quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:
Let's see a nice CNC stock. Add some machine or laser checkering and there you go. Add a spary finish no need for hand rubbed oil. Pretty darn close to a factory stock.

Yup, a Boyd's finished drop in.

Re the pantograph. I would much sooner the stock maker worry more about the last stages of the stock making process than the first.

quote:

Re the pantograph. I would much sooner the stock maker worry more about the last stages of the stock making process than the first.

Since I run a pantograph I feel it adds value. However if you start making many changes to the base pattern a good stock maker can probably be almost as quick. One problem with a pantograph CNC etc working with wood is chip out. Easy to see and correct when you cut by hand. Try and get too close with a cutter in wood against the grain and you have issues. With metal no big deal.

I've seen quality work done both ways. I think it is up to the maker to determine what he is most comfortable with.

Keep them posts coming!

A pantograph is no holy grail when it comes to stockmaking. I have a very accurate one I built. The machines have a very large learning curve to get the best results. Additionally you must have a very good grasp of stock design and be able to build a proper pattern in order to achieve any sort of satisfactory finished product. It takes me more than 5 hours to inlet a blank no matter how close I try to get the inletting on the pantograph, unless it is a very simple action shape to inlet such as a High-wall. I typically stock mostly SxS's, with a fair amount of single shot British rifles and the occasional bolt gun. I give an equal amount of attention to every step of the process. A quality finish is what grabs the eye but quality inletting, shaping, layout and checkering all contribute to the final product. Each stock is an individual and I treat them as such. How much time it takes depends on too many variables for me to give an accurate answer.
Steve Bertram

I've been "messing" with gunstocks for some 60 years, made a few from "scratch" as they say. At the end of the day I mostly worked on the semi-shaped and inletted bought mostly from Herters but a few from Bishop / Fajen. Always liked the adverts saying 90% finished when in actual fact most were only 10% with 90% of the stock left to do. Having that initial "10%" done saved me a lot of time but the real work just began. How one gets to the real work is a matter of choice and the least important aspect to stock making, is it not? --- John

John that is 90% of the extra wood removed. A semi is far from 90% completed.

I like your thought. 90% of the wood removed and 90% of the labor left.

Re. time involved, I just finished making one from the blank and I took seven full days to go from the blank to the first coat of finish. I am NOT a real stockmaker by any stretch of the imagination and am neither as fast nor as good as those who fit into the category. In the time it takes me to do one, Martin Hagn could do three. Mine will look OK to a myopic man walking briskly past while his will be perfect under close scrutiny. The same is true of the work of any of the masters of the craft. Regards, Bill

quote:

I just finished making one from the blank and I took seven full days to go from the blank to the first coat of finish.

Interesting. Was that working steadily throughout each day from a certain starting time to a certain ending time for each day - say working straight through a steady 8 hours each day for 7 days?

Did it involve the use of any machines at all, or was it all strictly hand labor?

Thank you.

And Lindy swoops in again...

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:
Re the pantograph. I would much sooner the stock maker worry more about the last stages of the stock making process than the first.[/QUOTE

You mean...the hell with the foundation, let's get on to the shinging?

I didn't say that. But since you brought it up. There are some pretty good stock makers out there using a pantograph or having someone else start with a pantograph. The funny thing is I never hear them bad mouthing the guys who don't, but the reverse is certainly not the case. I'm sure there is a certain amount of pride in owning a rifle with a stock built completely by hand, but I certainly wouldn't cry myself to sleep because Curt Crum used a pantograph on my rifle.

I'm also a little fuzzy on why it seems to be just fine to use metal cut from the finest mechanized equipment in a rifle but the stock needs to be kept as far from electricity as possible?

I'm trying to wrap my head around what makes this stock making art kosher. Help me out here.

Duane, post a picture of the buffer with the shaper cutter. That thing still gives me the sweats. Between lossing a finger or toasting a 1k blank.

Maybe I shouldn't butt in here, but what I got out of Chuck Nelson's post about machinery was that most, if not all, modern custom gun makers use milling machines. If you need to do a stock by using only hand tools to be a "true" custom stock maker, then why not use files, scrapers and other hand tools to put all the finishing touches on an action and avoid the use of any type of electrical device, milling machine, lathe, drill press, etc. to finish out the action, sights, trigger guard assembly, scope mounts, or anything else that most use a milling machine, lathe, etc. to finish. Maybe totally wrong here in what Mr. Nelson meant, and it is not the first time I have been wrong, and probably will be wrong countless times in the future, but everyone is entitled to an opinion!

quote:

Originally posted by AlanFaulkner:
Maybe I shouldn't butt in here, but what I got out of Chuck Nelson's post about machinery was that most, if not all, modern custom gun makers use milling machines. If you need to do a stock by using only hand tools to be a "true" custom stock maker, then why not use files, scrapers and other hand tools to put all the finishing touches on an action and avoid the use of any type of electrical device, milling machine, lathe, drill press, etc. to finish out the action, sights, trigger guard assembly, scope mounts, or anything else that most use a milling machine, lathe, etc. to finish. Maybe totally wrong here in what Mr. Nelson meant, and it is not the first time I have been wrong, and probably will be wrong countless times in the future, but everyone is entitled to an opinion!

This is exactly what I am getting at. It makes no sense.

I'm not going to speak for anyone but myself but when making a custom, one off stock, I spend enough time getting my pattern correct that a really fast stocker could most likely be done well before I could get my pattern correct and it run through the machine. A pantograph makes a builder money when he runs the same pattern over and over. Some builders never make two stocks close enough to one another that they would be better off building patterns. I like my pantograph because I do quite a bit of restoration work and it is very handy at copying an original. My guess would be that Duane knows what works best for him in his shop.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Oh.. I can't argue there isn't a place for a pantograph. My personal disdain is aimed at the stumbler that buys a "90 per center", then calls it custom. Probably didn't make that clear.

I find I can get measurementss and accuracy to splitting a scribe line when layout on a squared up blank.

Using power tools to achieve that accuracy is logical.'

This thread started out with time spent making a one off stock from a square blank...as usual the subject has found new direction.

Perhaps the most honest approach I've ever seen on this pantograph use is by the very talented man from CA, Steve Heilmann. He owns a Hoenig, but has two prices. One for "one off" and the other for "reuseable patterned" Tbe difference in cost is about 25%.

I remember well how schitt hit the fan when he posted that.

This makes perfect sense! Thanks Duane.

Looks like this one was cut and finished on a CNC. Wood that be CNC Checkering??
http://www.gunbroker.com/Aucti....aspx?Item=458970823

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:
Looks like this one was cut and finished on a CNC
http://www.gunbroker.com/Aucti....aspx?Item=458970823

Only $22000. How did I ever miss out on that one!

It may just be me, but that Hornady rifle is one UGLY rifle. Might have to sneak up on it to load it.....just saying.