Originally Posted by gunnut07
From all my years shooting and tinkering with rifles and trying to get the last .0001" of accuracy out of many of them I am going to say yes.
I built a sweet looking 219 zipper with a 26" bull barrel this rifle weighed in at about 18# with the old school Unertal 15x scope on it. That rifle didn't recoil at all and it never shoot worth a damn I am talking a red ryder would shoot tighter groups at 50 yards than this rifle did. I had my smith turn the rifle to a #7 contour and that lightened it up significantly so it had some recoil groups started to shrink best I could do at 100 yards were about .6" for 5 shots. I had him take it down more To about a 5 contour and bingo .2" 5 shot groups with the first loads I used in it.
So a rifle that doesn't recoil is not going to be too accurate is what I have seen. Now muzzle breaks and mercury dampening systems I have to idea. I choose to shot rifles that do need wizbang gizmos for you to hit the target. I am cheap so I go for pure accuracy that way I don't waste bullets.
Great post - it was almost Gospel when I was young - a thicker barrel w be more accurate than a thinner one. Thicker - stiffer, heats up slower etc.
(Still back in- "The Day")
Bolt actions ruled until one writer got pissed, put a match grade heavy barrel on a lever action platform and shot sub MOA groups. Other platforms "do" have the "potential" for accuracy.
Now, people are less suspicious of the action or platform and more concerned about how well it shoots. Example: block shooting champ used two Nylon 66s (X<$90) to set the record.