Lead Sleds

[sethkuhl]

I bought a Lead sled three years ago.
While shooting the week before big game season with my Ruger Model 77 Mark II chambered in 7 Rem Mag, The shot threw something past my face. Upon inspection a chunk of stock the size of a dime was dislodged from my stock and ejected back towards my face.

Anyone had this problem with a lead sled?

Do I write Ruger or Lead sled?

Am I just SOL?

 

[noharleyyet]

ShOL I'd bet. I use a sled knock off but never weighted....in fact I took the tray off.

 

[Ben Lamb]

From where did piece of stock that was ejected come? Around the tang or butt?

 

[sethkuhl]

ShOL I'd bet. I use a sled knock off but never weighted....in fact I took the tray off.

So they sell a product and advertise it to reduce recoil, but it harms guns and nothing will be done about it?
I guess putting my info out there on how crappy they are is the best option then.

 

[sethkuhl]

From where did piece of stock that was ejected come? Around the tang or butt?

Around the Tang right in the middle,

 

[belly-deep]

I've heard more than one report of stocks breaking in lead sleds, usually somewhere around the grip or tang.

 

[Ben Lamb]

All of that recoil has to go somewhere.

You're torquing the stock in the sled. If you're locked into it, then there's no flex, or less flex than normal. All of that torque will cause problems after a while. Ditch the sled and get an x bag. Way better tool than the sleds, and it makes you focus on breathing and shooting in something closer to field conditions (no sleds or vices out in the woods).

 

[noharleyyet]

I've heard more than one report of stocks breaking in lead sleds, usually somewhere around the grip or tang.

Same here...basic physics.

I'd call em both seth...but there's some fine print somewhere. probably. Not making liught of your predicament btw.

 

[jryoung]

Sounds like a failure of the stock that would/could have happened over time, but maybe the sled accelerated the failure?

Got any pics? Wood or synthetic?

Maybe Ruger might help you, but this seems like an odd issue. It may be an indirect result of using the sled, but not a direct (ie part of the sled hit the stock causing a chuck to dislodge).

 

[MattK]

When we got a lead sled the guy selling it to me warned me about putting too much weight in it. They work great but if you put too much weight (in his words) it will act like putting the butt of your rifle against a solid brick building. The energy has to be absorbed somewhere and the stress on the stock is far too great.

 

[MThuntr]

I agree with what everybody has already said...Take it as a sign to buy an aftermarket pillar bedded stock because neither company will likely honor a claim.

 

[jryoung]

I think David Petzal's "least favorite things" article and his comment on sleds is appropriate here.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/artic.../things-i-least-curmudgeons-guide-rifle-world


■ The Lead Sled: I like Lead Sleds and wish they had been around when I started pounding my shoulder to rubble. They can save you from detached retinas, back damage, flinching, and possibly dandruff. My problem comes when people shoot off the Lead Sled exclusively. At some point, sweetheart, if you want to learn to shoot a rifle, you have to take your lumps.

 

[stillkickin]

I got on the bandwagon and bought a lead sled too, I agree with Mr. Petzal. OK to shoot if you don't want any recoil, but, I don't like how they perform. My sand bag rest is far more accurate for my use.

 

[sethkuhl]

Had a scope go T U put 50 rounds through the gun in a day and decided it was time to buy one. That is how I got into it.
It is a wood stock.
Seems like poor advertising to show them shooting a .416 and how it reduces recoil, but when you shoot a much smaller gun it "torques" your stock.
I agree to be a good hunter you need to shoot shots that you get in the field. But to start every season (Spring Bear, Fall Bear, Deer and Elk) I shoot my gun off the lead sled to make sure it groups and that there are no problems.
I will attach a pic tomorrow.

 

[jryoung]

Seems like poor advertising to show them shooting a .416 and how it reduces recoil, but when you shoot a much smaller gun it "torques" your stock.

All advertising by nature is poor and should not be bought into. The physics are the same whether it's a .416 or .17HMR, the energy has to go somewhere and depending on the amount of energy it could cause harm to source of energy absorption.

 

[1_pointer]

I does reduce the recoil...at a cost, which you found out. Some good news is that unless you had a wonderfully pretty stock, wood and or laminate replacement stocks aren't all that expensive.

As an aside, I've also read where they are hard on scopes as well. FWIW...

BTW, did you have the sled weighted and if so how much?

 

[sethkuhl]

Not sure as to the exact weight, I had one old bank "money bag" filled with sand on it I would estimate the weight at 10-15 lbs. It was a pretty stock, treat my stuff well so it was in good shape. ?Now to put a stock on it.
Price? Will spend up to three hundred on it.
Luckily it is not my only big game rifle but it was definitely my favorite and I had the most confidence in it!
A lil info, I shoot a lot, but 450 is the longest I have ever taken at a big game animal and that was a mule deer that was packing lead from a member of our hunting party, so long range is not necessary, although I do put in a lot of hiking and carry it in my eberlestock scabbard on a just one pack ( so lighter would be nice). Price would be nice to be low but I want to get a good stock over a cheap one.
Any suggestions?

 

[1_pointer]

Wood or synthetic?

If synthetic, I'd suggest you up your price ceiling and get a McMillan. They are about $450 and come in a variety of camo and color options. Under $300 the options are Bell and Carlson and Hogue, the latter of which you may be able to get directly from Ruger.

If wood, I'd contact Ruger about buying one direct from them. IMO, the new Hawkeye stocks, which will fit a MKII, are better proportioned than the wood MKII stocks. Another option for wood and/or laminate would be Boyds. They offer lots of options.

http://www.boydsgunstocks.com/Replacement-Stocks-for-Ruger-10-22-and-77-MKII-s/6.htm

 

[sethkuhl]

All advertising by nature is poor and should not be bought into. The physics are the same whether it's a .416 or .17HMR, the energy has to go somewhere and depending on the amount of energy it could cause harm to source of energy absorption.

Hard time buying into a 17HMR breaking a stock in a lead sled. But it is my baby (My rifle) and seems like false advertising to show a guy not taking licks from a .416 yet if you shoot your rifle in those same conditions it will break stocks.
I see your point, but not sure that you see mine.

 

[bigeasygator]

I have one that I use and haven't had any issues. The sled itself is pretty heavy and cuts down on the recoil quite a bit...especially for an all day session at the range shooting a few guns or, particularly, sighting in a new one. I think if you are adding any more weight to it you are asking for trouble. That energy is going to go somewhere and it's not gonna be good for stocks and scopes. The consensus seems to be that just the sled alone doesn't impart enough energy to hurt things too bad.