sorry if I offended you as it wasn't directed at you

 

[sheephunterab]

My gunsmith has a shelf full of broken stocks...casualties of the Lead Sled.

 

[Red Leg]

I believe you took my post out of context as I didn't mean to offend you. I meant to point out that those who stack up the lead sled to stop "all movement" were going to damage a rifle by providing an inelastic condition where the gun absorbs 100% of the recoil (a very unnatural condition). As you probably noted I also use a LS with a bag of shot for some of my rifles for precisely the same reasons you do. I'm sorry if I offended you as it wasn't directed at you

Obviously, I should not have. No offense taken. Why I deleted it. Simply have little patience with those who condemn a product through theoretical supposition rather than through actual experience with it. One of my favorite load developers uses one. And he caters to those who shoot very fine firearms indeed.

 

[Ray B]

As I noted in the original post; it is clear that a heavy recoiling rifle puts strain on the stock- particularly the area between the recoil lug(s) and the buttplate. Most of the discussion has been to convince those that are already convinced that placing the stock on a virtually immoveable object places stresses on the stock. I have only noticed one post that actually addressed my question- that being how is the scope involved. When the rifle recoils the force is applied moving the gun rearward. the scope is along for the ride and if the rifle moves less, the scope moves less. But the issue may be answered in the one post regarding how the gun recoils when is a lead sled or similar recoil absorbing device. When scoping piston powered air rifles it was found that while there was negligible recoil, how the gun recoiled would damage the scope. the answer was that the scopes were built to absorb rearward acceleration. the air rifles had rearward movement and forward movement. It was this forward movement that caused the damage. So this diagnosis applied to heavy recoiling rifles would indicate that the real danger would result from the rifle having a short distance of free recoil- as it took up the slack in the sled and for this short distance would accelerate to a high rate of speed, although very short lived. then the rifle gets tightened up with the sled and the rifle decelerates rapidly- The affect from the scopes point of view would be the same as forward recoil. Since scopes for centerfire rifles are designed to absorb rearward recoil they have no defense against a rifle that is allowed to accelerate and then come to a rapid stop. So do I have that correct?

 

[bassasdaindia]

I have not read the entire thread yet , I can however say with conviction that a lead sled has a negative effect on accuracy .

I use mine for 416 and upwards , however I get the rifle as close to zero with the lead sled and then I shoot from the sticks and the bench to fine tune the zero.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

@Ray B, I don't know whether or not scopes are designed only for rearward recoil and not forward. But I'd agree that the scope is subjected to the same rate of deceleration as the rifle since it is obviously attached. The scope isn't supposed to hit the back stop, whether that be the shooter or lead sled whereas obviously the butt of the rifle is. I suspect that makes things different. But in the end I've seen/read and/or experienced directly scopes of all price points fail. I can only attribute that failure to the harsh mechanical environment they're subjected too.

Make that environment even harsher and the scope is going to fail sooner.

 

[Shootist43]

Let's face it. When we mount a scope to a rifle we do everything we can to make it an "integral" part of the rifle. When we subject the rifle to additional strain or external forces doesn't it stand to reason that the scope is subject to those forces as well?