This month’s article sort of hit me out of nowhere in a literal sense. Many comparisons have been made between two firearms which at their core are identical but have been “dressed up” differently. To those who aren’t so into firearms the one with the more modern stock and accessories somehow gives it the appearance of being something menacing and dangerous when mechanically there’s no difference between them.
With that in mind, what’s the point of upgrading these firearms to make them look less like classic and traditional tools used for hunting and more like what one might expect to come out of the back of a SWAT van? There’s actually quite a number of reasons, some of which I’m going to dig into.
It all started a couple of weeks back where I had an opportunity to try out a pair of 6.5 Creedmoor rifles, one being a Tikka in a chassis stock and the other a Barrett Fieldmaster. Both are bolt action rifles. It starts out simple enough, the Tikka (I believe it was the T3x TAC A1 model which is pictured) was the first brought to the line. It’s a substantial piece of hardware. The chassis gave it some upgraded equipment such as an AR-15 style grip, an adjustable stock, detachable box magazine, and room for a heavier contour barrel with a large muzzle brake on the business end.
I put my three shots through it and stepped away having a really good feeling overall. The recoil was comfortable. The grip was comfortable. Everything just plain worked. Despite being a big heavy rifle everything fit me nicely and fun was had. I quite enjoyed it!
Then I got a chance to try the Fieldmaster. At first glance this is everything that a classic hunting rifle would be. Traditional stock lines, a fixed internal magazine, bare muzzle, no iron sights, and a scope up top. These are the rifles which have dropped countless game over more than a century across the globe. It was lightweight and built with the standards of quality I’d come to expect from a company like Barrett.
The first shot slammed the scope dead into the center of my forehead. My teeth caught. Somewhere in there I managed to pinch my tongue. It rattled me good and proper. Red stuff was pouring down the side of my nose.
This is all while firing the exact same round through the exact same action as the much more tame Tikka.
So how is it that the “evil SWAT van” version was so much nicer while the classic hunter nearly knocked me onto my butt?
First, let’s consider the stock. The Fieldmaster, following traditional lines, makes for a lightweight rifle which is more comfortable to carry around and swing about in the woods but this translates into more recoil. A whole lot more recoil. I also find these styles of stocks to be incredibly uncomfortable to hold and that my grip frequently breaks upon recoil. Since the grip area is mostly inline with the bore axis the whole gun wants to jump backwards through your hands upon firing. Get a strong enough caliber and you might find the trigger guard attempting to overtake your index finger. As you might imagine, this is not fun.
Shotguns are huge offenders here and also why you couldn’t pay me to put a full power round through something like a Mossberg Shockwave unless the rear grip was changed out. I like to shoot anything I can get my hands on…except for guns like the Shockwave.
The Tikka had the clear advantage from a shooting perspective, however the heavier aluminum chassis would make it highly impractical for hunting use. Having that AR-style pistol grip meant that my hand was in a much more natural position for shooting. Upon recoil the energy would be transferred at a right angle into my palm, making it much easier to control without all of the discomfort. There’ll never be a risk of the trigger guard attempting to devour any of my fingers. This is why every pump action shotgun I’ve ever owned has had the stock replaced with a pistol grip which always makes them worlds more approachable.
Because the cheek riser was adjustable I could also have the rifle better fit to me, further adding to its comfort and handling. If there’s empty space between you and the firearm there will be a natural tendency for that space to collapse upon recoil. This is exactly why people always tell new shooters to keep the stock tight up against the shoulder. You really do want to “become one” with the firearm.
Next up, the muzzle. The Fieldmaster had a bare muzzle. No flash hider, no muzzle brake, no compensator. The Tikka had a chunky muzzle brake with several horizontal channels. A good muzzle brake or compensator eats up a whole lot of recoil, though it’s true that they make any firearm considerably louder as a result. Even with this boost in noise a muzzle brake is an incredibly beneficial addition to most any rifle, they take the bite out of a firearm’s bark. Even a .223 rifle without any muzzle attachment can give your shoulder a good smack.
Third, how about that Tikka’s detachable magazine? With the Fieldmaster and just about every traditional bolt action rifle the rounds need to be thumbed in one at a time through the action. This gets awkward on a couple of levels. You have to support the entire rifle while you’re struggling to feed those rounds in one at a time into often finicky magazines and often while working beneath a scope. It isn’t fast, it isn’t efficient, and it isn’t all that fun.
Compare this to a detachable magazine where you have a much smaller and lighter object which can very easily be loaded, safely, from anywhere. You don’t have to worry about muzzling a bystander when you’re only holding the magazine. You also never have to worry about going around the scope. If your rifle is on a bipod then you can leave it sitting nearby and never have to touch it until you’re ready to reload it. An added benefit is that it is much easier to verify that any firearm is empty if its magazine is removed. (Though do remember to check the chamber.) Not only is this all more convenient but it’s also considerably safer.
Reaching beyond these two rifles there are other factors to consider. For instance, one of the reasons why I prefer semi-auto rifles to bolt action is because of their mechanics. With a bolt action (and with a revolver) every time they’re fired the entire recoil impulse comes straight back at you. Even smaller calibers can generate quite a punch as I had learned putting nine millimeter rounds through a Chiappa Rhino revolver. With any semi-automatic operation there are reciprocating parts, additional mass, and spring tension which actively mitigates what recoil is transferred into the body. That energy has several places to go all at the same time. There’s also the benefit of not having to manually operate the action after each shot which allows you to stay “in the zone” and focus on trigger control and breathing uninterrupted.
Something else to consider are adjustable stocks. Whenever I’m handling an AR-15 I have different preferences for their length of pull depending upon whether I’m standing or firing from a more fixed position. If standing, I like it close. If at a bench, the stock goes all the way back. Shooters, positions, and situations are all dynamic. When the firearm can be adjusted on the fly to meet these conditions it’s going to lead to much more comfortable shooting, better accuracy potential, greater enjoyment, and boosted confidence which comes as a result.
I had once been asked by someone why I like modern firearms so much more than the more “traditional” styles and at the time I didn’t have a straight and true answer for them. I like the looks of modern firearms, the sounds they make, their ergonomics, the manner in which they operate, I even like handling those detachable box magazines. It’s a “whole experience” sort of deal for me and trying to explain on the fly isn’t easy! But, after this recent range outing with the Creedmoors I can now sum it up pretty well.
A modern sporting rifle never hit me in the face.
