Quote:

Clearly, you're a funny guy. Not a great speller, but a funny guy. I'm very amused. Here we have a guy asking about rests, and you, the funny guy, babbling about expensive and heavy reats. Others join in.  Opinions abound. I presented my opinions. You made funny. Here's the question for you, Mr. Funny. Do you have or know of any data that compares accuracy with different rests? Do you back up your funny with data, or are you just an unsupported blathering funny guy?  Tell us, make us laugh.
joe b.

joeb33050 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 10:36am:

with picture. Funny!

And without the bag, set for the muzzle clamp. I've used any number of front rests, trying to find the best one for me. This Hoppes rest with the plywood and bags is the best so far, in that big forends and muzzle clamp and "normal" rifles fit. Just my humerous attempt to help the questioner out.
joe b.

Joe, if your silence means you give up, thats a first.  It could be my home made not a penny spent rest just blew your doors off and you dont have an answer.  You're getting soft Joe.  

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Joe.

and stickiness.
I have considered getting one of the very expensive bench rests with the precision windage and elevation adjustments, but so far have been able to control myself. First, the windage adjustable front rest, it seems to me, puts "different" forces on the forend as it is adjusted right and left. Torques the forend. Second, I can shoot small groups with the rests described above, consistently shooting under 1" five-shot 100 yard groups with rifles capable of that, so neither my rests nor my procedure is grossly wanting. I think.
I took my question to some forums, and got a variety of responses. This response let me know that my experience is not unique/I may not be nuts:
"It's a common problem when shooting at multiple bull targets. That is one thing that makes shooting a 250 on the 100 yard ASSRA bench target more of a challenge then one would think it should be. I always suspected it had something to do with the position of the rifle on the sandbags but it could also have something to do with how the rifle is held from the slightly different positions. It also could be that wind conditions change as the target is being shot. I have been shooting single shots a long time and I don't know for sure. Maybe some of the others who are more expert then I at rest shooting can give you the answer. I would like to hear from those that shoot "free recoil" to see if that helps."
The more helpful of the suggestions:
"…after each shot, move the rifle back and forward in your bags. This will settle the rifle in the bags the same each time. I move the rifle forward and aft about three time each time, just before I get ready fire."
"…slide the rifle firmly in the bags to reposition when moving to a new target. After pushing down on the rifle when sliding it in the bags after aiming at the new target; confirm the rifle is sitting squarely on the bullseye without any body pressure on the rifle.
…Rule number one is to ensure the rifle is sitting in the sandbags poin

made of aluminum and attached to a concrete stand at the range with a 3-point mount tensioned.   
I found that there was only a very minor effect observed over shooting with bags in a center target condition, but it did shift as I moved away from that point using bags vs. the machine rest.  Of course any side wind effects would induce their own effects of displacement, but for this discussion it is not the issue at hand.  The rest allows me to change the recoil damper force so that I can mimic wearing a T-shirt vs. a winter jacket.  The effects seen by the clothing thickness generally only affecting the vertical stringing.  I generally shot early mornings when the air was still while I fought off the biting bugs that attack in S. FL. when you present a static target.   
All said and done, what I found was that the shift in angle between the butt end of the rifle and the shooters shoulder changed with respect to the front bag.  As the angle increased the recoil no longer had a straight-line effect and the gun would pull just a hair.  In other words, you as the absorbing load do not absorb energy in all directions to the same degree, whereas the machine rest always kept the recoil forces in-line with the absorbing load.  This occurred even with 22 rimfire.
The whole article is attached. 
I'm baffled by your lack of the problem, and would really want to know why.
joe b. 

Joe, the checks on the table in your pics remind me of a scene in Caddy Shack.  Good job

Dave

joeb33050 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2010 at 7:27am:


Yes Joe, you've worn me down and I give up. You win! 

You should try a  windage rest though.  Even if you have to make one yourself. You might like it.

         Joe.