Saw a mention of this "Rule" awhile back, but there was no elaboration on it in the thread. I did a google search but found nothing in the first dozen pages except info on the stock market.

I always thought the "golden rule" was he who has the gold, makes the rules.

Golden Devine Proportion Ratio ?

1.618034



.

Do unto others before they do unto you?

J D Miller has your answer. Phi is the term given to the golden rule which is simply a proportion that is found in nature that is pleasing to the human eye(mind). Designers from ancient times to me use it daily.Google Phi.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike in Michigan:
Saw a mention of this "Rule" awhile back, but there was no elaboration on it in the thread. I did a google search but found nothing in the first dozen pages except info on the stock market.

The term is actually the "golden mean". Also, the "golden ratio".

http://www.google.com/search?q...rtIndex=&startPage=1

Now, to further establish my credentials as a simple hillbilly with a GED, how is this applied to firearm design?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike in Michigan:
Now, to further establish my credentials as a simple hillbilly with a GED, how is this applied to firearm design?

Some people(myself included) use the Golden Ratio to determine forend length when making a stock. We feel it provides a visually more pleasing alternative to the old 'half the barrel length minus 1 inch' rule of thumb. This is especially true when a barrel band is used on the rifle.

The math
Forend length = Barrel length - (barrel length/1.618034)

Using that formula for my rifles with 25in barrels I would get 25 minus (25 divided by 1.618034) and be stuck with a forend of 9.55 and that would be wrong for all three of them. I have three such barrel lengths in rifles for three different purposes with two having barrel band sling swivels and they have forend of 7 3/4 and 8 3/4 being for a 7x57 and 404 respectively. The third is on a 20 VarTarg and with a forend of 10 3/4 and a forend mounted sling swivel. I think the "formula" may be a guide for a certain style of rifle but to use it across the board would get it wrong more often that it would get it right IMHO.

Von Gruff.

What VG said.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Von Gruff:
Using that formula for my rifles with 25in barrels I would get 25 minus (25 divided by 1.618034) and be stuck with a forend of 9.55 and that would be wrong for all three of them. I have three such barrel lengths in rifles for three different purposes with two having barrel band sling swivels and they have forend of 7 3/4 and 8 3/4 being for a 7x57 and 404 respectively. The third is on a 20 VarTarg and with a forend of 10 3/4 and a forend mounted sling swivel. I think the "formula" may be a guide for a certain style of rifle but to use it across the board would get it wrong more often that it would get it right IMHO.

Von Gruff.

I assume your barrels are 25" total length. When using the golden mean you only use the measurement of the portion of the barrel that is ahead of the receiver(which is less than 25"). So the "correct" fore-end length according to the mean is about 9.3"

Personally I like the idea of using the golden mean, especially for rifles employing a barrel mounted sling mount. With a fore-end mounted sling mount it becomes more problematic form a function standpoint.

Do you have photos of your rifles? I would like to see how the shorter fore-ends look with the longer(25") barrels.

Now that I got it, I will write it on the wall over the bench.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
Do you have photos of your rifles? I would like to see how the shorter fore-ends look with the longer(25") barrels.

Have posted these pics before but the first is my 7x57 with a 7 3/4 forend and to make it 9.3in would destroy the very style I wanted.



My 404 has since had the forend slimmed down a bit to take the blockiness away but again it is on the borderline of length at 8 3/4 and I have considered taking it back nearly to 8in and lightening the forend further.



My 20VarTarg is a varmint rifle and out of place for the discussion we are having.
Von Gruff.

quote:

Originally posted by Von Gruff:


Have posted these pics before but the first is my 7x57 with a 7 3/4 forend and to make it 9.3in would destroy the very style I wanted.




Von Gruff.

Agreed.

There are some arenas in which the golden ratio is just perfect...I don't think rifle forends is one of them. JMHO

You are taking me back to my Architecture school days.

Tendrams - Love the images.

If anyone would like a more indepth understanding also see Fibonacci number or sequence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:
There are some arenas in which the golden ratio is just perfect...I don't think rifle forends is one of them. JMHO

It might not be "perfect", and it doesn't have to be a major factor in your proportion calculations, but that doesn't mean it doesn't still just look right somehow. For example, I really like the proportions on the 404 Jeffrey above.

When I measure on the screen and run the numbers I come up with a ratio of 1.66. Pretty close to 1.62. I happen to think this looks just about right.

For that matter, I happen to think there are three appropriate lengths for a forearm:

1. Full length Mannlicher or military style.
2. Half stock. (ends at midpoint of barrel, sling swivels attached to stock)
3. Short. (golden ratio establishes pleasing length in relation to barrel, barrel mounted sling swivel at exact midpoint of barrel)

Minor variations are certainly OK, but I think forearms past the mid point look funny, especially if they also use a barrel mounted sling swivel. Just my aesthetic opinion FWIW.

I think there was a Sports Afield article about this not too long ago.

I think the 7x57 and 404 have been designed to mimic the Rigby look (and succeed) Personaly I prefer a longer fore end.