The topic is free-floated barrels and my M77

[Captcurt]

For those who want to know why I want to float the barrel when I haven't shot the rifle yet, I never said I wanted to float the barrel. I added the last sentence to post #1 saying that this is a discussion about free-floating and possibly why the M77 wasn't. It's been a good discussion, but most seem to think I'm trying to make changes without trying the gun first. I just wanted to start a discussion. A lot of today's rifles tout the fact that their barrels are free-floated and that makes them more accurate. But Chuck Hawks thinks it's done for economic reasons. Maybe he's right, maybe he's not. He sure knows more about the workings of a rifle than I do. That being said, I truly value the opinions of those on this board. I'm always impressed with the knowledge displayed in the discussions on here and I try to learn from them.

So I was just looking for a discussion about floating in general and maybe why the M77 Mk II wasn't. Right now I'm not planning to make any modifications to the rifle.

You are right about the modern rifles being floated for economic reasons. It is a lot easier to hog out a barrel channel than to properly bed one. I grew up reading Jack O'Connor, Jim Carmichael, and Roy Dunlap. Back in the good ole days the goal was to float a barrel with only a tiny gap between wood and steel. You had to look closely to see it and a thin paper was all that would slide from forarm to action. Most were bedded 2" or 3" in front of the action. Now the barrel channels may have a 1/8th to 3/16" gap. Uncle Jack would roll over in his grave.

 

[mshootnit]

I had a friend who'd purchased a Rem 700, used from a pawnshop, had its synthetic stock glued to the barrel hard all the way down. It was a complete hack job and was touched up with black sharpie to keep the gorilla glue from contrasting with the black stock.

The rifle was a stellar shooter with most factory ammo.

HA! I love it. I might have to try that.

 

[Shrike]

If you live in an area with a rather un-stable climate, you need to free float for consistency of impact. I can live with a rifle thAt shoots larger then 1 moa, as long as the impact point is the same in -10 or +18 C degrees.
Where I live in northern Alberta it can be sunny and +16 one day and snow flurries with -5 the next morning, often with very variable humidity levels. I use now strictly laid up Kevlar or fibreglass stocks. I like a gap of at least a bussiness card thickness. When shooting from a bipod and exercising some face pressure on the stock results in high impacts with barely a sheet of paper thickness as free float. More gap is needed!
Nice wood stocks are a no brainer, unless you do not mind a large unsightly gap.
I have been there done it and seen it! Tightly bedded wood stocks a la Ruger in unstable climate conditions give nothing but problems. Rugers need to be floated right after purchase. One of the reasons that the nice Euro Manlicher Schoenauer rifles with skinny full length one piece wooden fore ends are such problem children up here.
How did JOC deal with that problem on his Canadian trips?
Jack never really used out of the box mass produced rifles. His were custom jobs, I assume with straight grained well seasoned pieces of wood and probably well sealed off from the inside and outside with multiple oil finishes,before the assembly of the rifle. Jack was always meticulous about sighting his guns regularly even on a hunt, probably readjusting now and then as needed. His stocks were a far cry from the mass produced stocks with improperly seasoned wood you see nowadays on production rifles.
Neither do I like the Tupperware stocks unless they too have large gaps around the barrel. Having the sun shine on one side allows you to see the thing warp within minutes. Appalling!

 

[Casefull]

Shrike, you nailed it.