TUNNEL NEWS, Sat. 11-08-08

G

Gene Beggs

Active member
Testing of the barrel indexing system continues. No problems have been encountered since going back to the original .940 tenon diameter. Hundreds of maximum loads have been fired using the original bushing made from barrel stub. Case life is excellent; feeding and extraction is flawless.

The "Ultralite" aluminum stocks are coming along nicely. Today, the first stock was assembled from production parts and everything fit perfectly. After anodizing, they will be ready for delivery.

At this time, the "Ultralite" fits only the flat bottom aluminum actions such as the Panda, Viper, and Cobra but work is in progress for the round bottom actions such as Hall, Turbo, Diamondback etc.

'09 promises to be an exciting year! :)

Later,

Gene Beggs
 
Curious?

It looks like the fact that the weight of the gun is resting on the barrel would make it very easy to actually change the point of impact by the amount of pressure you put on the gun when shooting it.

Is that true? Does this design only work when shooting free recoil?

It looks great, but seems to go against the whole free floated barrel concept. I know that just applying different amounts of pressure to a conventional stock makes it shoot differently, so I am just curious about what happens when the barrel is the stock.

Thanks Gary
 
Gene --

Been following your indexing innovations with much interest!!
Thanks for sharing it all with us!!!! and great work!!!

- Have you tried the indexing in a conventional stock with a free-floating barrel?
- To what aspects do you feel your ultimate stock is a gain over free-floating stocks?
- Is the placement of the ultimate fore-end critical?


Happy Shooting
Donovan Moran
 
jackie schmidt said:
Is this stock the same design as the one you used last year??.....jackie
Click to expand...


Yes it is, and if you're thinking what I think your thinking, this is as good a time and place as any to resolve the issue once and for all. :)

Dear reader, to my knowledge Jackie Schmidt is the only person who has questioned the legality of my two-piece, "Ultralite" stock for use in NBRSA and IBS sactioned Varmint and Sporter class matches. This in spite of the fact that the rifle was evaluated two years ago by both the president and vice president of NBRSA and declared perfectly legal.

The 'Ultralite' stock consists of a tubular buttstock bolted directly to the tang of the receiver. Unlike conventional stocks which require bedding of the action, the 'Ultralite' has no bedding; the barreled action itself becomes the main load carrying member. Of course, the rifle must have a forend and the forend of the 'Ultralite' is milled from a solid block of aluminun and bolted directly to the barrel.

Some stocks, such as the new Scoville, use barrel blocks in place of conventional bedding to attach the barreled action to the stock. The rules prohibit a barrel block from extending more than four inches in front of the bolt face. Jackie Schmidt contends that the forend of the 'Ultralite' constitutes a barrel block more than four inches beyond the bolt face and is therefore illegal.

What do you think?


Later,

Gene Beggs
 
Last edited:
My interpretation would be that the contact surfaces of the barrel and the barrel block cannot be more than 5". That was surely the intent of the rule.
The Supreme Court may disagree, though.
 
glbreil said:
It looks like the fact that the weight of the gun is resting on the barrel would make it very easy to actually change the point of impact by the amount of pressure you put on the gun when shooting it.

Is that true? Does this design only work when shooting free recoil?

It looks great, but seems to go against the whole free floated barrel concept. I know that just applying different amounts of pressure to a conventional stock makes it shoot differently, so I am just curious about what happens when the barrel is the stock.

Thanks Gary
Click to expand...


Gary,

The forend of the 'Ultralite' is bolted to the barrel at a location in which the rifle balances properly regardless of barrel length and weight.

Once the barrel is chambered, crowned and the tuner installed, the balance point is located and marked. This is where the forend attaches.

The 'Ultralite' can be shot either free recoil or with shoulder pressure; I go back and forth from one to the other and can see no difference. The rifle also tunes in the normal manner. At one hundred yards with either the 22 or 6mm, a full out of tune condition is indicated by two bullet holes of verticle, the same as any other bag gun.

I realize the 'Ultralite' defies all conventional wisdom; many have said,

"Why, that thing won't work! :mad: With the forend and barrel bolted together and resting solidly in the front rest? 'ell, that will completely mess up the barrel's harmonics! :mad:"

OH? Show me! :cool: Let's get a good shooter to sit down here and shoot a group, then explain to me how a rifle can deliver that kind of accuracy if the "Harmonics" are all messed up. :rolleyes:

Don't you just love this myth bustin'?? :D :D

Later,

Gene Beggs
 
I refer you to my recent post titled "Rule question". The distance was 4" and it stated (It is not in current rules on the NBRSA web site.) that this was to be measured form the bolt face.

Frankly, at the time that the rule was adopted, I doubt that anyone in the organization would have even considered a rule applying to two piece stocks to be in any way relevant to benchrest shooting, since longstanding experience has been that this has been an inferior design for bench shooting. Don't misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that Gene's design is inferior, just that that has been the conventional wisdom for many years. It is for this reason that I believe that the rule was directed at what was somewhat common practice for one piece stocks.

I believe that concern about keeping within the spirit and intent of the rules is legitimate, and that it is hard, if not impossible, to anticipate future innovations at the time that rules are written. I also believe that the proper way to put the official stamp of approval on any controversial action would be by a vote of the BOD. The question remains, what is sufficiently controversial to warrant this sort of official action? Perhaps someone would have to make an official protest.

My personal opinion is that Gene's stock falls outside of the intent of the writers of this rule, because thy probably did not foresee the eventual use of two piece stocks in this sport.
 
Gene ...

Gene Beggs said:
Dear reader, to my knowledge Jackie Schmidt is the only person who has questioned the legality of my two-piece, "Ultralite" stock for use in NBRSA and IBS sactioned Varmint and Sporter class matches. This in spite of the fact that the rifle was evaluated two years ago by both the president and vice president of NBRSA and declared perfectly legal.

The 'Ultralite' stock consists of a tubular buttstock bolted directly to the tang of the receiver. Unlike conventional stocks which require bedding of the action, the 'Ultralite' has no bedding; the barreled action itself becomes the main load carrying member. Of course, the rifle must have a forend and the forend of the 'Ultralite' is milled from a solid block of aluminun and bolted directly to the barrel.

Some stocks, such as the new Scoville, use barrel blocks in place of conventional bedding to attach the barreled action to the stock. The rules prohibit a barrel block from extending more than five inches in front of the bolt face. Jackie Schmidt contends that the forend of the 'Ultralite' constitutes a barrel block more than five inches beyond the bolt face and is therefore illegal.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I believe each association, the NBRSA and the IBS is the one to properly make the decision as to what is legal or not, according to the interpretation of their organizations rules. I just reviewed the list of NBRSA Officers: Directors, Alternate Directors, Committees, and Employees on the inside front page of September's NBRSA News. I saw no listing of a committee with a specific designation for rules interpretation. In the absence of a Rules Interpretation/Evaluation Committee, or Governing Board, then such duties should be performed by the Directors (President and V.P.). Moreover, I believe a good sized committee would be better ... having worked in an Office of Policy and Plans ... because more minds usually, not always, produce a better product. MTC, Art
 
dmoran65 said:
Gene --

Been following your indexing innovations with much interest!!

Thanks for sharing it all with us!!!! and great work!!!

-Have you tried the indexing in a conventional stock with a free-floating barrel?

- To what aspects do you feel your ultimate stock is a gain over free-floating stocks?

- Is the placement of the ultimate fore-end critical?


Happy Shooting
Donovan Moran
Click to expand...


Donovan,

My first barrel indexing experiments were with conventional stocks and free-floated barrels. I don't think it makes a difference. The barrels installed in the Ultralite react exactly the same to both tuning and indexing.

Placement of the Ultralite forend depends on the weight and length of the barrel. Some have speculated that moving it fore and aft might affect tune but I haven't noticed a difference. My only concern is for balance.

You asked,

"To what aspects do you feel your stock is a gain over free-floating stocks?"


That's a good question, and it seems that every week I discover yet another advantage of the Ultralite over conventional stocks. To begin with,


1. At little more than a pound, the Ultralite is much lighter than fiberglass and wood stocks.

2. Far less expensive.

3. No waiting six months to a year.

4. Can be installed in about ten to fifteen minutes with only three 1/4 inch bolts and can easily be switched to other actions even at the range.

5. Perfect balance regardless of barrel length and weight.

6. Low comb height which does not interfere with shooter's cheek and ear muffs.

7. Comb and buttplate do not interfere with bore guides and cleaning rods.

8. The anodized aluminum glides smoothly with no grabbing in either leather or ballistic nylon bags. NO powder, silicon, fabric softener sheets or other 'slickem' required.

9. No filling, sanding, painting, glueing or bedding. No worries about dings, scratches or the bedding coming loose.

10. Completely waterproof and immune to all bore cleaners and solvents.

11. Buttstock is adjustable so buttplate can always be positioned directly behind the bore.


I'm sure there are other advantages that I have forgotten or haven't discovered yet, but I am sold on the Ultralite; I own nothing else. :D


Disavantages?? :eek:

The only one I can think of is, they're ugly. :eek: I refer to the Ultralite as "the Glock of benchrest." :D

Later,

Gene Beggs
 
Thanks Gene

I would think that a barrel block and the forearm of the ultrilite are two different things with two different functions.

A barrel block is designed to hold the entire barreled action for mounting in a stock or on a rail. It at least in any application that I have ever seen does not contact the sand bags in any way.

The forearm of the ultrilite is just as its name says a forearm of the stock its self which rests in the sand bag as a guide for firing. The forearm supports only the front of the rifle the rear is still supported by a stock which rests in the rear sand bag for firing.

Two totally different functions and purposes. I don't think the ultrilite forearm is capable of performing as a barrel block even if that was the desire since it only has one small clamping point.

Just my observations. Thanks Gary
 
glbreil said:
I would think that a barrel block and the forearm of the ultrilite are two different things with two different functions.

A barrel block is designed to hold the entire barreled action for mounting in a stock or on a rail. It at least in any application that I have ever seen does not contact the sand bags in any way.

The forearm of the ultrilite is just as its name says a forearm of the stock its self which rests in the sand bag as a guide for firing. The forearm supports only the front of the rifle the rear is still supported by a stock which rests in the rear sand bag for firing.

Two totally different functions and purposes. I don't think the ultrilite forearm is capable of performing as a barrel block even if that was the desire since it only has one small clamping point.

Just my observations. Thanks Gary
Click to expand...


:) Thank you Gary :)

No one could have said it better.

Gene Beggs
 
Gene, I wish that a ruling could be made.

As I told you at Tomball, I believe that your stock cannot stand the scrutiny of the rule stated above. The clamp that comes over the top of the barrel seems to make it illegal. I would not go into production until the rules committee has okayed it for competition. I know that you have shot it for a couple years without anyone protesting the legality....but that does not make it legal. Shelley's design ...although similar seems to be completely legal since he does not have "block" at the mid-point of the barrel. I hope that you can get it cleared for 2009. Good shooting...James Mock
 
This, seems to me - - -

glbreil said:
I would think that a barrel block and the forearm of the ultrilite are two different things with two different functions.

A barrel block is designed to hold the entire barreled action for mounting in a stock or on a rail. It at least in any application that I have ever seen does not contact the sand bags in any way.

The forearm of the ultrilite is just as its name says a forearm of the stock its self which rests in the sand bag as a guide for firing. The forearm supports only the front of the rifle the rear is still supported by a stock which rests in the rear sand bag for firing.

Two totally different functions and purposes. I don't think the ultrilite forearm is capable of performing as a barrel block even if that was the desire since it only has one small clamping point.

Just my observations. Thanks Gary
Click to expand...

To be absolutely correct. A bedding block has an entirely different function than a forearm. The explaination is simple and I believe correct. Rathar than Holding the barrel the forearm enables the barrel to move.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top