Stock question

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 

Attachments

  • sketch 1.jpg
    sketch 1.jpg
    13.7 KB · Views: 506
  • front part.jpg
    front part.jpg
    18 KB · Views: 489
  • rear part.jpg
    rear part.jpg
    20.5 KB · Views: 469
Last edited:
Inovative design!!!

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
 
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
 
Last edited:
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".
 
Last edited:
sebastian said:
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".
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
sebastian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
And......

You'll notice that F-Class and Long Range don't include a nearly redundant, silly sporter class.

Shelley
 
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.
 
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
 
Almost done!

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.

stock-2.jpg


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.

bottomview-1.jpg


bottomview-2.jpg


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.

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!

topview-inletting.jpg


Picture1109-1.jpg


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.
 
Last edited:
Well, I also make this!

a barrel "tuner", lol.

tuner-1.jpg


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.
 
Last edited:
Now they're

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
 
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.
 
Rear bag/stock fit

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top