Stock question

[sebastian]

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]

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]

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]

good idea

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]

Seb have a look at the photos below.

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]

Tony Z

Please email me or send a private message. I'd like to contact you.
Dave B

 

[sebastian]

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]

Shelley

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]

Models

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]

Sorry the pics didn't show...

 

[sebastian]

Sorry that internet connection has been difficult in my area recently.
More photos...

 

[sebastian]

More photos...

 

[ShelleyDavidson]

Sebastian

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]

Wow

Very nice work.

 

[sebastian]

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]

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]

Interesting concept

But getting the rear bag ears to the correct firmness and still fit the stock may be a bit of a problem.
Bryan

 

[Don]

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]

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]

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