Are full stock rifles less accurate ?

[Zerstoerer]

Me (and Saddam)

always liked the looks of full stocked, Mannlicher style rifles like the CZ 550 FS.
Are they less accurate than half stocked rifles?
What are the advantages/disadvantages of the design other than asthetics?
Is the end cap of the stock attached to the barrel or are they free floating?

Could the CZ 550 FS in 9.3X62 be a all-round hunting rifle for Deer/Elk/Antelope in the USA and Africa?

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[browningguy]

You can usually count on a full stock to be slightly less accurate, on average, than a 1/2 stock. Some are free floated, many are not. My .308 Ruger 77 RSI is a 1.25" gun with factory ammo, my 7.65x53 1891 Argentine Mauser is sub 1" with handloads. But my #1 RSI in .243 was a 2" gun no matter what (it has since gone to live with someone else).

Yes, the CZ full stock in 9.3x62 could be used for anything you want to hunt, even dangerous game in some countries.

 

[mete]

The 9.3x62 is ballistically the same as our 35 Whelen.It's apporopriate for anything in North America.It's popular in Europe for boar and red deer [related to elk]. It was originally developed for Africa and while it lost popularity it's now seeing a comeback.It will not take dangerous game like cape buffalo or elphant [375 min required] but good for everything else. It is also ballistically identical to the 9.2x74R which is used in double rifles. ..A very fine cartridge for those who don't want a magnum !!

 

[Dionysusigma]

Aside from looks (and tradition, I guess) is there any real reason to have a "full" stock on a rifle without a bayonet lug?

 

[jerkface11]

I've got a CZ 527FS in .223. And i've shot 2" 300 yard groups before. Which is less accurate than my friends 527 carbine in 7.62x39. But more than accurate enough. Plus it looks so much better.

 

[browningguy]

No reason at all to have one, just for looks.


Ruger 77 RSI


Dumoulin


Sporterized 1891 Argentine Carbine

 

[Ol` Joe]

As far as the CZ 452FS goes this was the 1st target shot at with mine in 17 HMR. The range was 50 yds, wind was running ~ 15 mph with some gusts.



This is the rifle and a 100 yd target shot the same day as the above. The target squares are 1".

 

[cracked butt]

Aside from looks (and tradition, I guess) is there any real reason to have a "full" stock on a rifle without a bayonet lug?

Better balance. Out in the field in hunting situations there aren't convenient benchrests scattered all over the place to shoot from.

 

[LAK]

Dionysusigma

Aside from looks (and tradition, I guess) is there any real reason to have a "full" stock on a rifle without a bayonet lug?

It allows a great range of supporting hand placement when shooting over an improvised rest; be it a gloved hand over a log or the brow of a grassy bank. Just don't get carried away and allow a finger to cover the muzzle

As far as accuracy is concerned, my '52 Steyr will throw two Federal factory Noslers consistantly into an inch at a hundred. That is good enough for any practical hunting.

------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[jd46561]

Although the Target rifles in the Olympics are not full stock, the Swiss built military rifles are pretty darn accurate. The Finn rebuilds are nice also. and the Swedes. I prefer an original full stock rifle myself.

 

[Onmilo]

Properly bedded with the barrel channel properly clearanced and a properly installed pressure pad for the barrel to set on at 10.5 inches from the receiver, there is no reason a full stock rifle will shoot any less accurately than a half stock rifle.
I think the misconception comes from the fact that most modern full stock rifles use barrels that are far shorter than the same rifles half stock version.

20 inch barrels are common on full stock rifles while 22 to 24 inch barrels are mounted to the half stock rifles.
The difference in muzzle blast, muzzle flash, and muzzle flip tends to make for a poorer showing for the short barrel full stock rifles.
If you were to shoot two rifles, identical except for the stocking, that have both been properly set up, you will find both to shoot nearly identical target groups.

The only problem that one can encounter with a full stock rifle is that barrel heat dissapation is greatly reduced by full stocking when firing long strings of shots.
Because heat build up is much greater in full stock rifles and does affect a rifles ability to group I would not choose a heavy caliber full stock rifle as a dedicated target rifle.
This is a small or even moot consideration for a hunting rifle which might fire one, two, or five shots total during the days hunt.
Rimfire rifles and small bore centerfire rifles are not nearly so affected by heat as the larger, hotter burning calibers and if you like the look then I can see no reason for not choosing a full stock rimfire or small bore centerfire as a target shooting rifle.

 

[El Tejon]

Yes, they can be and a real pain in the backside to boot!

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=18068&highlight=Tejon+returns+Tejas

Here are some pics featuring yours truly and his problematic full-stocked rifle. *grumble, grumble* http://homepage.mac.com/plsmd/PhotoAlbum3.html

BTW, the boys at Robar straightened it out.