Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
One of Us |
Was doing a little reading last night and came on something I had noted 50 years ago but had completely forgotten the source of... Turns out the source was R.G. (Bob) Owens, about as famous a stock maker as has lived in North America other than maybe Shellhammer (SP?). To determine an aesthetically pleasing and well balanced hunting rifle forend length, Owens apparently liked a length of 18-3/4" from the trigger to the tip of the forend or its cap....for a bolt action rifle with a 24" barrel. Then his rule of thumb was to lengthen the forend 1" for every additional 2" of barrel length and to shorten it 1" for every 2" less barrel length. In other words, the forend was 18-3/4" for a 24" barrel,19-3/4" for a 26" barrel, and 17-3/4" for a 22" barrel. That was in 1950. Whether he changed the lengths he liked later in his career I don't know. What do you custom stock makers think of that as a not engraved in stone "rule of thumb"? Do you have any general rule you use to determine forend length for a nice looking and well balanced hunting rifle? If you do, would you share it with us here? My country gal's just a moonshiner's daughter, but I love her still. | ||
|
One of Us |
AC I have seen this referred to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio and it sure seems to work for stocks. if I am doing it correctly it means that the proportion of the buttstock to total length is the same as the proportion of the fore end to buttstock. I dont recall which forum-custom built rifles maybe?-but there was a lengthy thread about this a couple of years ago "The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane." Mark Twain TANSTAAFL www.savannagems.com A unique way to own a piece of Africa. DSC Life NRA Life | |||
|
One of Us |
That would be abnormally long to my eye. Heck my 7x57 has a 25 in barrel and it is 13 1/2 from the front of the trigger bow to the end of the forearm and it has a 13 1/2 L O P. Looks balanced to me and would look grotesque with another 5 inches added. I have seen a forearm length as a proportion of the barrel length but in reality I think it depends on what style you are emulating. Personally I like the short Rigby style | |||
|
one of us |
When I shortened my 1885 Browning I made a bunch of drawings. To me you shoudn't go less than 2X of the forend. So it went to 22" .Works fine ! | |||
|
One of Us |
I don't care for long forends. The forends on these rifles are close to being the same length as the overall length of the receiver. It can vary slightly +/- depending on barrel length. I think this is the "golden mean" thread Sean referred to: http://forums.accuratereloadin...821077541#7821077541 | |||
|
One of Us |
I was just about to agree with what you were saying, Duane, but you seem to have deleted the post. Based on user preference, user size and dimensions, and style. I am a shooter not a gunsmith. However, I have my preferences. For single shots I prefer a longer forend. . | |||
|
One of Us |
Duane, I also caught your post before you deleted it. I think you're right on the money. | |||
|
one of us |
no longer than the barrel if you like a mannlicher. Anyone who claims the 30-06 is ineffective has either not tried one, or is unwittingly commenting on their own marksmanship Phil Shoemaker Alaska Master guide FAA Master pilot NRA Benefactor www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com | |||
|
One of Us |
Please do. Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
One of Us |
+1. | |||
|
One of Us |
Good stuff. This and the balance needs to be a "sticky" tread in the Gunsmithing Forum. Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
One of Us |
Me too. That's why I asked. I like the Brit stalking rifle style in particular. I like my rifles' forends to be short enough that I can easily grasp the barrel rather than the forend, but very few Americans seem to like them that short, and don't normally hold their rifles that way. | |||
|
One of Us |
Stalking hunters who may need to get onto an animal quickly understand that concept A C. I have just finished making the stock for a Lee Enfield in the Lee Speed style of sporting rifle. A BSA MLE Mk 1* from 1900. 8 1/4 in in front of the receiver ring to forend tip with 25 1/4 in barrel. Still a bit to do on the metalwork though. | |||
|
One of Us |
Nice Speeder ! | |||
|
One of Us |
I will quote Clyde Baker in Modern Gunsmithing - written in 1928 and its a wonderful read in its own right - I have a facsimile edition produced in 1995 by the Border Press. On Forends " I like long forends. I like them longer by an inch or so most stockers recommend, the usual length being none to ten inches from receiver. Such a forend adds a bit of weight out towards the muzzle where it is needed to balance the rifle ... And it permits of better lines in the entire stock. And finally, it eliminates to a large degree, the skinny appearance of a rifle with a thin barrel.... If asked to lay down a general rule for forearm length, I think I would make it read this way: Let the distance from receiver to extreme tip of foreend equal approximately half the barrel's length, but not in exof a 12 1/2" forend - provided this dimension permit placing the front sling swivel from 15 to 18 inches head of the trigger. If the swivel is attached to the barrel this point can of course be ignored. If it goes through the forend it will be necessary to have it of such a length to permit the desired distance. The swivel will look better if placed 2 or 2 1/2" back from tip of forend". He then goes on to say - and rememebr he was writing in the late 1920's " I wonder if some gunsmiths who insist on giving us very short forends are not thinking of the extra time required to inlet a barrel into the longer one, and of the extra care which must be exercised to bed the barrel with even pressureat all points." I do rather agree with him, and do like and prefer a longer forend of the American classic style, rather than the very short British style. | |||
|
one of us |
Duane, Just keep doing what you are doing! | |||
|
One of Us |
+1 Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
one of us |
I lean heavily towards English style rifles. Most of my guns have a short 8 to 8.5 forend measured from the from action ring and they have a barrel band swivel two inches ahead of that and barel band front sight. Usually a two or three leaf iron sight flush with the end of the Ebony forend tip. Ray Atkinson Atkinson Hunting Adventures 10 Ward Lane, Filer, Idaho, 83328 208-731-4120 rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com | |||
|
One of Us |
To me its very simple--1/3 the barrel length from the the front of the receiver ring. I once got a lengthy explanation from a guild member that Quoted the "Devine Proportion", really I'm not kidding . He took it from the guild magazine. After some mathamatical gymnastics he came up with something like 8 and an eighth for a 24 in. barrel. Why not just divide the barrel by 3. This however gives a classic British look which I prefer. Most american forends are an inch or so longer. Whatever floats your boat. | |||
|
One of Us |
I like mine on the short side. 2/5ths of the barrel length ahead of the receiver ring. ......civilize 'em with a Krag | |||
|
One of Us |
It's interesting that this subject should be in 'Custom Rifles'. As that's what custom means to me -to the persons order which would mean each person has their own idea what is correct.When I build a stock I generally steal a few ideas from several different stocks. I actually prefer very open pistol grips,pancake shadow line cheekpieces and rather long full forearms such as found on David Miller/Curt Crum stocks. To me the typical English rifle has an overly long thin barrel and a greatly abbreviated forearm that makes for a grossly disproportionate stock. Of course that again is just my opinion and just does not constitute a rule. I think to be a 'custom' means there are very FEW rules. SCI Life Member NRA Patron Life Member DRSS | |||
|
One of Us |
My former Rigby in .303 had a 6½" forend and my former 400/350 had a 8" forend. My .333Jeffery has a 9½" forend. No more is needed really. DRSS: HQ Scandinavia. Chapters in Sweden & Norway | |||
|
One of Us |
I agree a custom is a custom. Regardless, there is no one appropriate rule. There is a reason for the development of British stalker and North American types of stocks....each is better suited for the respective conditions. In open range conditions/cartridges off of rests (sticks, packs, branches, etc) a longer fore end is more suitable. DGR conditions it's not. It ain't rocket science. There are two types of people in the world: those that get things done and those who make excuses. There are no others. | |||
|
One of Us |
Custom is custom, and the customer gets what he wants. If he/she should bother to ask my opinion, I would want to know their way of shooting. Many hunters never lets off a shot unless it is from prone position, and others will need a fit for standing free hand. While the action itself is always the same length, and persons vary from 5 to 7 feet, it is hard to set any rules of thumb. Myself, I like standing, fast offhand shooting. Combined with my slender figure og 6-2", I need a longer forearm than the short Rigbystyle forearms so highly loved by "everybody" today. The D'Arcy Echols Legend is about as close to what I prefer as anything else I can think of, but an even longer forearm is okay by me. Here is a great example i found on Google: Turned out to be a Duane Wiebe as well! Bent Fossdal Reiso 5685 Uggdal Norway | |||
|
one of us |
It is always interesting to see attempts to quantify measurements which are traditionally a bit flexible. Let's face it; forarm length has always been a matter of personal preference with the ideals changing a bit with the times. Early American stocks always had longer forarms which were, perhaps, reflective of the popular shooting style of the time (prone with a sling). Europeans liked abreviated forarms with barrel mounted swivels. The British often took this even further. Imeasured a few of mine just to see what I had done and I have three Mausers, all of which I think look OK, and they measure at just over 17 1/4 inches and have 22 inch barrels. A pre-war Model 70 measures about 18 14. It looks pretty good with it's 24 inch barrel and swivel placement is good. I like Duane's explantaion for sling swivel placement; another thing to which I had not given much thought. I have always gone with the "that looks pretty good" approach and have been lucky that it worked out. Anyway, I don't think I 'll waste a lot of time measureing since my forarms seem to come pretty close anyway and I am happy with them. By the way, a Ruger number one I just checked only measures 14 inches from the trigger (my forarm) and it looks ok with the 25 inch barrel. Plainly, single shots are different. Regards, Bill | |||
|
One of Us |
I'm presuming, unless otherwise noted, that the "long forend lengths" are measuring from the trigger whereas the "short forend lengths" are measuring from the "receiver ring". Perhaps while a "forend length rule of thumb" relates solely to the individual ordering the rifle - could we perhaps at least settle upon which measurement "the collective we" are discussing? Are we "measuring from the front edge of the receiver ring to tip of forend?" Are we, "measuring from the front edge of the trigger to the tip of the forend?" And if this, is it the trigger or trigger bow? Or do we leave it to the individual stating their forend length preference perhaps requiring a follow up question to identify what actual length is being measured? Any comments? Preferences? Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
One of Us |
I just figured all measurements were made in reference to the edge of the front receiver ring, which is pretty close to how barrel length is measured. (OK, actually from the bolt face...) I mention this because I think any discussion of forend length without speaking in reference to its proportion to barrel length is somewhat fruitless. Going back to early designs there were full stock rifles, (think Kentucky flintlocks) and half stock rifles, (Hawken plains rifles). These were named because of their relation to the barrel length, not because they met any specific measurement criteria. Today we have full length Mannlicher style, half stock, and others... The Mannlichers are never discussed as having a forend length of "X" inches, they just go all the way to the end. And no further... (I guess it could go further, I've just never seen one that does!) You don't hear the term "half stock" used much, but I think it means that the forend stops exactly halfway down the barrel, just like it used to mean. Right? The photo above is a perfect example of this. Looks good, functional, etc. Others: This is where it breaks down a bit... Personally I think anything longer than half stock looks a bit silly unless it goes ALL the way to the end Mannlicher style. So, most fitting into the "other" category are somewhat shorter than half stock. The traditional European early 20th century stalking rifle, Rigby style, call it what you will... Totally personal preference, and I don't think there is any "rule of thumb", as long as it is functional. If you value proportions and aesthetics I think it is wise to factor barrel length into the equation. The golden ratio can be applied in this case. Or, just pick a length that looks and feels right to you. | |||
|
One of Us |
Monte, I as well presumed the forend was measured from the front edge of the receiver ring to tip of forend until I read Bill Leeper’s post. Then re-read the thread and again noticed the long forend length measurements that Alberta Canuck noted which led me to think he also measured from the trigger rather than the front edge of the receiver ring. Hence my posted questions… Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
One of Us |
Echols forend geometry sure feels good, and so do the shorter more tapered for-ends of Ralf Martini, A trimmed and slimmed Hagn s-hot or G33/40 based rig by Ralf, feels just divine! Mr.Selby took to the grip & forend of his English style .416 with hand tools within the first couples yrs of ownership, in order to make it a slimmer more lively handling rifle. | |||
|
one of us |
I used the measuement from the trigger as that is what was posted in the original post. Normally, I would measure from the receiver ring. Again, I think the "that looks pretty good" system is as good as any. Regards, Bill. | |||
|
One of Us |
I understand. Thanks! Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
One of Us |
I asked a gunsmith friend of what his thoughts or formula were in finding the length of barrel verses forend . His response was a simple and effective one .. Measuring from the end of the barrel to the front of the receiver , minus 55% will get you close to the end of the forearm . example ... If your exposed barrel measures 23.5" from the receiver to the muzzle , minus 55% equals about 10.5" , which is about length of forend measure from the front of receiver . You can also measure length of barrel , minus 45% . example ..... 23.5" barrel , minus 45% equals just under 13" and this should be close to the measurement from the muzzle to front of nosecap . Not written in stone but it gets you close !! I also like em a bit shorter rather than too long .. also thinner foreend gives the gun a livelier feel in a sporting weight rifle !!! | |||
|
One of Us |
I like the for-end from the start of the barrel to be the same length as the total action length. | |||
|
One of Us |
That would be right on a bolt rifle but would make a Farquharson or a No1 a little difficult to hold | |||
|
One of Us |
I dont think I would want to apply the same rule of thumb to all of my rifles. They were not intended to all look the same. AK-47 The only Communist Idea that Liberals don't like. | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia