PDA

View Full Version : Stock question



sebastian
01-14-2008, 12:12 PM
Would it be legal in point blank NBRSA/IBS/WBSF rules to use a stock that has a toe/buttstock, for instance almost 3" wide?..."regardless" it would work OR not???
Just curious. I am in process to design/make my own stock now, & JUST want a different looking stock, & perhaps a little experiment thing. My thought is to make the buttstock/toe in "catamaran hull's shape", & I can make a rear bag to fit the stock, though. (perhaps with a single ear in the center & manage the fill hole...OR just two tiny ears with extra wide spacing?).
The extra wide toe would probably(???) track better also??????
To my understanding, the rules (LV/HV class) only mention the max width (3") & shape of the fore end (flat or convex only) & the angle of the toe ("18 inches from the bolt face etc", sorry I can't say it right), & no any part of the stock that is more than 3" wide. I can't see any rules that limiting the width of the toe, btw?

Anyones have it tried before?....I mean for the point blank BR?

Any inputs will be appreciated. TIA, seb.

Don
01-14-2008, 09:42 PM
Would it be legal in point blank NBRSA/IBS/WBSF rules to use a stock that has a toe/buttstock, for instance almost 3" wide?..."regardless" it would work OR not???
Just curious. I am in process to design/make my own stock now, & JUST want a different looking stock, & perhaps a little experiment thing. My thought is to make the buttstock/toe in "catamaran hull's shape", & I can make a rear bag to fit the stock, though. (perhaps with a single ear in the center & manage the fill hole...OR just two tiny ears with extra wide spacing?).
The extra wide toe would probably(???) track better also??????
To my understanding, the rules (LV/HV class) only mention the max width (3") & shape of the fore end (flat or convex only) & the angle of the toe ("18 inches from the bolt face etc", sorry I can't say it right), & no any part of the stock that is more than 3" wide. I can't see any rules that limiting the width of the toe, btw?

Anyones have it tried before?....I mean for the point blank BR?

Any inputs will be appreciated. TIA, seb.

Hi Seb,

I think you have the stock rules interpreted correctly and should be o.k. in developing your new design within the rules. If I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me.

I am fairly familiar with the various different stock designs and rules since I have experimented with many different configurations myself............and I must say that I have never seen a configuration as you have described using a bag design, but I have seen a couple of cruiser/unlimited style rifle stocks that have used a .5" delrin rounded rod for the rear support that ran in a slot in the rear rifle stock, much like your rear stock "single bag ear-stock outrigger" idea.

You may want to do a simple drawing with dimensions or a foam model and post a copy/picture of it here and ask for feedback or suggestions. I wouldnt be too worried about anybody stealing your idea as you are probably one of only a handfull of people that would have the capability and desire to fabricate both stock and bag components.............Don

JohnVm
01-14-2008, 11:36 PM
Hi Sebastian, I don't see a problem in the rules as far as I can remember, but I do wonder why? This would add a lot of weight to a stock and I don't see it making it more stable in shooting. I am curious as to what your ideas are as I might be missing something in your plan.

j mckinnie
01-14-2008, 11:54 PM
the weight is a draw back but your back hull (for want of a better word )could be fairly thin.your edges would also need to be parallel.You must have some exotic light woods up in you neck of the woods.the rear bag would also need to be parallel with the front bag.what if the bags & bottom of stock were canted to counter recoil??canted is not concave.
go for it jim sth. aust.

Tony Z
01-15-2008, 03:02 AM
Seb, i have been playing around with stocks and their configurations for a little while now. This one i did about 12 months back. It was primarily for my 30 BR but it worked so well that i now use it as my LG for 1K in 280 AI. All i can say is that it can be fired, unloaded and reloaded with the use of one hand with no disruption to the rifle in its rests whatsoever. In PPC it is like a rimfire to shoot and operate. The only thing that i will do in future is offset the forend to eliminate any torque even more for use with the big 30s. I would have done so this time around excepting this blank was quite old before i did this stock. The silver strips you see in the photos are 2.5 mm thick alloy laminates that greatly increases rigidity and the trigger port machines neatly between the two in the centre therefore not compromising the strength. The two outside alloy laminates are superfluous and add unnecessary weight and are a real pain when it comes to finishing the stock, the result of using a blank intented initially for another project.
I have owned and used many types of stocks for long and short range BR, but while the rules allow it, i will never own another stock that does not have this sort of 3 inch wide configuration. Contrary to what one may think, there is less drag on the butt than a conventional type because the flat surfaces ride the bunny ears and the centre guide does not wedge in and drag the bag. Elevation consistancy with this butt is like nothing else i have used excepting my 1k HG. I am certain that when you do your 3 inch wide butt to fit your wide bag that Jeff Rogers told me about, you will not go back to the old style either.

Tony Z.

Dave B
01-15-2008, 10:07 AM
Please email me or send a private message. I'd like to contact you.
Dave B

sebastian
01-15-2008, 12:53 PM
Thanks you for the replies, gentlemen.

Don, I better post some pics after I've finished the models.
The stock is intended for my first true BR rifle (I ordered a barreled action from Kelbly's). Perhaps I will make two. (my thought is, if one doesn't work/looks good, I still have the other one).

John, I am not so sure if the extra wide toe/buttstock would work okay/better, or not. It's beyond of my knowledge. It's just an idea. I just want a "skeleton type" stock & must look different ("one of a kind" thing). It ONLY seems to me, that a stock with extra wide toe would make the stock looks "more different". It also seems to me now, reading the replies, that as long as the width of the stock no more than 3" it would be okay.
I do like Shelley's "Tinker Toy" and its great results, btw. I don't see a reason for me to make a stock (which is time consuming) if the stock looks just the same/similar to the other stocks. It's for my own purpose.

Jim, I will limit the weight max of 25 oz. My stock would be a "skeleton" type (imagine tree- branches?), made from balsa wood & carbon fiber...perhaps with a little appearance of wood, or just with some air brushing/chameleon paint. I have lots of ideas, but will limit to two models only.

Tony, thanks you for the photos. Great stock!
I plan to make the buttstock in "catamaran?" hulls shape, just the opposite like your stock. I mean "V" or "U" shape, up side down.
I have made a very rough model (still just a standard shape), made from "kapok" wood, and it weighs about 150 grams (around 5.3 oz). With balsa wood (which is lighter, but more stable), including the carbon fiber, epoxy/resin, paint finish etc, I guess it should be light enough. Maybe no alum butt plate, but with weight system in the buttstock/toe. (interchangeable)...I can make the toe as a separate part (to be screw under the buttstock), say with wood/carbon for LV, or stainless steel/alum alloy plate for HV match.

Again, thanks you all for the inputs!!!!. The stock must be finished before the SS!!!

Best Wishes,
seb.

sebastian
01-18-2008, 05:12 AM
I have some questions for you.
These (bellow) perhaps sound stupid! It's just a thought & I curious to get more inputs.

Okay....

I am thinking about having/experimenting with a stock that has a separate forearm & separate buttstock. (for my barreled action that I will get it soon)

Many of us here know that your "Tinker Toy" works --- although it looks "strange",...although it's not kinda "like" a rifle stock, ....although the whole configuration should(?) flex more compared to a standard/rigid stock,...etc. --- Your "stock" has been inspiring me, BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT, AND IT WORKS!!!! I love it!

Well, the "idea" is just similar with your "Tinker Toy", only that the "forearm" (front part) is secured directly to the barrel, and the "buttstock" (the rear part) is secured to the action --- in different method & "stress" location, I think?
Like the Tinker toy, it's not kinda like regular rifle stock....it's just a separate "forearm" that will ride on the front bag, and a separate "buttstock" that will ride on the rear bag.

The "forearm" (front part) would be just small/tiny, say 3" wide (max) and about 4 or 5" long, flat at the bottom, that can be clamped to the barrel to any location "along" the barrel. (or just near to the muzzle?). It would act as a front fulcrum of the rifle.
It's kinda like a barrrel vise or so, but light weight....Or just like a scope ring with a flat bottom part. (it can be made easily from milled alumunium, or cabon, & fits the barrel tapper)
I still don't know if the forearm should be symmetry, or with some offset, though???

The "buttstock" (rear part) would be just like the buttstock/rear part on your Tinker Toy, only that it will be secured to the receiver (with 2 or 3 screws) and will have an extra wide toe.

My question is, would it be okay/work, in your opinion, refer to the vibration & flex "thing" (etc) you guys have been discussing in this forum for sometime now????

As you might be probably say, you wouldn't know until you try....But, What do you think?...I would like to have your thought before I make it!

This separate "stock" would have more flex, I suspect, but as long as the flex remains constant, & you shoot free recoil...would it be a problem????

I will send photos when the models are ready. I hope I can have time around next week or so.

Many thanks in advance,
seb.


Hey Shelley, I just tried to "ring" a barrel yesterday night, as you described in your post about barrel tuner. It's a used barrel that I bought from a Japanese shooter in WBC-9 two years ago. It's 22" long, LV tapper. I noticed that the barrel has at least 4 (four) nodes along the barrel length, although they have different frequencies. The front node is located around 1.75" behind the muzzle, almost the same as per your description. The other three are about 6" from the muzzle, then 10 3/4", then 14",..then I don't know... The front node is the loudest & easiest to find, btw. Either holding the breech by hand, or by clamping on a vise, hold vertically or horizontally, it work just the same. I only find that the sound wasn't "loud" when I hold the barrel with a barrel cap (white delrin) on the breech. The first time I tried it, it's difficult to know the sound's difference. I even used a fork to ring the barrel (not a pen)....my wife said "what the hell are you doing with that!!?"...She thought I am crazy!!!!! Anyway I asked her to hear the sound's difference & we both agreed that there were several "spots" in the barrel, including the locations. Thanks you for this little magic!

sebastian
01-31-2008, 12:20 PM
Well, finally I've finished two "stock" models for my first Panda.
All looks strange, lol...I just hope that you wouldn't laugh to me.
I need your inputs, gentlemen. Attached bellow some pictures of the models. The models are still rough, only made them to see how they look like. After this, I will use proper materials.

Model 1: I don't even know why I design a "stock" like this! The "rear part" will be attached (by screw or glued in?) to the action, the "front part" will be attached/clamped to the barrel. (must be square)

Model 2: I'm getting wild here. I just want a stock that looks different.

Your inputs, please?

TIA,
seb.

sebastian
01-31-2008, 12:31 PM
Sorry the pics didn't show...

sebastian
01-31-2008, 12:44 PM
Sorry that internet connection has been difficult in my area recently.
More photos...

sebastian
01-31-2008, 12:54 PM
More photos...

ShelleyDavidson
01-31-2008, 01:47 PM
That's just way too cool. I can't wait to see the finished gun. Is it going to get a custom paint job?

The fore stock you describe as being clamped to the barrel has been done by Gene Beggs. And, it works. Although Gene said that a couple of NBRSA directors thought it was legal, I'm not too sure it'd pass a review or protest. I suppose that it depends on if the clamped on fore stock is determined to be a variety of a barrel block. If so, it has to be within 4" of the bolt face to be legal in NBRSA and I'd think IBS for Sporter, LV or HV. I just don't know the answer to that situation. That situation is why I made Tinker Toy so I could have the stock attachments within the four inch limit or, I can move the front bracket forward to anywhere on the barrel. There has yet to be an official ruling on this.

Tinker Toy's fore stock is more flexible than any of my carbon or glass fiber stocks. It doesn't seem to hurt anything at all.

Shelley

henrya
01-31-2008, 02:08 PM
Very nice work.

sebastian
01-31-2008, 02:38 PM
Hi Shelley,
Yes the stocks will get a custom paint job, I think with "chameleon" paint type plus some air brushing.
On model #2, I will use balsa wood for the core/construction then cover it with carbon fiber & epoxy. It will be a lot of works, but I will enjoy it.
On model #1, if this stock design allowed(?), I will add some wood appearance on the rear stock.
I will try them both just several days before the SS, and see which one better. First I will use "screw method" (with pillars), then if I find it works perhaps I will glue in the barreled action. I will bring some screws in proper length (etc) for that reason.

Now before I make the stock #1, anyone knows/can confrm if it is legal by the rules?

Thanks you all, seb.

Don
01-31-2008, 05:47 PM
Now before I make the stock #1, anyone knows/can confrm if it is legal by the rules?

Thanks you all, seb.

Hi Seb,

It is probably legal by strict interpretations of the rules govorning forend configuration which generally only address a 3 inch width limit and flat or convex shape, but as Shelley had intimated, there is always someone out there that will complain about anything that doesnt look like a traditional gunstock configuration, and protest the design............and that is going to be your biggest problem by creating something that looks different.

Another problem is the system to ajudicate rule interpretations. Generally, until a gunstock is built and fired in a sanctioned competition, only then can it be protested and ruled as to its legality in relation to the rules by the match referees. In the case of the Super Shoot, things might operate a little differently. Since the Kelblys run and own the Super Shoot, they pretty much dictate govorning rules. You could probably send these photos to the Kelbys and ask for an interpretation before making anything and they could give you a good idea as to what is acceptable or not for their shoot.

Also, I will have to disagree with Shelley a little bit about the #1 model design as to its functional capability with the block clamped to the barrel which in turn rides the front rest bags....................the reason you never see this design or a barrel full length bedded, is that it would be like laying the gun barrel directly on the front rest sand bag. They do this with certain black powder and Schutzen style competitions but generally speaking these guns are usually not capable of better than .5 moa accuracy, that is why all modern style, competition br stocks are free floated with the barrels completely isolated from the front sand bag.

If I were you, I would personally concentrate on model #2, which is different, but not so much so that it is hard to distinguish from a traditional gunstock. To me, and probably others, it looks "futuristic" which I think most can live with without looking for ways to protest it..............just dont win the Super Shoot with it, cause then you will have really grabbed a bear by its tail and who knows what will happen.

Whats the rear bag going to look like, have you modeled it yet with pictures?................................Don

bryan
01-31-2008, 06:41 PM
But getting the rear bag ears to the correct firmness and still fit the stock may be a bit of a problem.
Bryan

Don
01-31-2008, 07:03 PM
But getting the rear bag ears to the correct firmness and still fit the stock may be a bit of a problem.
Bryan

" rear bag ears "

Hi Bryan,

In Sebs design, I think he is only looking at a single ear which will fit in between his "catamaran" style heel area of the stock, or possibly 3 ears and 2 troughs, which would be real interesting from a side-to-side torque rigidity standpoint relative to a traditional style rear gunstock heel to bag fit..................Don

J. Pendergraft
01-31-2008, 07:17 PM
I understood that he was using a single ear in the middle for the rear bag. If that is the case the middle portion of his butt stock appears to not have any drop so I don't think that would be legal for short range BR.

Don
01-31-2008, 08:09 PM
I understood that he was using a single ear in the middle for the rear bag. If that is the case the middle portion of his butt stock appears to not have any drop so I don't think that would be legal for short range BR.

Pictures arent clear enough for me to be absolutely certain, but I think Sebs middle portion has the same angularity as the the outer legs, so should meet the rule standards if this angle intersects the boreline at 18 inches from the bolt face. Good luck to the referee that has to determine that spec. if there were to be a protest.......................Don

sebastian
02-01-2008, 02:11 AM
According to my 1:1 schale drawing (w/ barreled action "installed"), the angle of the buttstocks/toe intersect with the bore line less than 18" from the bolt face.
My thought is to make the separate buttstock with a light material for LV & change it with alum alloy (polished) for HV venue, and perhaps with adding some weight (a thin s/s plate)under the fore stock (w/ screw method, I can prepare the thread hole).

Well, of course I will not win the SS, lol. I know my limitations etc. I only want to have a different looking stock, & perhaps experimenting with extra wide/double hulls buttstock.

seb.

sebastian
02-02-2008, 04:37 AM
Jim just told me that the only thing he can see wrong with my stock is that the taper not have the correct tapper required by NBRSA & WBSF. He said that the width is not a problem (I think as long as no more than 3", any parts). Also that the design perhaps to not shoot well due to the inconsistent drag caused by the wide forearm. (I'm trying to understand with what he means with it & don't want to bother James so much with lot of questions etc)

About the (butt)stock taper, I think(?) I have followed item Q: "Varmint Rifle Diagram" from NBRSA, and/or Appendix A: "Rifle Spesifications" from WBSF.
I still a bit confuse here.....I will post some more pics about the taper....

Question: IF my stock tapper just as is like my drawing, it is correct already?...or not?

About the forearm, I will see what I can revise with it.

TIA,
seb.

expiper
02-02-2008, 11:39 AM
HI Seb...you shure have those creative juices a flowin this winter...((or is it summer down there??))....It is refreshing to see someone with new design ideas and the talent to take them from an idea to the drawing board to prototype to functioning model.....
It has been many moons since any significant "new" ideas (like the "tinker toy") have been brought forth for the approval/diss-aproval of the major sanctioning bodies (NBRSA-IBS).....Many improvements culd be made if we were given a class with some lee-way ...like a change in Heavy Varmint allowing more gun weight and dropping the stock configuration boundarys...this would not be a new class (still HV) ...we culd even shoot 8 X 5's at the Nationals (Gasp) to make the last two days of competition continue past lunch....more shooting ....still the same number of Hall-0-Fame points .....just more shooting and more experimentation ,,shuld be good for the NBRSA, the event, the shooters: sounds like a win win situation....
I bet the Kelblys will welcome something so inovativive and I for 1 (one) wuld shur like to see how it performs in real world sea trials!!!....YOUR ideas are refreshing .....good luk.....Roger

Chisolm
02-02-2008, 11:40 AM
Seb
It looks to me that the buttstock taper is ok.
I scaled the picture in a cad program and the measurements worked out to where they appear to be legal.
If you followed the NBRSA diagram I don't see how you could go wrong.

IBS also adds a trigger pull measurement of 13 1/4 inches.

James

sebastian
02-02-2008, 12:18 PM
Expiper, thanks you for the compliment. It's just my attemp to make a stock that "must" look different. I only guess (just a guess) that the extra wide/double hulls buttstock would ride okay or better(?) on the bag, compared to traditional buttstock designs. I have tried to slide the buttstock on my regular bag (just on top of the two ears), the wood is still rough, but it slides smoothly, no much drag etc. I just hope that I am right later...
I will make a custom rear bag to fit the buttstock, though.
The double hulls can be parralel, or just like in my wood model (not parralel). If parralel, I will make double ears (say with 2 3/4" spacing or so). If not paralel (like the model), I will make a single ear in the center.
I still don't know which one would be better...???

Chisolm, many thanks you for your time & clarification!....so the taper is already correct?
Yes, I followed the NBRSA & WBSF rifle diagram when I make the sketch & models.
Btw, my length of pull is 13".

Don
02-02-2008, 09:22 PM
Expiper, thanks you for the compliment. It's just my attemp to make a stock that "must" look different. I only guess (just a guess) that the extra wide/double hulls buttstock would ride okay or better(?) on the bag, compared to traditional buttstock designs. I have tried to slide the buttstock on my regular bag (just on top of the two ears), the wood is still rough, but it slides smoothly, no much drag etc. I just hope that I am right later...
I will make a custom rear bag to fit the buttstock, though.
The double hulls can be parralel, or just like in my wood model (not parralel). If parralel, I will make double ears (say with 2 3/4" spacing or so). If not paralel (like the model), I will make a single ear in the center.
I still don't know which one would be better...???

Chisolm, many thanks you for your time & clarification!....so the taper is already correct?
Yes, I followed the NBRSA & WBSF rifle diagram when I make the sketch & models.
Btw, my length of pull is 13".

Seb, I agree with Chisolm, it looks correct to me also. Sometimes builders get confused and think that the angle must intersect with the bore center line at 18 inches, maybe that is what Jim was thinking.............Don

sebastian
02-03-2008, 03:08 AM
Thanks you for your helps, Don.

I am sure that James only had a quick look at the wood model photos when I asked about the stock. Still no sketch at that time. I'm glad that he still has time to answer my questions! I realised that it's almost impossible to see/determine the taper, looking only from the photos, which aren't good. (sorry I cannot take good pics!).

Don, in NBRSA rule book - Definitions B.3 about HV rifle, page 2, says: "..... With a stock having a flat or convex forearm and total stock width not more than 3 inches, having a toe formed by an acute angle not greater than that formed by a straight line drawn from the toe of the a substantially vertical butt starting at a point at least 4 inches below the axis of the bore and extending forward to the bottom of the barrel at a point 18 inches forward the bolt face. ......"
So it says the BOTTOM of the barrel, not center line of bore.
In the rifle diagram (Q, page 65), it also seems to me that spot "B" is at the bottom of the barrel, not at the C/L of bore.

However, whether that the spot "B" is at the bottom of the barrel OR at the C/L of bore, the taper wouldn't be much different,...perhaps just about 2 degrees or less. I will just follow the rules, for sure. Rule is rule. Personally, I do not think that just 2 or so degree of taper difference in a stock would effect/harm a thing.

Just curious though(?)...why in long range/F-class/Flyshoot venues allow to use straight taper stocks, extra wide forearms etc?...Any reasons???

seb.

Don
02-03-2008, 04:01 AM
Thanks you for your helps, Don.

I am sure that James only had a quick look at the wood model photos when I asked about the stock. Still no sketch at that time. I'm glad that he still has time to answer my questions! I realised that it's almost impossible to see/determine the taper, looking only from the photos, which aren't good. (sorry I cannot take good pics!).

Don, in NBRSA rule book - Definitions B.3 about HV rifle, page 2, says: "..... With a stock having a flat or convex forearm and total stock width not more than 3 inches, having a toe formed by an acute angle not greater than that formed by a straight line drawn from the toe of the a substantially vertical butt starting at a point at least 4 inches below the axis of the bore and extending forward to the bottom of the barrel at a point 18 inches forward the bolt face. ......"
So it says the BOTTOM of the barrel, not center line of bore.
In the rifle diagram (Q, page 65), it also seems to me that spot "B" is at the bottom of the barrel, not at the C/L of bore.

However, whether that the spot "B" is at the bottom of the barrel OR at the C/L of bore, the taper wouldn't be much different,...perhaps just about 2 degrees or less. I will just follow the rules, for sure. Rule is rule. Personally, I do not think that just 2 or so degree of taper difference in a stock would effect/harm a thing.

Just curious though(?)...why in long range/F-class/Flyshoot venues allow to use straight taper stocks, extra wide forearms etc?...Any reasons???

seb.

Seb, you are correct, a couple of degrees taper difference is not going to change the way a rifle shoots. In fact, at almost all tournaments this requirement is never protested or checked, because; it makes very little difference, and is hard to verify within the time constraints of running a tournament. At the Super Shoot, and most other tournaments, the main requirement, that is checked, is the weight limitation requirement...........if I, and many others had our way, weight limits and shooting off sand bags would be the only equipment rule requirements that would apply to all gun classes except the unlimited/cruisers.

Why in long range/F-class/Flyshoot venues allow to use straight taper stocks, extra wide forearms etc?...Any reasons???.......................Because they developed their rules long after the creation of the short range 100/200 yard game, and they realized how rediculous it was to limit the "pursuit of ultimate firearms accuracy" with such useless, archane, and trivial rules........
another words, they got smart and learned from the mistakes of the short range BR game..............Don

ShelleyDavidson
02-03-2008, 08:18 AM
You'll notice that F-Class and Long Range don't include a nearly redundant, silly sporter class.

Shelley

Charles E
02-03-2008, 09:05 AM
As a lazy, long-time, long-range benchrester, I'm glad to see opinions about the silly rules in point-blank BR gradually shifting. These silly rules were one of the reasons I went to 1,000 yard benchrest in the first place.

The reason I called myself "lazy" above is that I seem to remember that IBS does use "middle of the bore" instead of the NBRSA "bottom of the barrel." But I'm too lazy to look it up.

If that's right & you plan to ever shoot VfS (which is IBS), be sure to use the "center of the bore" taper.

Bo Petersson
02-03-2008, 04:59 PM
Is it OK or not to take off a parallell piece from the butstock, say an inch, from a stock that exactly complies with the rules haveing the toe 3 under the centreline instead of 4 but keeping the angle the same.
Second, why not keep the angle but rewrite the rule so it can be checked easily during a match. Saying "You need to have a butstock with "this" angle compared to the centreline and the toe needs to be .... under the centreline at "that" point.
/Bo

sebastian
02-04-2008, 04:29 AM
If that's right & you plan to ever shoot VfS (which is IBS), be sure to use the "center of the bore" taper.

Thanks, Charles. Yes I will.

sebastian
03-28-2008, 07:07 AM
I mean just almost.
This is the stock, with epoxy filler applied...After this, will be sanded again, paint it black (as a base color) then apply "chameleon" paint, then clear coats & polishing.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/stock-2.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/stock-1.jpg

I only use the wood model shown in the old pics above (from "kapok" wood), put some fiberglass & resin. (just a wrap around thin layer to make weight). I only make a new "bottom part?" to be paralel with the fore arm. A lot of work & time consuming....I wouldn't have enough time to make a new one (identical) from balsa wood & carbon fiber just to make the stock to weigh about 22 oz or less.
This stock weighs approximately 24 oz now. (the "main stock" is about 20.5 oz, the "bottom part" of the butt stock is about 3.5 oz). It should be no more than 27 oz, finished. It's still under the max weight limit (29 oz) Jim told me before....(action 30 oz, barrel 82 oz at 22", trigger/hanger/guard 4.5 oz, scope & rings 23 oz, stock 27 oz max --- total weight would still be under 168 oz/10.5 lbs, including mirage shield). No fancy alumunium butt plate.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/bottomview-1.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/bottomview-2.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/bottomview-3.jpg

The taper of the butt stock...
It would "intersect" the center line of bore at 17" to 18" max. (would depend on the angle when glueing the action).
Although it is not a perfect method, if you put a straight ruler (or just a piece of paper) on your monitor, you would see the buttstock's angle would intersect the barrel just behind the black O ring (at 18" from the bolt face).
According to some inputs before, the angle would/should be okay, or still meet the rules. Anyway it is easy to adjust the angle of the toe since the "bottom part" is a knock down part (for instance using a shim or spacer). I use two small screws (with alumunium pillars inside) to attach the bottom part to the stock. I can also easily change the bottom part with another one, for instance with a normal 3/8" or 1/2" flat.

The "bottom part" shown in the pic is about 75mm wide (almost 3"), just about the same with the fore arm. They are paralel/inline, of course. The stock is more stable on bag with the extra wide bottom part, compared to bottom part with 1/2" flat that I also make. (I make some "bottom part" here). This is interesting, and just as like my prediction before. I just used two 3" front bags to slide the stock, btw. (one in front, one at the back). However I will make a rear bag (with 3" spacing) to suit the buttstock though.
Hopefully the complete rifle would track okay/straight, too!??

The "point of balance" of the stock (without weight under the butt) is around the bolt handle recess.

From LV to HV, I will make a weight just under the bottom part. (with s/s, fits to the "space" under the bottom part, the weight would be about 3 lbs or a bit less). The construction is strong enough to resist shock/recoils, I believe.

The stock is stable and also strong enough to resist my weight (72 kgs). It flex a bit, though.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1108.jpg

The inletting...(it's still rough).
Since I do not have a Panda action overhere, I only make the inletting from the data/drawing I got from Kelbly before. I only hope it would fit okay. I still will add a layer of steel epoxy glue (skim bed) around the inletting and shape/sand it so there will be a little clearance for glue in.
The black plastics are just for "footprint" purpose. I used them to help me when I put the pillar beddings & shaping the tang area & bolt handle recess.
*The (3) pillar bedding is for "just in case thing". My previous "thought" is, if the rifle shoots okay using screw in method, I might glue in the action then...however I wouldn't have much time in Ohio from May 18 to 20, so I will leave this matter to Kelbly. I am sure they know the best thing to do once I send the stock. It should be much better they do the glue in/installation before my arrival!

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/topview-inletting.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1109-1.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/sideelev-boltrecess.jpg



I need inputs here...............as many peoples say, "you would never know until you try"....but in your opinion, would this stock okay, looking from my (poor) description & pics above???
IF you think this stock would be just okay(?), I would not make another/second stock anymore. (my previous thought is, to make a second stock from local exotic wood with some carbon fiber in "normal" shape).


TIA,
seb.

sebastian
03-28-2008, 07:27 AM
a barrel "tuner", lol.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/tuner-1.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/tuner.jpg

But it wouldn't make weight for LV, I believe....instead the barrel is only about 20" long?
The "body" is about 140 grams, the two "rings" (attached in the body) weighs about 110 grams, total of about 250 grams (about 8.8 oz). It's too heavy. I think I will make a more lighter one (with finer threads,too).

I ordered a spare barrel to Kelbly some time ago, and would send the "tuner" to make the thread on the muzzle.

It's funny, that I know NOTHING about loads/tuning etc but make this "tuner"...well at least I try....(grin)

seb.

Jim Wooten
03-28-2008, 08:13 AM
Seb,

You are truly an innovative, and creative, shooter. Keep up the good work :).

Jim

Rob Carnell
03-28-2008, 08:33 AM
The stock looks great.

What sort of rear bag are you planning for it?

Make an extra stock for me!

Rob.

j mckinnie
03-28-2008, 08:51 AM
thinking is the angle of the dangle the bottom of the stock,or were the bag runs.Nice looking stock keep thinking out of the box.I like it.Good on ya Seb.Good luck & good shooting Jim

sebastian
03-28-2008, 08:56 AM
Thanks you, Jim.

Rob, the rear bag would be just like the bag I made for Stuart Elliot's HG...kind of like the bigfoot bag, just with 3" wide spacing...I think the same height 4" and 1" tall bunny ears.
Hey, congrats on your HOF point overthere!

seb.

Rob Carnell
03-28-2008, 09:30 AM
Was all due to your rest!

Rob.

Wilbur
03-28-2008, 12:32 PM
Looks dangerously close to "guiding means" at the rear bag. If this one is not "guiding means"....the next one will be.......at which time both would become artifacts.

j mckinnie
03-28-2008, 07:00 PM
Please clarify the "guiding means".Surely the but stock on a conventional stock is being guided by the bag ears,Seb is merely using a wider but.Is there a convex rule on the butstock.If this 1 is deamed ok,how can the next be un-ok.I believe he is testing the water as he wishes to use this stock at the SS.Is it illegal?
I hope its good by the rules.I'm sure it is legal in Australia.:confused:
Thanks Jim

Wilbur
03-28-2008, 08:19 PM
Please clarify the "guiding means".Surely the but stock on a conventional stock is being guided by the bag ears,Seb is merely using a wider but.Is there a convex rule on the butstock.If this 1 is deamed ok,how can the next be un-ok.I believe he is testing the water as he wishes to use this stock at the SS.Is it illegal?
I hope its good by the rules.I'm sure it is legal in Australia.:confused:
Thanks Jim

Depends on the bag/rifle fit and how well it works. Many of the existing "accepted" setups are very near return to battery. Some may actually return..."guiding means" if you will. No sense bantering what is and what ain't. Guiding means is guiding means. If you can pull the rifle back and push it back up to the same point of aim, that's guiding means.

I may have misunderstood the pictures entirely. Looked like the bag fit into the stock in one of the pictures.

"Is it legal ?" will be determined at the time of protest should that occur. If a close call exists it might make sense to have a backup.

K-Gun
03-29-2008, 09:37 AM
In post 39, Seb says that the rear bag will be pretty much a standard rear bag configuration with 3" spacing between the ears.

When everyone now uses a rear bag with ?? 3/8 to 5/8 ?? spacing on the ears, why would 3 inch spacing be any different.

Looks like Seb is trying for stability most of all.

Lets not beat him up until we at least see the finished product on the Bench.

I, for one looking forward to shooting it myself if he will permit me..

K-Gun

sebastian
03-29-2008, 12:22 PM
Are you coming to the SS?
I do not quite understand with what you mean "I, for one looking forward to shooting it myself, if he will permit me"...but if so, and if I correct to assume your last sentence(?), I can tell you that you can try my rifle there! It will be my pleasure (you're welcome!). Anyones can try it too, if you want.

Mr. Wilbur, many thanks for your inputs!
Actually, I hope to get inputs/critisms here - rather than compliments or so.
I do NOT want to break the rules (etc)...and that's why I post about the stock in this forum...asking about the taper, the width of the buttstock etc, in hope to get inputs, and to help me to improve/gain my knowledge.

Since my English is not good (& sometimes I cannot understand what peoples are talking about here DUE to my poor English?), can you tell me more what's wrong with my stock design?
Is it because the bottom part able to be knock down?...*(if so, I still can glue it/fix)
Is it because the buttstock in "U" shape, not flat?...*(if so, I still can make it flat)
Is it because the buttstock in 3" wide?....*(if so, I also made 1/2" flat bottom part instead of the 3", and can/will use it)
Is it because the rifle would (probably) have a better return to battery? or would be better to resist torque because of the wider butt?...*if this is the case, I can/will use the 1/2" flat bottom part instead of the 3".

Or, is it because of the bag would have 3" spacing between the ears?
As mentioned before, the rear bag would be just the same with my bigfoot bag (or other bags in the market), ONLY with 3" spacing between the ears. No more. --- Is this a problem/illegal?

Again, I'm just a newbie, and always need inputs....and I do not want to break the rules or so.
All is just my effort to have a stock that looks different. No more.

Your inputs will be much appreciated!

Many thanks in advance,
seb.

jackie schmidt
03-29-2008, 01:34 PM
I have no idea what you IQ might be, but I have a feeling that you have about 20 points on many of us.
As for your stock, I see nothing that would render the first one illegal. Sure, that old thing of guiding means comes up, but that is easy to check. Just have the shooter sit down at the bench and shoot a group, without looking through the scope after the first shot.
As for the barrel block on that one example, I see it as possibly violating the rules concering barrel blocks, sleeves fixtures, attachments, etc, as described in the rule book. There are a few examples of these being shot, and trust me, everyone will humor the builder, and say how neat it is, untill they actaully win something, as in a Region Level Championship. That is not the time to find out that what has been created is not within the rules.
Of course, you could always call it a "tuner".
I get tired of shooters always bringing up this old crap of how Benchrest is stifling creativity. Our antiquated rules??. That is a bunch of BS. Heck, just look at what we are using now, whether it be a Robertson BRX or a Scoville. These are way out on the fringe as to what the old puritist would describe as a 'Rifle Stock".
This arguement has been going on for decades. I have mentioned before that I have an article from the 1971 addition of the Shooters Digest. It has an article about "these new fangled Benchrest Rifles that defy tradition". One of the chief culprits in promoting this heresy is none other than a young shooter named Ed Shilen. The cry then was, "we need to draw a line in the sand, NOW". They might have drawn a line, but we keep moving it.
While I do not disagree with Wilbur very often, I would see your design as meeting muster. As I said, it is quite easy to determine if a design incorporates a true return to battery feature. The key phrase in that rule is the part that refers to not having to optically re-aim the Rifle after each shot. Your design looks good, but I doubt you could sit down and fire a competitive 5-shot group without having to re-aim after each shot.
But then, he is a Region Director. All I am is a shooter who likes to talk a lot.........jackie

Jefferson
03-29-2008, 03:00 PM
If it is illegal please do not donate it to a BR museum but sell it to a poor canuck needing more toys to play with in his time of depression.:(:(:(



nice stuff as per usual

Jeff

sebastian
03-29-2008, 04:05 PM
Do not laugh...I must open my English dictionary to understand the/your words such as stifling, antiquated, fringe, puritist, fangled, defy, culprits, muster, etc!
My vocabularies, grammar/tenses and so on is s*ck! (lol)

I understand that Mr. Wilbur is a Region Director, and that's why I seek inputs from him. If he says that I must wear a bandana or a helmet to shoot well, I would do it!

Please keep "to talk a lot" (to loan your term, lol). I learn many things from you and always enjoy your posts/replies in this forum!

-----------

Jeff,
Unfortunately I cannot find "canuck" in my dictionary, I might probably buy a new one.
Are you going to the SS too?


Thanks gentlemen,
seb.

Don
03-29-2008, 05:17 PM
Depends on the bag/rifle fit and how well it works. Many of the existing "accepted" setups are very near return to battery. Some may actually return..."guiding means" if you will. No sense bantering what is and what ain't. Guiding means is guiding means. If you can pull the rifle back and push it back up to the same point of aim, that's guiding means.

I may have misunderstood the pictures entirely. Looked like the bag fit into the stock in one of the pictures.

"Is it legal ?" will be determined at the time of protest should that occur. If a close call exists it might make sense to have a backup.

No sand bag supported gun will ever be completely return-to-battery capable, heck , even some railguns cant achieve the capability. Seb your gunstock is just fine the way it is, good luck at the SS.....................................Don

K-Gun
03-29-2008, 06:29 PM
Thats what us fine people south of the Canadian Border call them and even some northern folks use the word.

Also the reason why you don't find the word in your English Dictionary, Jefferson was speaking American, not English

Don
03-29-2008, 06:34 PM
Jeff,
Unfortunately I cannot find "canuck" in my dictionary, I might probably buy a new one.
Are you going to the SS too?


Thanks gentlemen,
seb.



Bill Gammon= sneaky canuck, cannot "buy a new one", broke the mold when making the original.

Meaning=
The Random House Dictionary notes that: "The term Canuck is first recorded about 1835 as an Americanism, originally referring specifically to a French Canadian. This was probably the original meaning, though in Canada and other countries, "Canuck" refers to any Canadian."

[edit] Usage and examples
Canadians use "Canuck" as an affectionate description of nationality and the word carries no particular patriotic overtones. A few Americans misinterpret "Canuck" as an offensive noun but would be hard pressed to find a Canadian, French or English, insulted by the word - the opposite being most likely. It is similar in use to "Yankee" for an American.

CYanchycki
03-29-2008, 07:30 PM
regardless of whether or not it ends up being legal for registered competition I very much like the design/shape of the stock. I definately feel it has that cool factor. I for one am into the modern day look of things by there nice lines.

I feel it may be something worthwhile pursuing with a stockmaker to even produce for the masses out there.

I for one, would be first on the list for one to use on my varmint gun.

Keep up the great work.


Calvin

sebastian
03-29-2008, 10:45 PM
Thanks for explaining the word "canuck".

Then how many canucks will go the SS 2008?....seb.:D

Jefferson
03-29-2008, 11:24 PM
lots of us I think

from the West coast Jeff and Robert (Dan has to work)

from Central Canada; George and Vera, Bill Gammon (or God as we like to call him) and about 4 or 5 more but they have to decide shortly.

Let's face it we are taking over since our dollar is stronger than it was last year.

I have a Canada Hat for SEB as promised in 2005, since you were not in Vienna it is still here. I did not want to mail it as it may have been lost.

So if you do not mind being a honorary Canuck I will get you a hat like the ones we wore in 2005 and 2007. (watch him shoot then)

see you at the SS

Jeff

alinwa
03-30-2008, 01:14 AM
AWESOME!!!


I open all of Seb's posts just so's I can see some more of his (poor) scale drawings.....

Sebastian, that is a high compliment :) and your (poor) sketches are high art.

Nice work


al

Bob Dodd
03-30-2008, 02:36 PM
I wouldn't spend a lot of money on it. Someone will bitch and they will change the rule book. Get the directors to ok it 1st.
Bob

sebastian
03-31-2008, 12:57 AM
Jeff,....me with a Canada Hat & honorary Canuck?? --- I am honoured really. I should look more "charming" with it, Lol. :D
We have a traditional (old time) hat overhere, Javanese hat, called "blangkon" (it looks weird!). I will bring one for you....Anyway, I wouldn't ask you to be a honorary "Javanese", lol.

seb.

sebastian
04-19-2008, 11:44 AM
I am sorry here....the stock has already painted in different color instead of white, yesterday.
It is clear coated already, but not polished yet. (It's kind of "chameleon" paint on the stock, looks deep purple looking frontally, looks dark green from the side).
The stock weighs a bit less than 25 oz (about 690 grams) with the catamaran heel under the rear buttstock, and approx 23.6 oz (670 grams) with the "1/2 inch flat". The parts under the rear buttstock are interchangable.
Also made a weight for HV, just from steel (weighs about 27 oz / 1.2 kgs, painted), supposed to be secured under/between the catamaran.

Top elevation
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1130.jpg

Bottom elevation
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1135.jpg

Side elevation with the 3" catamaran
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1132.jpg

Side elevation with "1/2 inch flat"
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1133.jpg

Detail on the rear
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1138.jpg

Fore end
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1136.jpg

Action area & bolt recess. I just hope the inletting is okay/match.
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1152.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1150.jpg


Also made the rear bag. It has 3" spacing (a bit less actually) between the bunny ears. The bag is the third one (the ears on the first & second bag were not fit).
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1145.jpg


Best Regards,
seb.

Fred J
04-19-2008, 11:51 AM
Seb:
I may have missed it somewhere in the previous posts, but what action is the Bedding Block designed for? Looks like an old Shilen DGA bedding block.

sebastian
04-19-2008, 11:51 AM
Jim just told me a moment ago that the stock is/would be legal.
GLAD TO HEAR IT!!!!!!!!!!

seb.

sebastian
04-19-2008, 11:55 AM
It's a Panda short, double (symmetry) ports, right eject....seb.

Mike Bryant
04-20-2008, 09:46 AM
Seb, it looks to me that you have taken the rule that the forend must be flat or convex there by disallowing a concave forend and moved it to the rear to the butt stock. I see nothing illegal about this at all. What you have done is very similar to what has been done with front and rear rests. In the rules, you can't have mechanical windage and elevation adjustments in the rear sandbag. So, it's just about common practice now to have mechanical windage and elevation adjustments in the front rest. What you couldn't have legally in the rear rest was moved to the front rest. If your stock was declared illegal because you moved the concave forend to the rear, then with that same logic every front rest with mechanical windage and elevation adjustment would have to be declared illegal as well. Declaring a mechanical windage and elevation front rest illegal is not going to happen.

I agree with Don on the guiding means argument in that I don't believe there is any way that a rifle can be fired off sandbag rests and be returned to firing postion such that the rifle will not have to be optically re-aimed for each shot.

I can understand your logic behind making the ears on the butt detachable so that they can be replaced with a more conventional bottom piece. It would be a shame to travel to a major match and have the stock declared illegal especially when you travel from Indonesia to the US to do it. It makes sense to have a backup plan without having to have the extra expense of having a complete backup rifle.

Your stock looks very innovative and I wish you much success with it. Kudos to you for your thinking outside the box and the success you have already had with your benchrest equipment especially with working with adverse laws on firearms ownership in your country says a lot for you. The resolve and extra expense that shooters outside the US go through to compete makes us in the the US who complain about gas prices to compete seem like wusses. Good luck at the Super Shoot.

LRCampos
04-20-2008, 01:36 PM
Kudos to you for your thinking outside the box and the success you have already had with your benchrest equipment especially with working with adverse laws on firearms ownership in your country says a lot for you. The resolve and extra expense that shooters outside the US go through to compete makes us in the the US who complain about gas prices to compete seem like wusses. Good luck at the Super Shoot.

I apreciate your words Mr. Bryant.
I live in a country with very restrictive gun laws and will make a large investiment in time and money to attend the IBS School in East Tawas, MI in June.
What moves me is a truly passion for shooting sports.

sebastian
04-20-2008, 02:25 PM
Thanks you for your time and the kind words, Mr. Bryant.
Nothing special with me here. I'm just an average Joe....just love this sport and love to learn.

seb.

Don
04-20-2008, 04:20 PM
Hi Seb,

How much more laterally stable is the new stock compared to a traditional style 3 inch forend stock?

Do you have a picture of the new stock sitting in the new rear sand bag and front rest?

Does the new stock ride evenly in both the front and rear bags? I know some others had concerns about the stock having a "4 leg" potential to not properly settle into the bags.

By-the-way, the rear bag turned out looking very professional, you do good work..............Don

sebastian
04-21-2008, 01:07 AM
Don,

1. I cannot know/tell without the barreled action installed. But empty (without barreled action), the stock with the catamaran piece is laterally more stable/resists torque better than the standard 1/2" flat piece, on a flat surface, or on the front rest & bag.
Especially when the steel weight is secured under/between the catamaran piece.
I think the logic is the lower the center of gravity, and/or the wider the stock, the more stable it is. This is also why I put the weight system on the very bottom.
(Thanks God I bought Mike Ratigan's book!)

2. I will try to take pic soon.

3. I think yes. The stock is just handmade (didn't use milling machine), anyway I am sure that the flat/bottom surface of the fore end & the catamaran/toe are inline, the side edges/corners also paralel.
I tried to put a barrel + the action wood model + scope on the stock, moved it back & forth on a rest & the rear bag, it seemed okay/no problem.

But I might be wrong...I can only know how the stock work after the rifle is completed and shot some groups.

seb.

sebastian
04-22-2008, 10:34 AM
Hi Don,

Here some pics as promised in #2 above...
I try to put a barrel, wood model of the action & a scope on it....not good...just to show you how it looks as "complete rifle".

right side elevation
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1159.jpg

left elevation
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1162.jpg

top elevation
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s67/sebco/Picture1165.jpg


seb.

Don
04-22-2008, 05:35 PM
Hi Don,

Here some pics as promised in #2 above...
I try to put a barrel, wood model of the action & a scope on it....not good...just to show you how it looks as "complete rifle".


seb.

Seb, looks good to me.

One suggestion, determine how the stock tracks by viewing thru the temporary attached scope, then make angular adjustments to the "heel piece" until the scope crosshairs stay perfectly aligned in the horizontal as the stock/rifle is pulled rearward.

This will allow you to get the proper alignment, and is not dependant upon using the real action or your mock-up......... stock tracking will stay the same regardless, and it will be one less thing to have to deal with when you get to Kelbleys.

Another trick that you can use is to make your rear "heel" attachment using 2bolt/attachment points, allow the rear attach point to have a slight excess lateral slop until bolted up, which will then allow for changes in angular tracking of the stock, which in turn will allow you to adjust and get perfect stock tracking. Ive done this with all my multi-piece metalic stocks and is a tremendous advantage over one piece synthetic stocks............Don

sebastian
04-23-2008, 02:03 AM
Thanks, Don.
Have sent the stock yesterday. Kelbly's would receive it in several days, then we would know if the stock is okay or not? I trust Kelbly's 100%, on all things....although I believe that my stock is okay, and Jim told me that the stock looks good/seems right, I still asked Jim to get a new stock for my barreled action if he thinks that my stock is not okay.

seb.

alinwa
04-23-2008, 02:15 AM
Ya' GOTTA' love this guy :):)


GOOD LUCK SEBASTIAN!


al

Don
04-23-2008, 03:07 AM
Thanks, Don.
Have sent the stock yesterday. Kelbly's would receive it in several days, then we would know if the stock is okay or not? I trust Kelbly's 100%, on all things....although I believe that my stock is okay, and Jim told me that the stock looks good/seems right, I still asked Jim to get a new stock for my barreled action if he thinks that my stock is not okay.

seb.

Seb, I am sure that everything is going to work out just fine, and the Kelbleys will take care of any problems that might arise.

Now, all that is left to do is make it to Ohio and enjoy the shoot.

When you started this gunstock project you said that your main goal was to create something different and unique..........well I think you have reached that goal and some.

Garaunteed you will have alot of conversations about your gunstock and sandbag setup at the SS.

Good luck, let us know how the stock works out and how well the shoot goes for you........................Don