I’m building a pattern stock for my left hand granite mountain G33/40. The barrel is 22.5 inches long from the receiver ring to the muzzle. The golden ratio fore end length is 8.59 inches and that is what is shown here. This looks OK to me but most early sporting Mausers have shorter fore ends with even longer barrels. The Rigby Highlander has a 7-3/8” fore end, about 1-1/4” shorter than the one shown. The stock is a laminated Richards microfit that still needs considerable thinning, filling and reshaping, especially the grip. I’d like to see some photos of finished guns and get an idea of fore end length versus barrel length from the receiver. Opinions are invited also.

https://i.imgur.com/cBF8LMz.jpg

That is plenty short. Rigby forends are too short in my opinion. Just because it is a Rigby doesn't mean it looks good.
It will look shorter and lighter when the tip rounded.
Slant-box, circa 1913 Rigby .303 with too short forend.

I've always used/referred to the Golden Ratio/Mean, +/- more or less. YMMV...

https://www.brownells.com/aspx...etail.aspx?lid=14237

I just took delivery on this much-improved Brno ZKK-601 in .223 by Aaron Little.

Aaron and I discussed forend length for a while before settling on this. It works for me!



Mark

Please can you expand on the Golden Ratio Formula

Is it not barrel length divided by 1.6? Then subtract the number from the barrel length to get the proper forestock length.

Total barrel length x 0.382 = forearm length.

https://www.canva.com/learn/what-is-the-golden-ratio/

I have struggled with this for 50 years or so. The idea of a "ratio" to determine the fore-end length makes sense but in reality should factors as the presence of a front sight, a barrel band swivel base, the vertical thickness (and taper) of the fore-end, the scope intended and the overall lines desired all have their effect on such mathematics. I use a different ratio as a starting point, that being the for-end length to the exposed barrel in front of the receiver ring. With this in mind, a ratio of around .425 looks nice (equating with .415 ratio for the normally measured 22" barrels). when a swivel band and front sight are present, I tend to like smaller numbers that calculate very closely with the Midway ratio using conventional barrel length measuring techniques. The real point of all this is to consider these ratios as only starting points and then "factor" in what you're after. I have long learned to draw things to scale and adjust this to my taste and what I'm after. Baskin and Robbins found out a long time ago there are many different flavors for different folks. It's always neat to do this but I doubt art can be reduced to definitive numbers or ratios so go have fun with your next perfect piece...

Another method I've used is to measure the length of the action from back end of the closed (or cocked) bolt to front of the receiver ring and use that length as a starting point for your forearm length, adjusting it +/- til your boat floats.

As eddie said, you've just got to figure out your favorite flavor. And yes, art cannot be reduced to numbers or ratios, but they can be helpful.

8 to 8.5 inches including Ebony forend tip, and its the owners choice, not set in stone..for my rifles..With barrel band front sight, island or quarter rib rear, and swivel two inches infront of the wood...barrel length is also optional..millimeters don't count for squat..build them like you want them.

quote:

Originally posted by SDH:
That is plenty short. Rigby forends are too short in my opinion. Just because it is a Rigby doesn't mean it looks good.
It will look shorter and lighter when the tip rounded.
Slant-box, circa 1913 Rigby .303 with too short forend.

Totally agree, just like some Porsche's are pretty ugly as well.

This topic has been considered,re-considered and re-re considered previously. Rules? Well...Clyde Baker had this rule: Forend should be 1 1/2" inches longer than half the barrel length...Hmmmm Why argue...even if it looks strange in the eyes of most
shooters?

Obviously, the forend needs to be longer for a stock mounted swivel to avoid a painful encounter when firing.

Some very smart guy put the swivel on the barrel..problem solved!

In my opinion, he front swivel should allow the rifle to hang from the shoulder just enough to get a comfortable hold on the buuplate...Why? To allow one to "steer" the rife under or around obstacles.

When the swivel location is found, the foreend tip needs a little room behind the swivel. a least 1- 1/2" Two inches even better. (As mentioned by Mr. Atkinson) It really matters not how far back one makes the fore end from the swivel, but you just gotta keep an eye on appearance

I have a client that holds his fore end hand just in front of the front guard screw in the off hand position, A four inch fore end would be plenty practical..but I never went down that road in the numerous rifles I built for him

What ever one likes best, but few really put a lot of thought into stock design, more likely they only see marble cake regardless of layout or cure..but its the individuals choice and if he or she likes it, that's about all that counts..Were this not so, Remington wouldn't sell a handful of 700s!

I saw a 8" forend on a British rifle today and it was an awesome rifle in 7x57 and the barrel band swivel was centered between the forend and barrel crown and it looked and felt great..and the gun hanged right while packing it, it was low and the barrel was a tad head high on me with a rather long sling, only down side is I wouldnt want it to go off next to my ear, but that wouldn't happen and hanging by the butt was even better and faster to get into action.

quote:

Originally posted by 218 Bee:
I just took delivery on this much-improved Brno ZKK-601 in .223 by Aaron Little.

Aaron and I discussed forend length for a while before settling on this. It works for me!

That's a handsome rifle, indeed. I heavier calibers (.338 Win Mag and up) I like a bit more beef in the grip area... something to hold onto for recoil control.

That rifle suits me to a T..awesome, properly laid out, awesome wood, and Im betten I could close my eyes, toss it to my shoulder, open my eyes and be dead on the target.

The grip doesn't look all that skinny to me...Like to know the circumference. Fair amount of wood in front of the comb nose...maybe tricks the eye

Using a pre-determined ratio to determine a fore end length is a good start. Shape/taper and an ebony tip (or lack thereof) and the sights and or swivel loop or bottom swivel mount all play into the overall appearance. Then there is the overall shape of the stock to consider. Slender butt/ slender fore end.

A few for comparison -


Top to bottom: All from front ring +/- .125"

7.50"
8"
7.75"

All the way to the muzzle I say!

Seriously, the forend has nothing to do with the barrel and everything to do with your forearm. It should allow you to put your off hand behind the sling stud and still be comfortable; and the sling stud should be positioned so you can wrap yourself in the sling for steady shots from the prone or even the sitting or standing positions. This is all independent of the barrel length.

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
Total barrel length x 0.382 = forearm length.

https://www.canva.com/learn/what-is-the-golden-ratio/

My electric calculator says a 22" barrel would generate a 7.22 in, foreend...Not arguing, in fact find that acceptable...just putting it into numbers

quote:

Originally posted by SDH:
That is plenty short. Rigby forends are too short in my opinion. Just because it is a Rigby doesn't mean it looks good.
It will look shorter and lighter when the tip rounded.
Slant-box, circa 1913 Rigby .303 with too short forend.

That Rigby looks OK to me...

Maybe some spirit stain to darken the wood a bit.

1 1/4" less than 1/2 the length of the barrel, then adjust to what suits you. example; 24" barrel, half that is 12", less 1 1/4" = 10 3/4 FROM THE RECEIVER/BARREL JUNCTION. (but barrel length is measured from breechface to muzzle)

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
Total barrel length x 0.382 = forearm length.

https://www.canva.com/learn/what-is-the-golden-ratio/

My electric calculator says a 22" barrel would generate a 7.22 in, foreend...Not arguing, in fact find that acceptable...just putting it into numbers

quote:

Originally posted by slivers:
1 1/4" less than 1/2 the length of the barrel, then adjust to what suits you. example; 24" barrel, half that is 12", less 1 1/4" = 10 3/4 FROM THE RECEIVER/BARREL JUNCTION. (but barrel length is measured from breechface to muzzle)

WAY too long unless very tall with swivel on the fore end The photo of the Rigby shows a darn nice pleasing stock that looked good when it was built and looks good now, will look good in the future

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
The photo of the Rigby shows a darn nice pleasing stock that looked good when it was built and looks good now, will look good in the future

Couldn't agree with this more...

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
Total barrel length x 0.382 = forearm length.

https://www.canva.com/learn/what-is-the-golden-ratio/

My electric calculator says a 22" barrel would generate a 7.22 in, foreend...Not arguing, in fact find that acceptable...just putting it into numbers

Mr. Wiebe, I believe that you transposed those numbers. I believe you entered .328 instead of .382

22 x .382 =8.404

quote:

Mr. Wiebe, I believe that you transposed those numbers. I believe you entered .328 instead of .382

Damn, must be that electric calculator :-)

I was going to say, Duane you need new batteries!

You're right! makes 8.4"...still OK by me..Whew..sure glad we got thru THAT crisis

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
That rifle suits me to a T..awesome, properly laid out, awesome wood, and Im betten I could close my eyes, toss it to my shoulder, open my eyes and be dead on the target.

Couldn't agree more (even if Mr. Bee and I do disagree on safety design...)

I like SDHs rifle pictured...

A grip can be small, and look too large, this is done by making the sides egg shaped to a center line on the flat sides, and it will have a thin feel but appear large to the eye as probable in Torres rifle, and thats a nice touch, Ive done that on more than a few custom stocks for ham handed brutes, and they liked it, and in fact it felt good to my smaller hand..

I got that tip many years ago from Jack Haugh and it makes the stock stronger thru the grip, especially for a big bore and it still feels small...Hope my explanation is good, it much easier to show someone than to describe.

I think I follow. The first one to pop into my head is the shape of the skeleton stocked 77 Ruger. That grip was slim and trim side to side. Didn't feel like a high-power rifle, more like a 22.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I like SDHs rifle pictured...

A grip can be small, and look too large, this is done by making the sides egg shaped to a center line on the flat sides, and it will have a thin feel but appear large to the eye as probable in Torres rifle, and thats a nice touch, Ive done that on more than a few custom stocks for ham handed brutes, and they liked it, and in fact it felt good to my smaller hand..

I got that tip many years ago from Jack Haugh and it makes the stock stronger thru the grip, especially for a big bore and it still feels small...Hope my explanation is good, it much easier to show someone than to describe.

I guess what ever sends your flag up the pole.

To me the slab sided grip is very uncomfortable...kinda doesn't fill the palm.

I’m surprised that no one mentioned the location of the rear sight in relation to fore end length.

One of the big name custom makers build a beautiful rifle with a British style stock. As beautiful as the rifle was, the tip of the fore end didn’t reach the large island style sight. To my eye the rear sight/fore end mismatch really threw off the look of the entire rifle.

A sort of "standard is to place the rear sight about 4" in front of the receiver (I'm not suggesting this as a "rule", golden or otherwise)

Older shooters may want that placement a bit further down the barrel.

Point is that I can't imagine a rear sight so far forward as to cause visual mismatch. I'd chalk this up to bad judgement

For those that like to read~~Published in Sports Afield October/November 2010

I do like the profile of the Rigby style, but have never handled one in the field.

SDH, very good article. Thanks for posting it.

quote:

Originally posted by SDH:
That is plenty short. Rigby forends are too short in my opinion. Just because it is a Rigby doesn't mean it looks good.
It will look shorter and lighter when the tip rounded.
Slant-box, circa 1913 Rigby .303 with too short forend.

Too short? Are you joking??

quote:

Originally posted by 218 Bee:
I just took delivery on this much-improved Brno ZKK-601 in .223 by Aaron Little.

Aaron and I discussed forend length for a while before settling on this. It works for me!



Mark

very nice!