I have a couple of stocks of my own to do, one on an FN Mauser 257 Roberts and the other on a lefty Charles Daly 17 Remington. I'd like to do both with the shorter forend as seen on many English bolt guns. How long should that be and where is the measurement taken? From the front of the mag well? The front of the action? Thanks in advance.

My basic 'formula' for fore arm length is as follows; 1" less than half the length of the barrel. Adjust from there to suit your eye.

While that formula is pretty common for American sporters, it is too long for an "English" style sporter. I went and measured several of my English built sporters and from the front receiver ring to the tip of the forend they average between 8.5 to 9" . My American sporters run between 10-11" but it also depends on barrel length, mine are generally 24" barrels.

I have always used the 1/2 barrel length less one inch rule unless the customer specifies otherwise. Because the customer is always right. Even if he is really, REALLY, WRONG!

The only exception is if the customer intends to have a sling a sling on the gun full time. In that case I have him throw up a gun with his correct length of pull a few times and locate the front sling anchor location and make sure that his hand will be 1-1/2 inches behind it and still not have it's location interfere with a fore end tip if one is requested. Form over fashion.

It's not much fun when a customer comes back with his nose picky, poky, pointy puddy all ripped to shit because the front swivel crashed into it and he wants to wrap the gun around your neck!

Did you read the part where he said he was interested in the shorter English style foreend? I am officially invoking the Mike Dettorre rule.... We don't care what the OP wants, we will Tell him what he needs. Sounds like the Govt.

quote:

Originally posted by lee440:
Did you read the part where he said he was interested in the shorter English style foreend? I am officially invoking the Mike Dettorre rule.... We don't care what the OP wants, we will Tell him what he needs. Sounds like the Govt.

I don't think there really is a cut and dry answer to the OPs question. Each gun maker, every country and even region has it's own specific style and taste. There are certain limitations in regard to function however. You don't want to find yourself choking up on the stock when you throw it up. You also have to make allowances for options like swivels, bipods and other gadgets. It's a foregone conclusion that most American fore stocks are far to long for general functional purposes. I have always speculated that the use of decorative tips and slings were the logic behind this. The British have always been much more utilitarian about their firearms and have often scorned fancies and gadgets. Some of my english customers have even described slings as being dangerous and should not be on firearms. They get tangled in things, are in the way and quite frankly, a gun belongs in your hands where you can use it. Not on your back in storage. Italians on the other hand even put slings on shotguns. Like I said, there is no real cut and dry answer. Only personal preference.

Thanks guys for the replies. I like the look of the shorter forend found on some of the English bolt guns. This W.R. Pape 256 Mannlicher is pretty short but I like the look. I'd probably go just a touch longer than this one but not much. I'm on the north slope working remote right now so I cannot measure it until I get home.

Some have suggested using the golden ratio - 1.618. It gives a pleasing look in my opinion. Divide the length from receiver to the end of the bbl. by 1.618. That gives the distance from the end of the bbl. to the end of the forend. The ratio of total length to the distance from forend to the end of the bbl. is the same as the ratio between the distance from forend to end of bbl and the length of the forend. For a 24" bbl that measures 23.5" from the receiver, that will give a forend length of slightly less than 9".

quote:

Originally posted by lee440:
Did you read the part where he said he was interested in the shorter English style foreend? I am officially invoking the Mike Dettorre rule.... We don't care what the OP wants, we will Tell him what he needs. Sounds like the Govt.

ADJUST FROM THERE TO SUIT YOUR EYE. What part of that is hard to understand?

quote:

Originally posted by slivers:

quote:

Originally posted by lee440:
Did you read the part where he said he was interested in the shorter English style foreend? I am officially invoking the Mike Dettorre rule.... We don't care what the OP wants, we will Tell him what he needs. Sounds like the Govt.

ADJUST FROM THERE TO SUIT YOUR EYE. What part of that is hard to understand?

So you're basically saying:
"Stop asking for advice and put it wherever the hell you want!"

That sounds like something I might say! LMAO ROFF

quote:

Originally posted by thirdbite:
Some have suggested using the golden ratio - 1.618. It gives a pleasing look in my opinion. Divide the length from receiver to the end of the bbl. by 1.618. That gives the distance from the end of the bbl. to the end of the forend. The ratio of total length to the distance from forend to the end of the bbl. is the same as the ratio between the distance from forend to end of bbl and the length of the forend. For a 24" bbl that measures 23.5" from the receiver, that will give a forend length of slightly less than 9".

This is what I'd suggest, in addition to drawing it out on paper 1:1 full scale before digging in so you can make your mistakes on paper first and then have a roadmap to use during the project.

Golden ratio formula at work here:

Some of the early Rigbys have Seven inch forearms measured from the front of the receiver ring. They look funny to us, who are used to enough wood out there to hang meat from. Or use as a single tree. For you young/city guys, that is a horse operated thing. The English intend for your left hand to grasp the barrels, not just wood; also evident on early double rifles. The "beavertail" idea is an American abomination and is not only ugly, but really ugly too. Some idea about avoiding hot barrels. Nonsense; any true sporting Gentleman will be wearing custom made shooting gloves.
Did I mention that big forearms are ugly?
Oh, yeah, make it so you like the looks and feel of it; that is the only thing that is important; Nothing else.

Evan K. - Very nice.

7 1/2"-8 1/2" is where I like them when measured from action face.

quote:

Originally posted by speerchucker30x378:

quote:

Originally posted by slivers:

quote:

Originally posted by lee440:
Did you read the part where he said he was interested in the shorter English style foreend? I am officially invoking the Mike Dettorre rule.... We don't care what the OP wants, we will Tell him what he needs. Sounds like the Govt.

ADJUST FROM THERE TO SUIT YOUR EYE. What part of that is hard to understand?

So you're basically saying:
"Stop asking for advice and put it wherever the hell you want!"

That sounds like something I might say! LMAO ROFF

I just can't see anyone being much of a stockmaker without having an imagination and a certain sense of 'willing to take a risk' to try something different, or to reach the same result through a different route. Especially if I have a base-line starting point to work from! Some have too much time on their hands....

I might as well jump in here !
When I got my Browning 1885 it had a 28" barrel , too long for a woods gun. Looking at various carbines of the Civil War there were many samples . To MY eye a fore end about half of the barrel seemed to be the best looking proportions. So 22" barrel and 11" fore end ! It works for me and no deer have objected !!

BTW the rifle vs carbine usually has been 6" difference .The 1903 rifle was actually 30" and the carbine was 24" . They decided to only make the carbine !

quote:

Some have suggested using the golden ratio - 1.618. It gives a pleasing look in my opinion. Divide the length from receiver to the end of the bbl. by 1.618. That gives the distance from the end of the bbl. to the end of the forend. The ratio of total length to the distance from forend to the end of the bbl. is the same as the ratio between the distance from forend to end of bbl and the length of the forend. For a 24" bbl that measures 23.5" from the receiver, that will give a forend length of slightly less than 9".

Best answer in my opinion. Aesthetically one should definitely consider barrel length, and this formula does just that in a classically acceptable manner.

For example, I think the forearm in the rifle pictured below is way to short for the barrel. It's practically a 1/4 stock.

But, of course, do whatever pleases you!

quote:

Originally posted by montea6b:

quote:

Some have suggested using the golden ratio - 1.618. It gives a pleasing look in my opinion. Divide the length from receiver to the end of the bbl. by 1.618. That gives the distance from the end of the bbl. to the end of the forend. The ratio of total length to the distance from forend to the end of the bbl. is the same as the ratio between the distance from forend to end of bbl and the length of the forend. For a 24" bbl that measures 23.5" from the receiver, that will give a forend length of slightly less than 9".

Best answer in my opinion. Aesthetically one should definitely consider barrel length, and this formula does just that in a classically acceptable manner.

For example, I think the forearm in the rifle pictured below is way to short for the barrel. It's practically a 1/4 stock.

But, of course, do whatever pleases you!

This rifle is aesthetically pleasing largely because of what it is, its history and the fact the style used was common to the era.

Were I building one like it today from scratch I might go with a slightly longer forend, though not much longer. Perhaps an inch or two at most.

quote:

Originally posted by mart:
This rifle is aesthetically pleasing largely because of what it is, its history and the fact the style used was common to the era.

Not trying to start a pissing match, but period correct and aesthetically pleasing are two separate things, and they don't always go hand in hand!
That's not a bad looking rifle by any means, but I still think the stock looks too short for the barrel.

+1

The short stumpy forends look European to me. A long, slender forearm is the traditional British look to me.

Unless, of course, if you're talking British double. Forends on those are short.

quote:

Originally posted by montea6b:

quote:

Originally posted by mart:
This rifle is aesthetically pleasing largely because of what it is, its history and the fact the style used was common to the era.

Not trying to start a pissing match, but period correct and aesthetically pleasing are two separate things, and they don't always go hand in hand!
That's not a bad looking rifle by any means, but I still think the stock looks too short for the barrel.

Let me rephrase that. This rifle is aesthetically pleasing to me for the aforementioned reasons.

Its not written in stone, but I prefer 8.5" including the Ebony forend tip..with a barrel swivel at 10.5 or two inches in front of the forend..Ive done 7.5 and 9 inches on a number of guns..but I, personally, like 8.5. I have a 35/36 inch shirt sleeve, and arm length should have a say so in that..