Accuracy depends upon consistency. The closer everything is exactly the same between one shot and another, the closer the points of impact will be. Since our body is constantly moving and is connected to the stock, the flexible fore-arm of a rifle stock creates the probability the stock will exert varying pressure on the barrel and have an adverse effect on accuracy. To solve this problem, the fore-arm portion of the stock can be free floated so that only the most rigid part of the stock is in contact with the action. The problem with a free floated stock occurs when the stock is so flexible it can still touch the stock when pressure is applied, thus affecting accuracy. Gunmakers opted on solving the problem of their flimsy plastic stocks by making a forearm contact point adhering to the theory, the contact will be the same between one shot and another. The PROBLEM with that solution is the stocks are so flexible, that the pressure the little contact point exerts on the barrel can still vary too much to satisfy the needs of a precision shooter. The solution most shooters recognize as being the BEST is to make the stock as rigid as practical, bed the action as firmly as practical, and free float the barrel as freely as practical…

Is there a question here? Is the discussion on if this is accurate? I'm lost on this post

Just too much free time on my hands this morning…

Gun makers were doing the pressure points long before the flimsy tupperware stocks were put on rifles. Sako, Remington and Winchester to name 3 have been doing that for years on wood stocks. Theory is it dampens the harmonics of the barrels reducing the sine wave of the barrel as the gun is shot. It works to a point but if you load up a bipod or the stock is warped it can not only affect accuracy but POI as well.

All good, I was just confused. I agree with kmon -- contact point or no, those issues can potentially cause problems

Depending on how much free time you have, you might consider reading up on the system that Weatherby uses to test every rifle sent to them by a customer who claims it's shooting outside of warranty specs. This or a similar system is likely what company designers utilize during the Design Phase to determine when a pressure point improves accuracy. It no doubt produces performance data that's well over my head. But I will stick my neck out and say engineers are looking for a constant and consistent series of pressure waves, following along the lines of the earlier comment that "everything is exactly the same between one shot and another."

Oehler System 83 Ballastic System Instrumentation

Yes.

And I will add.

Manufacturers are trying to make a forearm shoot a wide variety of ammo "decent".

Once you step into extremely precise shooting rifles, NONE OF THEM have a forearm touching the barrel from the recoil lug forward. In fact, starting back to front, you want a dead solid, no gap contact point of action to stock, tang to recoil lug. That is what bedding is for, and recoil lugs, and action screws. From recoil lug forward, you want zero contact, EVER!

I have opened up the forearm on many a rifle before I ever started a load development. Checked for clearance with the weight of the barreled action sitting on a bipod on the end of the forearm. Loading the bipod on a Tikka T-3 stock, Savage, Remington, and many other manufacturers I can make the stock peel away from the barrel the stocks are so flimsy.

You're just trying to stomp out the ignorance posted by someone else on a different thread. It is almost a full time job with that guy. The latest was just another trolling job.

What did I miss? If it's on this board I could take some guesses

Agreed. The folks at Weathertby openly admit to using pressure points on their barrels with a thinner wall thickness (than their #3 Contour barrels) in order to dampen harmonic vibrations. Free-floating them would only make it easier for these vibrations to propagate along the length of the barrel. Spend some time in other shooting forums and you'll learn how pressure points are just another tool used by both designers and reloaders looking for optimum rifle performance.

As for the impact of adding a bi-pod to rifle with a pressure point in the forearm, you would think it would act no differently that any other type of supporting rest and have minimal impact on accuracy. However, I could easily see how a warped stock might change the force being applied to the barrel.

My own very limited understanding of Physics makes me believe it's the location of the pressure point along the barrel, rather than the amount of pressure applied, that matters most to rifle designers. But here again, having access to the right instrumentation would seem critical in being able to identify that "sweet spot". Otherwise, you'd be chasing after accuracy with different amounts of gunpowder and lead.