The Hunter's Life Forums

This one, not 'lipstick on a pig'.

I like that cartridge. I like the H&R that I built. But... It's still an H&R. Personally, I just can't get past that. Good 'truck gun', but not exactly 'elegant'. I also really like Ruger falling block actions. So...

I bought a Ruger #3 chambered in .45-70 Government to be the donor action. (Got it for $300 less than the cheapest I have seen on the auction sites. :D) I actually prefer the #3 to the #1. The only difference in the metal is the lever, and I much prefer the #3s lever. Now I needed a .416 barrel.

I looked at Pac-Nor's website (http://pac-nor.com/) for a barrel, and noticed that they installed barrels so, anticipating deal-killing "details", I called and inquired. Turned out that they will:
1) Remove the factory barrel,
2) Install their new barrel,
3) Chamber it to .416x.348 Win, (and CUSTOM lengthen the throat for the Hawk 400-grain bullet),
4) Cut the extractor groove,
5) Install a new extractor, and
6) Copy the profile of the original barrel to the new barrel. (Actually, I asked them if they would copy the original profile to the end of the forearm and make it 'straight' from there to the muzzle. They said "No problem." I said, "How much extra." They said, "No extra charge." :eek: That's the way CUSTOMER SERVICE is supposed to be!)

All for $575.

The new (28" finished length) barrel cost $275 (not exactly cheap), which makes the labor cost $300. That's not great either, but it's not bad, and SEVERAL hundred less than the next competitor. What sealed the deal was that they would blue the barrel for an extra $50 AND the bluing would only take an extra "two weeks". So, total cost to Pac-Nor is $625 plus shipping to and fro. I got the No.3  last Thursday. It was on it's way to Pac-Nor the next day. They should have received the barreled action today.

I have no problem shaping, finish inletting, and finishing stocks. However, INITIAL inletting is another matter. Especially for a rifle that requires a hole to be drilled in the butt for a draw bolt like the Ruger falling block actions do, AND for the angled hole required for the forearm hanger. So, I went looking for 'someone' to inlet "my wood" for fore arm and butt stock. I found a couple of places, but, they REALLY ticked me off with all their whining and completely unnecessary constraints!

GOOD GRIEF! These places advertise CUSTOM gun stocks, but what they REALLY mean is "not factory". You WILL do it "their way", (which means just like every other one they do for everyone else, which is hardly "custom"), or they will whine and gripe and patronize you, and tell YOU what YOU want. I am SO sick and tired of people in the firearms industries. Especially the after-market businesses, and extra especially gunsmiths and stock-makers!

The first guy I contacted makes a BIG deal about NOT doing ANY metal work. NOT doing ANY fitting. "These are only partially inlet and you have to do the finish inletting. Also there is a LOT of finish work to SHAPING the stock". Ok. I'm fine with that. His prices if he uses HIS wood (which he brags about being "Exhibition grade") is $275 for the Ruger No. 1s and 3s. In our first conversation, I told him that all I wanted him to do was INLET the action and fore arm. He didn't need to shape the stock or fore arm AT ALL. I would take care of that. He said $300 for MY wood. I told him I had to look at my wood and see what I wanted to use. I would get back to him. I sent him an email and told him I had found some wood I wanted to use, but the butt piece was pretty narrow. If he didn't want to try inlet the "narrow" wood, fine. How much just for the forearm? I got a two-sentence response: $370 and that was "If you measured the butt correctly." So $100 more for using MY wood and doing LESS work! I resisted the temptation to respond.

The next place was more amenable to "doing the work", and the prices with MY WOOD wasn't too bad - $100 for the butt and $85 for the forearm. (Using THEIR wood it was $85 for the butt and $65 for the forearm. Using MY wood costs MORE. That makes perfect sense. :sarc:) Extra for drilling the draw bolt hole. Extra for attaching MY fore end wood to the forearm. AND...

My wood had to be 2 and a quarter inches SQUARE for the fore end, and the butt needed to be AT LEAST 2" thick. Both of those dimensions were problematic for me. My forearm was only 1 and 15/16ths inches square, and the butt was only 1.815" thick. The FACTORY forearm is not even 1.5" wide, and the factory butt is only 1.7" wide AT THE ABSOLUTE WIDEST. Their dimensional requirements were simply because they are too :cens: lazy to position the blanks carefully. I didn't argue with them.

I called Sakorick and asked him if he wouldn't mind going down to see them face-to-face with my wood. (He lives about 2 hours from them and he has some stock work he wants done too.) I thought that face-to-face he might be able to talk them into using my "small" wood. He agreed. However, the more I thought about it as I was preparing my wood to ship to Rick, the angrier I got. I finally just decided to quit putting up with GETTING GOUGED for using MY WOOD, AND, to add insult to injury, I had to listen to their whining and arrogance. All of that for a "custom" stock THAT WASN'T CUSTOM AT ALL!

MAN! I am TIRED of these arrogant, prima donna, firearms people! REALLY TIRED of them! Pac-Nor was surprising in their willingness to actually DO WHAT THE CUSTOMER WANTED! :cens:!!!

So... I'm doing ALL of the fabrication of the forearm and butt. Both will be of persimmon, and the fore end will be black-and-white ebony (hereafter BWE). What's interesting (to me) about the forearm is that persimmon and BWE are the same genus. As I have mentioned before, persimmon is often called "American ebony" because it is the same genus (Diospyros virginiana) as the black ebony with which everyone is familiar (Diospyros crassiflora). BWE (D. malabarica) is great-looking stuff, having high contrasting yellow and black wood. https://www.google.com/search?q=black+and+white+ebony+species+name&rlz=1C1AVFA_enUS760US760&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFye765YbbAhWRxZ8KHVaZC94Q_AUoAXoECAAQAw&biw=1536&bih=760 The pieces I have THAT FIT are not that "black and white". (You'll see below.)

So here I am again, all too willing to PAY people to do work they ADVERTISE for, and again essentially forced to "do it myself if I want it done right".

Fine.

Here are two pictures of the factory forearm. The first shows the whole forearm with all the inletting. The second is a closeup of the inletting required for the hanger.
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/Forearm%20Factory%20Inletting_zpsklj2msaj.jpg)

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/Forearm%20Factory%20Inletting%20Closeup_zpsegbux1lt.jpg)

The next four pictures are of the persimmon forearm "blank" with the BWE fore end attached and ready for inletting and shaping.
First the "top". This is the barrel/inletting side.
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/Forearm%20top%20w%20BWE%20forend_zps1zagiltq.jpg)

This is the right side. Note the black figuring. Ebony. :)
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/Forearm%20right%20side%20w%20BWE%20forend_zpsukwwayhx.jpg)

Here's the bottom:
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/Forearm%20bottom%20w%20BWE%20forend_zpsbtuzukal.jpg)

And finally, the left side:
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/Forearm%20left%20side%20w%20BWE%20forend_zpsdilc8klh.jpg)

Because this is now a genuine "build" instead of just an "assembly", I'll be providing pictures as I go along.

I came within a cat's whisker of using a very nice maple butt stock blank that Paul Hoskins gave me. It would be perfect except that it doesn't match the persimmon forearm I want to use. I'll save that butt for my next 'special' build. (I should be able to get both butt and forearm out of that piece of wood.)

I should (hope) to get the newly barreled action back in less than 6 weeks. I will be able to perform the preliminary inletting on both the butt and forearm without having to have the barreled action. I'll just use the factory pieces as models.

I'll try to be conscientious about taking pictures, but no promises.

Paul

By the way... I would like to enlist the THL 'army' in search of a good butt stock pattern. (I'm looking for an actual PATTERN, not a "design". I want something I can cut out and tape to a piece of wood to cut around.) It doesn't matter if it's for a Ruger falling block action or not. I can 'fix' it if it isn't. The most important feature is a straight wrist. I do NOT want a pistol grip. I also do NOT want the Ruger factory #3 butt. That thing looks a whole lot like a 2x4, and from what I read, makes felt recoil very unpleasant.

So, if you have, or can find a such a pattern, please let me know.

Paul

I'll poke around for one.

No doubt this rifle will be elegant, but my past experience with Ruger  #1's  and one #3 has been less than stellar in the accuracy department. Too much :cens: :cens: mucking about with no rewards in accuracy.  You will notice I do no bragging about any Ruger rifles in the accuracy department, only Remingtons.

My opinion only

RJ

That ebony looks like some of my Mun Ebony. I've used it many times on various projects and I think it really is a corker!

RJ - It is common to hear about poor "accuracy" in Ruger #1s and 3s. From what I read, most blame it on the hanger out in front of the action. I've not spent a lot of time trying to 'accurize' my #1s. (This is my first #3.) Troofiz, I've never even taken one of my #1s hunting! No particular reason other than I had other rifles to take. Since this #3 will be a "short range" rifle, my precision requirements are fairly modest. I THINK I'll be able to live with 2 MoA at 100 yd. ("Short range" - unless hunting buffalo or moose, ranges less than 250 yd for sure and more than likely, 150 or less.) The reason I wrote 'think' in all caps is that I do not have a hunting rifle that shoots worse than 1.5 MoA, and I'm not liking that very much.  Therefore, I might not be able to 'tolerate' 2 MoA from this rifle. Time will tell. My psyche will be a moot point if it does better than 1.5 MoA. However, moose and buffalo are BIG targets.

ALL of my Ruger model 77s shoot sub-MoA, and I own several - one of which is my first .338 Win Mag. For precision, it is among the best hunting rifles I own. I have one Ruger bolt gun that I have not even shot! :eek: It is the M77 Hawkeye. I think it's chambered in .308 Win. Hmm... looks like a trend. I'm going to have to take my #1s and that Haweye to the range and see if my personal experience with #1s is consistent with what is reported around the internet.

I'm a little nervous about the 28" barrel I'm having put on this #3. Long barrels can get "whippy". I've seen the videos! The "good" news is that it will be fairly 'beefy' at 0.800" at the muzzle. The reason for the long barrel is primarily increasing muzzle velocity while keeping max pressure down. I'm not too concerned about the pressure in the #3 action, as it is PLENTY strong enough for 'modern' pressures. According to SAAMI, the max pressure for the .348 Win cartridge is 46,413 PSI, and I can get the velocities I want without pushing that spec. 46.4 kPSI is certainly modest by today's high pressure cartridges.

The second reason for the long barrel is weight. Using pretty good numbers from the barrel's profile, Pac-Nor's barrel weight calculator says it should weigh 4 lb 14 oz. That makes getting the total weight of the rifle to a minimum of 9.5 lb, MUCH easier. In fact, with the persimmon stock, a scope, and some tungsten beads, I should be able to get to 10+ lbs without having to work at it. Combine weight with good stock design (wide butt with good pad), and I should be able to get the 400-grain Hawk bullet over 2100 f/s at the muzzle without dislocating my shoulder. 2100 f/s from a 400-grain bullet generates 3900 ft-lb of "push back". That's about 500 ft-lb over my personal preference for lighter - less than 9 lb - rifles. At 2100 f/s MV, sighted in for 3" high at 100, that bullet is 'only' 17" low at 300 yd. That means for elk, moose, and buffalo, at 300 and under, I don't have to aim 'off hair'. Impact velocity at 300 is ~1660 f/s, (which, according to Hawk, is fine for that bullet's terminal performance),  and the impact energy is 2450 ft-lb. That is plenty for moose or buffalo medicine out that far.

Rick - That particular piece of BWE does look a lot like Mun ebony (Diospyros mun - from Viet Nam).

Paul

PS - I have to retract that assertion that I have never taken one of my #1s hunting. I took my first #1, REchambered from .300 Win Mag to .300 Weatherby mag, on the "Ol' Number 42" bear hunt. (http://www.thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11321) I just didn't kill the bear with it.

Paul

Which is why Sharps rifles were/are so accurate. Big hefty barrels to reduce whip. Now if it was octagon, that would be purty!  I'm not sure how they attach their forearms but it must work.

Oh, not saying Ruger bolt guns are poor performers, I should have clarified. A certain gorgeous #1 in 22-250 was very disappointing as it refused to go less than 1.5 moa. For a varmint rifle, that's in the :toilet: I liked the action though.

RJ

I think I've seen a #1 with an octagon barrel, but I'm not sure.

I've attached a picture of the hanger. What many don't understand, and I didn't until I started fiddling with them, is that the trigger and firing pin springs are located in this hanger. The forearm touches NOTHING but the little nut at the front of the hanger and where it butts against the receiver. And therein lies the 'accuracy' rub. I have seen some 'fixes'. I'll worry about those when the issue comes up.

Paul

Have a look at the 29th post in this thread. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/ruger-no-1-accurizing-thoughts.819129/page-2 I would be inclined to try that, since it 'goes' with my view of the world with respect to barrel 'pressure points'.


Paul

Very interesting project, Paul. Anxious to see the final results. The Ruger #1's & #3's are the same action with different operating levers & methods of keeping the action closed. I can't understand all the noise about Ruger SS rifles not being accurate. I own several #1's & one #3 & have never had an accuracy problem with any of them. None of them are as accurate & consistent as my old Hi Wall Win. chambered for the 225 Win. cartridge but it's a specialty gun built specifically with accuracy in mind. All of my Ruger SS rifles have been re barelled with the exception of the 7X57 carbine. For a go to gun my old #3 chambered for the 22 Newton gets the nod for everything. It just kills everything I shoot at with it. It's not the most accurate gun in the world by a long shot but consistently shoots 3/4 inch groups all the time. The only drawback is having to make my own bullets but that's no big problem. For the most part I don't like long barrels but a 28 inch barrel will add about 100 FPS more over a 24 inch barrel in most cases. ......You can find semi finished stocks for these SS rifles in the ad's of Shotgun News pretty often. That's where the stock on my #3 came from many years ago. It's a reject piece of Oregon myrtle that was semi finished. .......Paul H

oooh, like that stock!

VERY nice rifles - AS USUAL - Paul!

Yeah, I spent a couple of hours on the web yesterday researching #1 and #3 "accuracy", and find LOTS of folks that report getting very good precision from theirs. If only half of them are telling the truth, there are plenty of "accurate" Ruger SSs. I read a lot about the "hanger", and I understand the issue. I'll probably address it before I even shoot the thing. The 'fix' just makes sense.

The 28" barrel isn't for extra muzzle velocity. I can get all I need (or want) with a 21" barrel. What the longer barrel allows me to do is get the velocity I want with LESS PRESSURE. In a sense, it's 'more velocity', if you consider the "same" pressure. With the 28" barrel, I can get 2100 f/s from the 400-grain bullet with the same pressure I get with the 24" barrel barrel but only 1850 f/s MV. Plus the added weight mitigates the recoil too.

I'll keep you posted on the progress of this project.

Paul

So... Today, I got the barreled action back from PacNor.

I am pleased.

I put the No.3 stock back on it so I could take pictures of it, and possibly even shoot it.

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/Ruger%20No3%20416x348%20Win%201s_zps7edlbm6d.jpg)

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/PacNor%20416x348Win-1s_zps35sqh9tb.jpg)

(Not great pictures, but these were just Q&D for this post. The better pictures will be with the persimmon stock and mounted scope.)

Now, I have to start on the forearm and butt. Also, I have to drill and tap the barrel for scope mounts.

:happy:

Paul

Quote from: gitano;151141So... Today, I got the barreled action back from PacNor.

I am pleased.

I put the No.3 stock back on it so I could take pictures of it, and possibly even shoot it.

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/Ruger%20No3%20416x348%20Win%201s_zps7edlbm6d.jpg)

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/PacNor%20416x348Win-1s_zps35sqh9tb.jpg)

(Not great pictures, but these were just Q&D for this post. The better pictures will be with the persimmon stock and mounted scope.)

Now, I have to start on the forearm and butt. Also, I have to drill and tap the barrel for scope mounts.

:happy:

 Paul

Pardon me, but that rifle screams "Tang Sight" loudly at me.

Not sure that would be possible, Jaimie.270. This receiver has the tang safety which doesn't leave much room for a sight base. I'll have a closer look at it tomorrow.

I THINK this rifle will be going to Colorado and Utah for deer and elk this fall. I'll have to put in some trigger time first. At the moment, I'm thinking about installing a quarter-rib with appropriate scope dovetails. After some range time, I'll be able to tell if open sights are a possibility. Between my old eyes, the relatively low velocity of the bullet leading to a 'rainbow' trajectory (at least to some degree), and the relatively small target on a mule deer or an elk at 300 yd, open sights may not be a practical option.

I'm going to start on the fore arm tomorrow. You can see the fore arm 'blank' in the first post in this thread. I still don't have a pattern for the butt. That's not a big deal, as I'll inlet the reciever into the butt before I do much shaping.

Paul

If I took measurements and pictures of the 99 Savage butt stock would that be pattern enough? It's more straighter in my eyes than the Ruger deck plank.

RJ

"Ruger deck plank" is right!

I've got a 99, RJ. I'll look at that as a suitable pattern.

Paul

For reasons not understood by me, many people seem to like to bad-mouth the precision of Ruger No.1s (and by extension, No.3s). Like all over-the-counter rifles, the "out-of-the-box" precision of Ruger No.1s and 3s can be improved with various after-market modifications. For example, very few rifles come "in-the-box" with scopes. Adding a scope is an after-market modification that improves precision. And most folks do that without a gripe. Likewise, most folks acknowledge that tuning handloads to the specific rifle improves precision. Tuning handloads to the specific rifle is an after-market modification that improves precision. So griping about "having" to "modify" a No. 1 or 3 seems a bit 'picky' to me.

Having said that, if a specific rifle model has a known design issue that requires modification in order to achieve reasonable precision with handloads, I think it is reasonable to gripe about that.

It is appropriate that I define MY term "reasonable precision": For ME, because I do not shoot competitively, reasonable precision is minimally (or "maximally" depending on how you look at it),  1 MoA at 100 yards.

As mentioned above, the No. 1s and 3s seem can have a precision 'issue' associated with the "hanger". Much of the firing mechanism is located out on that hanger. Significant improvements in precision have been realized by people that install some method of stiffening the hanger relative to the barrel. Again, mentioned in earlier posts, there are two basic ways to accomplishe this:
1) Install a Hicks Accurizer -https://www.eabco.com/HicksAccurizer1.html
2) Machine a threaded hole into the end of the hanger that allows a grubscrew to be installed that applies tension between the hanger and the barrel.

I have not yet shot the No. 2 that is the subject of this project, so I don't know the nature of it's precision "right out of the box". However, there is no harm is addressing the "issue" a priori,so I drilled and tapped the hanger for an 8-40 grubscrew. That's mostly what this post is about.

First, I set the barreled action up in my mill so that the area I was interesting in milling was parallel to the mill's table, and therefore perpendicular to the travel of the quill. I needed to mill a little bit of of the tip of the hanger in order to make an appropriate flat for drilling the hole. Using a 3/8" mill cutter, I took the part you see in the rectangle below off of my hanger. (That picture is not my hanger.)

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/1497050788a8a37d36_zpsrx98x8ng.jpg)

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/101_1150_zpsrgqrnuda.jpg)

Here are two pictures of my hanger after milling that sloped part off and drilling a #28 hole for threading 8-40.

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/Ruger%20No2%20Hanger%20Screw-3sm_zpshsplglhc.jpg)

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/Ruger%20No2%20Hanger%20Screw-2sm_zpstn9wtijs.jpg)

Here is a picture of the grubscrew installed and showing it impinging on the barrel.

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/Ruger%20No2%20Hanger%20Screw-sm_zps1u9g7vxt.jpg)

In the spirit of "There ain't no free lunches", this little fix isn't as straight forward as it appears.The spring you see in the above picture is the "hammer spring". At the distal (far) end of that spring is a "plug" that fits against that 'tab' you see. (I milled off the distal end of that tab.) When the rifle is cocked, a flat rod that runs through the spring (to keep it from bending) slides into the slot you see in the end of the hanger. (It's the slot the hole for the grub screw had to go through.) Before I realized that flat rod had to slide into that slot when the rifle is cocked, I left the grubscrew long enough to extend up into that slot even when it was screwed in "tight". Unfortunately, that prohibited the flat rod from moving forward as the rifle is cocked, thereby preventing it from cocking.

So, I removed the grubscrew, shortened it, cut a new slot in the top, and reinstalled it so that it was below the bottom level of that slot. However... the 'fiddling' wasn't over. Tightening that grubscrew changes - significantly - the trigger 'pull'. It didn't change the weight of the pull noticably, but it REALLY increased the "creep" when I screwed the screw in until it was "tight". The reason I noticed this is that the trigger pull before the modification was perfect. After I screwed the grubscrew in "tight", it had significant creep. The reason was obvious. The grub screw pushed the hanger away from the barrel, essentially "bending" it. What that did was create a bit of a 'bind' as that flat rod pushes into that slot. The 'fix' was to just tighten the grubscrew sufficiently to fully engage the barrel - about 2/3rds of a rotation (0.66 rotations * 0.025 inches/rotation = ~0.0165"), after contact with the barrel. There is still the slightest additional creep, but you really have to be 'looking for it' to sense it. We'll see how that turns out at the bench. If that is an issue for me, the fix is to stone the bottom of the tip of the flat rod so that it 'releases' from the bottom of the slot without effort.

The next task in the process is to install some form of sight system. I have ordered a Ruger quarter-rib.

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/Ruger%20Quarter-rib_zpsigqsgitd.jpg)

When I receive that, (providing that it 'fits' properly), I will drill and tap the barrel for it, install it, and put a scope on. THEN I will test-fire to make sure everything is close to 'as expected' in terms of operation and hitting the broad side of a barn. After that, I'll make the stock.

Paul

Just for information's sake, here is the letter I sent Pac-Nor describing the work I wanted.

Paul

Got the quarter-rib today. Rear is too "thick" by 0.110" (or front is too thin by 0.110"). So... I have to 'fix' that. Since I can't put metal back on, I can't "thicken" the front, so I'll have to "thin" the rear by 0.100".

Looks nice though.

Paul

I finished modifying the quarter-rib and so it's on to drilling and tapping the barrel for attaching it. Here are some pictures of the set-up using the Forster D&T jig.

In the following two pictures, you can see the barreled action in the jig setting on the table of my mill.
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/IMG_0004-sm_zpsp3vlkszi.jpg)

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/IMG_0006-sm_zpscbj2zfka.jpg)

In this next picture, you see the drilling guide with the locating pin in one of the holes, and the point of the pin in the most distal hole in the quarter-rib. So located, the mill head with the appropriate drill inserted, can be positioned exactly in the proper "x" (left & right) and "y" (in & out of bellybutton) position. When I actually drill the holes, I'll show a picture of the drill guide bushing that replaces the locating pin.
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/IMG_0005-sm_zpsejppwtkw.jpg)

There was considerable time spent leveling and finding the center of the whole affair. I am REALLY glad I told Pac-Nor to make the barrel a uniform diameter from just in front of the fore arm to the muzzle. That meant I could put a precise digital level on the barrel and level the entire assembly. Here is a close-up of one of the barrel clamps.
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/IMG_0009-sm_zps226tjqhd.jpg)

And here is a close-up of the hold-down for the jig.
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/416x348%20Win%20Ruger/IMG_0008-sm_zpsdlkjlm4a.jpg)


That's the "good news"...

I decided that I should probably order the screws so that when I'm finished drilling and tappiing the barrel, I can actually install the quarter-rib. I went back to Brownell's for the screws. They only have one (at $3 EACH!). Hmm... I went to MidwayUSA (which I do not now patronize), and they have only one. (Theirs are $2 EACH!) I started looking around and j0e_bl0ggs reminded me to look at Numrich. They have them. Yay! ONLY $4.45 EACH! I looked around some more, and didn't find any quickly, and since I had to order some more pieces (fore arm attachment screw and escutcheon, and butt bolt (1/4-28???) and washer), I went ahead and bought the $4.45 EACH screws too. Of course right after I placed the order, I remembered Fastenal. (There is a Fastenal store within two miles of my house.) They SAY (online) that they have them in stock in the local store. Unfortunately, they're not open on weekends. So first thing Monday morning, I'm going to call Numrich and cancell the screw part of my order. Oh yeah, the ones at Fastenal - EXACTLY THE SAME - are 21 CENTS apiece! That happens to be more than a 2 THOUSAND PERCENT MARKUP by Numrich!

Finally, since I am not buying "factory" screws, the pitch becomes a bit of an issue. Some places say the pitch is 8-32, and some say it's 8-36. Of course neither Numrich, MidwayUSA, or Brownells states the pitch of their "factory" screws. I can tap for either pitch, but I want to know what it is so I get comparable ones at Fastenal.

More when there's more.

Paul

Test-fired the Ruger No.2 chambered in .416x.348 Winchester for function and to get an idea about QuickLOAD's ability to accurately predict muzzle velocities.

Here are the specifications:
1) MagnetoSpeed chronograph
2) 400-grain Hornady "Dangerous Game" round-nosed bullets (out of production)
3) 34.5 grains of IMR 4227 powder.
4) Seating depth of 0.495"
5) Overall cartridge length of 3.048"
6) Bullet between 0.050" and 0.060" off of the lands when a round is chambered.

Here are the values input to QuickLOAD. All of the values have been measured, not estimated.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/hexdzmc13/416x348_QL_Bullet-_Barrel-_Case_Input.jpg)


Here are the input values for the powder.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/p7o1rlaaf/416x348_QL_Powder_Input.jpg)


Here are the outputs. First, the predicted Pressure and Velocity vs distance-traveled-in-the-barrel curves.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/bdzp2jx4n/416x348_QL_Press-_Vel_GRAPH.jpg)


And finally, the predicted output with Max Pressure, Muzzle Pressure, % of powder burned in the barrel before bullet exit, etc.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/4nj7t3mtj/416x348_QL_Output-a.jpg)

(https://s5.postimg.cc/dik23m3w7/416x348_QL_Output-b.jpg)

As you can see, the predicted muzzle velocity is 1719 f/s.
Actual MVs were:
1) 1619
2) 1621
3) 1613
for and average of 1617.7 f/s. Which is, on average, 101.3 f/s slower than predicted by QuickLOAD.

By lowering the charge to 31.6 grains of I4227, I can get the predicted MV down to 1619 f/s. At that MV, the predicted Max Pressure is 25,548 PSI.

This exercise was conducted to test function AND get an idea about how well QuickLOAD was going to predict MV and by inference, Max Pressure. I got that information. Mostly. The bullet I intend to use primarily for hunting is the Hawk 400-grain spitzer, and the powder is Accurate 2495. Accurate 2495 powder MAY behave differently than IMR4227. I'll have to check that once I have the stock finished. Then I will be able to also work on sighting in the scope with the specific load I intend to use.

Paul

Given the 100 f/s deficit observed with the 'low' charges, I decided that I couldn't wait for the stock work to be finished before I knew what the rifle was going to do velocity-wise with the 'full' charges, so I loaded full charges for the Hawk and Hornady 400 grain bullets. Here are the results.

1) MagnetoSpeed chronograph
2) 400-grain Hornady "Dangerous Game" round-nosed bullets (out of production)
3) 55.7 grains of Accurate 4064 powder.
4) Seating depth of 0.495"
5) Overall cartridge length of 3.048"
6) Bullet between 0.050" and 0.060" off of the lands when a round is chambered.

QuickLOAD-predicted muzzle velocity was 2057 f/s with an attendant Max Pressure of 40,631 PSI. The actual MV was 2000 f/s - a negative 57 f/s 'error'.

The resulting change in the predicted trajectory table:
(https://s5.postimg.cc/ify38culj/416x.348_Full_Charge_Hornady_400g_RN_27-_Jul-18.jpg)


The Hawk bullet's info is:
1) MagnetoSpeed chronograph
2) 400-grain Hawk spitzer with 0.035" jacket thickness
3) 54.0 grains of ACC 2495 powder.
4) Seating depth of 0.495"
5) Overall cartridge length of 3.081"
6) Bullet between 0.050" and 0.060" off of the lands when a round is chambered.

QuickLOAD-predicted muzzle velocity was 2066 f/s with an attendant Max Pressure of 41,071 PSI. The actual MV was 2018 f/s - a negative 48 f/s 'error'.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/vk3nl1exj/416x.348_Full_Charge_Hawk_400g_RN_27-_Jul-18.jpg)

Notice the difference in the delivered energy at 300 yards and then ask me why I 'like' the Hawk bullets best. Furthermore, the BC of 0.500 for the Hawk bullet is an underestimate. I spoke directly with the person that performs the ballistic tests and he told me the following:

QuoteFirst, we actually measure the BCs of our bullets, we do not calculate them. Unfortunately, we have not performed those measurements on every one of our bullets. The BC of 0.500 is for our ROUND NOSED 400-grain bullet. We haven't measured the BC on the spitzer, but it should be a little bit better.

So, the impact energy should be a little bit higher, and the trajectory should be a little flatter.

I also asked him AGAIN about "minimum impact velocity" required for as-designed terminal performance. He repeated that he was quite confident in the bullets performing very well (complete 'mushrooming') at 1300 f/s impact velocity.

As you can see in the table above, the Hawk 400-grain spitzer has an impact velocity of AT LEAST 1600 f/s and an associated impact energy of AT LEAST 2250 ft-lbs. THAT'S A THUMPER. 20" low at 300 yards isn't great, but it ain't terrible considering the animals one would generally be after with this rifle. At 300 yd, you wouldn't have to aim "off hair" when shooting at moose, elk, or buffalo. (Maybe elk, but it'd be close.)

I should repeat that I am not "concerned" about velocity other than it represents how much energy can be delivered to the animal for a 'clean' kill. What I AM interested in that is correlated to velocity is "timing" - in the context of barrel harmonics and optimal barrel timing for best precision. Being "slow" by ~50 f/s means the calculated timing is also "off" by an amount that is likely to be too far from a theoretical node. Here's the point: Tweaking the loads will be for the purpose of getting the timing (and therefore the precision) right, not to 'gain' velocity. If hte velocities were "too high", I'd be lowering the charges to lower the velocity. Therefore, I'll start by increasing the loads until I get the MV that predicts the theoretical best timing and follow that with 'tweaking' as necessary for the best precision.

Recoil wasn't terrible, but I would not want to shoot it "all day". Fifty f/s more isn't going to make it 'better'...

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Paul

Paul. I never had the equipment you have for testing but I almost always found that loads that produce approximately the same velocities shot after shot are the most accurate. I always considered velocities that are within a plus or minus 20 fps to be very consistent in accuracy. Your project appears to be a thumper for heavy game. I like the low chamber pressure. .......Paul H

We're singing from the same sheet of music again, as usual, Paul. All shots with a MV variation of less than 20 f/s is my 'standard' too.

It's nice to see bullets of the same weight, but different design, (like the Hornady and Hawk in this effort), yield similar MVs too. In this case, the bearing surface of the Hornady is significantly larger than the Hawk, and the Hornady has a 'gilding' jacket whereas the Hawk has a "dead soft, pure copper" jacket. Personally, I think the bearing surface accounts for more of the resistence than the jacket material, but the material certainly accounts for some. I would think the pure copper was 'stickier' than gilding, but I certainly could be wrong in that.

Paul

I dislike speculation, so I 'went looking' for sliding coefficients of friction between steel and copper. The value is 0.36. (Units are not important at the moment.) For brass and steel, it's 0.35. Fundamentally, identical. Therefore, it's most likely that the difference in MV between the two bullets is due to their differences in bearing surfaces. The LENGTH of the bearing surface of the Hawk is 0.705". The length of the Hornady is 0.770. Therefore, the approximate areas of their bearing surfaces (in square inches) are 0.913 and 0.997, respectively. That makes the Hornady's bearing surface about 9% larger than the bearing surface of the Hawk. The difference in muzzle velocities isn't 9%. In fact, it's 0.8%. That's more than 10 times less than the differences in bearing surface. So... what the numbers suggest is that the difference in the coefficients of friction - 0.35 vs 0.36 - is more important than the difference in bearing surface. Hmm... Looks like my initial assumption of "basically identical" with regard to the coefficients of friction was a bit too cavalier.

The good news is that once the bullet leaves the barrel, it's the BC that describes the 'coefficient of friction'. The BC of the Hawk is something more than 0.500, and the BC of the Hornady is .311. That's a difference of more than 61%, and that difference IS reflected in their trajectories, BUT not to any degree of significance until they are out beyond 250 yards.

All of this may seem like nothing more than mathematical self-gratification, but, it's more than that. It helps me understand more of the individual elements of what is "going on". As a general rule, it is safe to say that understanding is better than ignorance, confusion, and voodoo.

Paul

Paul, you get no argument from me on that. I would think brass would have more "lubricating" qualities than copper when used as bullet jackets but I guess there's not a lot of difference. One thing I do know is  my home made copper bullets create more pressure than common gilding metal jacketed bullets. For instance in the 22/6mm Rem. AI, with Sierra 80 grain bullets  I was able to get 3741 fps before things started looking hairy. With my 70 grain copper bullets pressure stopped me at 3655 fps using the same powder & a lighter load. The copper I used for bullets was common ground wire of 0.204" diameter. I annealed the bullets after forming to "kill" them dead soft. The only other forming was the point after swaging the core in the nose cavity. I would never use aluminum for bullet jackets. Fifty years of machining it convinced me it's vert abrasive in any form.   ......Paul H

Quote from: Paul Hoskins;151278I would never use aluminum for bullet jackets. Fifty years of machining it convinced me it's vert abrasive in any form.   ......Paul H

I wouldn't even use it for gas check! People never believe me when I tell them aluminium is great for sharpening knifes.   Al2O3 Aluminium oxide a common abrasive that forms on aluminium in minutes

(autopassivation).

I wish that I could 'come up with' a way to UNIFORMLY lube jacketed bullets. We all KNOW that the first shot out of a freshly cleaned barrel is both 'faster' and usually 'flies'. Clearly, the 'lube' from the cleaning is what facilitates that, and that 'makes sense'. I have considered 'dipping' my jacketed bullets in lubes like ALOX, but I've never actually done it. Reducing friction is a 'good thing', but CONSISTENTLY or UNIFORMLY reducing friction seems like it might be challenging for jacketed bullets.

I'm not sure WHY someone would want to use aluminum jackets on bullets other than to get the weight down. However, I wouldn't think it would reduce weight significantly. If one wanted to make solid AL bullets, one could annodize or plate them with copper to prevent oxidation and formation of aluminum oxide. But... yood reely hafta wanna.

Paul

I have found a clean, dry bore does away with the first shot flier.

Paul. the only jacketed bullet lube I can think of is moly coating. There's nothing to doing it. I just put my bullets in a tumbler with a bit of moly & let run an hour or so. I can't tell you it helps. I never chronied them & compared them to plain copper jacketed bullets. I use a tumbler bowl that hasn't been used for polishing bullets or cases in polishing media.    .......Paul H

Quote from: Paul Hoskinsmoly coating

Sometimes I embarrass myself by missing the most obvious of things!

I have not personally tried moly coating my jacketed bullets, but I have read a lot about it. The PRIMARY reason I haven't tried it myself is that I haven't read any reviews (FROM RELIABLE SOURCES) that were much more than 'luke warm'. Other minor deterrents have been 1) the moly 'gums' up the bore, 2) moly is difficult to clean out of bores, and 3) the process (with the kind you have to heat up - "powder coatings"), is a bit messy and tedious.

I do use the Combined Technology Ballistic Silvertip bullets, all of which have a black 'moly' coating. I haven't YET noticed any barrel problems. I also haven't noticed anything 'special' about them either. I use them because they shoot straight out of some of my rifles, and I like the design. I have killed critters with them, and their terminal performance has been as expected.

Your comments are about 'normal' for what I hear about the process and effect on internal ballistics. I MIGHT be inclined to try it with this .416, but I must say that I am not highly motivated to do so. Nevertheless, it IS something I will keep in the back of my mind.

Paul

CT 'lubalox' is black but is not moly. Boron nitride is also used.

Paul, I've read some reports about moly coating bullets but you know how gun writers are prone to suck up to products just to gain favor with companies that provide them with free products. Generally you can take their word with a box of salt. Supposedly moly coated bullets work best if the bore of the gun is also moly coated. That part does make sense BUT I just don't see going to all that trouble for a few fps gain in speed. You have to take into consideration that the rifling cuts thru the moly into the copper. In my opinion moly coating is just another money gimmick. The only reason I tried it was just to  see if it reduced chamber pressure when I was "hunting" for more speed with the 22/6mm Rem. AI & the 17/225 Winchester. I couldn't tell any difference. I managed to get the 80 grain 22 bullets up to 3741 fps & 25 grain 17 bullets up to 4505 fps but moly coating made no  difference. Don't try these velocities at home if you aren't sure of what you're doing. I don't know why one would want to remove moly from the bore of the gun  since it has lubricating qualities for the bore.   .......Paul H

Nice looking rifle Paul. I can't wait to see it in person.

Well, I'm working toward that end, HB.

I started on the butt today. I wrestled a bit with how to get the angle of the hole in the butt for the screw "just right", when it dawned on me that there really is no need for that. Just drill the hole straight through the blank and shape the blank around the hole. It's still not trivial, but it's easier to do it that way than trying get the angle right. Here's a picture of the factory butt with a cleaning rod through the bolt hole.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/z5a552a0n/Factory_Butt_with_Rod.jpg)

1) The comb of the stock is perpendicular to the horizontal.
2) The lower part of the stock is 12 degrees from vertical.
3) The through hole is 6 degrees from vertical.

Too much 'fiddling'. Straight 'works', then shape stock around hole.

Turns out, the angle of the butt is parallel to the angle of the mortise of the stock with the receiver. In other words, the 'front' and 'back' of the stock are parallel. At least on the factory stock. We'll see if that 'works' when I fit the stock to me.

Because the blank is 17.5" long and the hole essentially had to be drilled through and through, I needed two "things": 1) A long drill, and 2) a way to USE that drill. Fortunately, I have a set of drills that are at least 24" long, and maybe 30". That takes care of #1. #2 wasn't going tobe so easy. However, J0e_bl0ggs suggested that I use my lathe headstock to hold the drill bit, and attach the blank to the lathe's carriage. Excellent idea, and that is what I did. Still, drilling "deep" holes (technically in the machining world, anything deeper than the diameter of the bit is called "deep hole drilling") is a challenge. Even though I 'pecked' at the hole in 0.2" increments, the bit wandered a little. More on that later.

I decided that before I ruined the persimmon blank, I would practice on something else. Rummaging around in my shop, I came upon all of the birch I had milled a couple of years ago from a tree that came from my friend Jim's yard. Perfect! Here is a picture of the two blanks sidexside.

(https://s5.postimg.cc/s229pgcav/birch_and_persimmon_blanks.jpg)

I milled a chunk of it to the exact same dimensions as the persimmon blank and jigged it in the lathe.

(https://s5.postimg.cc/ov7q5u7af/Drilling_Birch_Blank-3.jpg)

(https://s5.postimg.cc/e8dx0erfb/Drilling_Birch_Blank-1.jpg)

As I said, I 'pecked' at it in 0.2" increments and even still, it came 'out' about half the diameter of the bit 'low'. That's not a big deal, as one end of the hole is 7/8ths of an inch in diameter in order to fit a socket for tightening the bolt. Nevertheless, that was a 'lesson learned'.

It's common when drilling deep holes in wood, to drill from each end toward the middle. Given the outcome on the birch blank, I decided to drill from each end to the middle on the persimmon blank. That way I would only be drilling with a max of 9" instead of 18" of drill sticking out of the lathe chuck. It worked "ok", but the holes did not meet perfectly. Again, not an issue because I will drill the 'big' hole, and that will allow me to choose 'fix' the middle to fit correctly.

It took about 4 hours to do all of that work, so I decided to call it a day once both holes were drilled. Tomorrow, I'll drill the "big" holes, and cut out the forms.

Paul

Oh yeah. I was going to mention that I since I made the two blanks to identical dimensions, I measured the density of each. I'll report it in units that most of us can relate to, but also the standard units of grams/cubic centimeter.

The persimmon blank weighed 6 pounds 4 ounces. The birch, 5 pounds 2 ounces.
The dimensions of the blanks in inches were: 17.5 x 6.8125 x 1.8125 = 216.08 cubic inches.
Therefore, the density of the persimmon is 100 ounces divided by 216.08 cubic inches for a value of 0.46oz/cubic inch.
The density of the birch is 84 ounces divided by 216.08 cubic inches, for a value of 0.38oz/cubic inch.
Therefore, the persimmon is 19% denser than the birch. (100 ounces divided by 84 ounces. No need to take volume into account since both blocks have identical volumes.)

To get pounds per cubic foot (a common unit of density for wood), the persimmon is 0.46 * (12*12*12) = 49.68 lb/ft^3.

The density of the birch in pounds per cubic foot is 42.00.

The standard unit for density is grams per cubic centimeter. The density of the persimmon in grams per cubic cm is 0.800. The density of the birch is  0.673g/cc.

While the standard units of density (g/cc) are not particularly easy for those of us that don't use the metric system for weight, to 'figure', there is a physical characteristic of water that allows us to use the g/cc density value to know something about the object whose density we have. The density of water is 1.000. Therefore, if the density of the object you are interested in is LESS THAN 1g/cc, IT FLOATS. Note that both the persimmon and birch have densities less than 1g/cc. While "wood floating" is no big surprise, what IS interesting, at least to some of us, is that SOME woods have densities GREATER than 1.0g/cc. Therefore, when I am looking up a new wood, and the density is given, I can tell immediately if it floats, and generally speaking, how "hard" it is relative to other woods for which I have the density measurement.

How about pounds per cubic yard, or tonnes per cubic meter?

Persimmon - 1,341lb 6 ounces per cubic yard. (0.6708 tons/cubic yard)
Birch - 1,131lb 6.5 ounce per cubic yard. (0.5657 tons/cubic yard)
Persimmon - 800kg/cubic meter. (0.3636 tonnes/cubic meter)
Birch - 637kg/cubicmeter. (0.3059 tonnes/cubic meter)

After you take the measurements, it's all 'just math'. It is important though, in my opinion, to represent phycical characteristics of 'things' in terms that people can relate to. I have always felt that way, and as a result, I didn't get along with my "scientific" peers, the majority of whom LIKE to make things as confusing AS POSSIBLE. That way, they can maintain their "priesthood". For me, science, TRUE SCIENCE, has ALWAYS been about COMMUNICATION and transfer of knowledge. Otherwise, 'science' is just another religion. And nowadays, IT IS.

Anyway, climbing down from that hobbyhorse...

Just some info about birch and persimmon I thought SOMEONE here might be interested in. It does have a practical application to my project. The final weight of my rifle MATTERS to me. I might "like" the birch stock a little more than I do the persimmon when they get finished. If so, the final weight (which is a function of density) will be a determining factor on which butt gets used.

Paul

I drilled the "big" hole in the butt, and started inletting (machine part) of the rear tangs when it became clear that I needed a 13/16" mill cutter. So I ordered that and it should be here by Monday or Tuesday. Nothing more I can do on the butt 'til I get that cutter. In the mean time, I started on the forearm.

Because I have the birch butt for 'practice', I made a birch forearm too. However, I started milling on the persimmon one first because it is ready. Actually, the milling for the forearm is pretty straight forward EXCEPT for the blasted attachment screw. The hole for it is at a 45 degree angle. That doesn't sound bad, but since I'm starting with a blank that is larger than the finished forearm, and where you start the hole determines where it will finish, but since it is at an angle, you can't start it where the holes are in the factory one. It took some cypherin', but I got it figured out. Getting it set up to drill the hole was yet another 'exercise'.

Here are some pictures of getting the attachment screw hole drilled. First, a 3/8ths forstner bit to establish a 'flat'. (That bit will be used again when the shaping is finished, for the final recess for the head of the attachment screw.)(https://s5.postimg.cc/vhzwfhwsn/IMG_0163-f.jpg)

(https://s5.postimg.cc/fjr6pcuuv/IMG_0165-f.jpg)

Then a brad-point bit to drill the through-hole for the shank of the screw.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/iduc2s25z/IMG_0168-f.jpg)

Unfortunately, because of the angle, I couldn't get the mill head close enough to the work-piece, (or conversely, the drill bit wasn't long enough), to drill all the way through.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/bamgn64g7/IMG_0169-f.jpg)

So I had to finish it with this. :frown :sweatdrop:
(https://s5.postimg.cc/hobjqfh1z/IMG_0171-f.jpg)

Next came inletting the barrel channel and "hanger" hardware. As I said, this was just "plain ol' milling". First a starter channel for the barrel.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/ehh06t4br/IMG_0173-f.jpg)

The rest of the milling wasn't particularly interesting, so these are the 'finished product'. This is where the hand-fitting starts.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/xzbnmrw4n/IMG_0174-f.jpg)

(https://s5.postimg.cc/c058zk7kn/IMG_0175-f.jpg)

(https://s5.postimg.cc/yc31szop3/IMG_0176-f.jpg)

(https://s5.postimg.cc/5mg5wcsev/IMG_0179-f.jpg)

(https://s5.postimg.cc/c058zm50n/IMG_0178-f.jpg)

(https://s5.postimg.cc/t0o5897rb/IMG_0177-f.jpg)

I'll start the handwork this afternoon. I'll try to remember to take pictures along the way, but no promises.


Paul

Looking good, Paul. I'm getting to the point where I don;t care much for making stocks any more. I have a fore end started for a #1 that you can finish for me when you need something to do. :D  While you're at it, I also have a Martini Enfield fore end you can finish. .....Paul H

Truth of the matter is, Paul, I do not like making stocks. I could send it off to a stock-maker, but then,
1) I'd have to listen to their bull-oney,
2) I'd have to put up with THEM telling me what I want,
3) Listen to their whines when I say I want to use MY wood instead of theirs,
and so on.

95% of the reason I started making my own guns is because I got sick and tired of having to listen to gunsmiths and stockmakers. On the whole, I can't STAND them! If I could find a stockmaker that wasn't a stupid, arrogant, @#$%^&*, I wouldn't do ANY stockmaking! That said, MOST of the 'communication' problem is that it takes place over the internet or phone. (Not ALL of 'the problem' though!) If I could walk into their shops (this applies mostly to stockmakers), I could probably get what I want. But they're so blasted "weasley" over the phone or internet, that it's just not worth screwing around with to me.

Just cranky ol'
Paul

You & I are on the same page, Paul. I was looking at Ruger SS stocks for sale on the internet yesterday & their idea of what a stock should look like  makes me sick thinking about what a waste of good wood they have. I saw one that had the grip extending below the rest of the stock so far it appeared they started making a walking cane & changed their mind. It's not a bad idea to buy a bolt gun stock that's not inletted & cut it where you can get both a fore end & butt stock out of it & do the inletting yourself. That's the route I'm taking on the Enfield Martini. Most of the outside shaping is already done if you go that route. I have only made one stock for the #1 from scratch using a block of wood. No simple task with no woodworking machinery at all. .......Paul H

Excellent idea about cannibalizing a one-piece, uninletted stock, Paul! Once again the old guy comes up with an excellent work-around! It'd be dam tough making a No.1 or 3 stock without machines. Obviously it can be done, but WHEW it'd be a bear!

Now I'm gonna go lookin' for a uninletted but shaped one-piece stock that I think might fit a Ruger SS action.

Paul

Paul, the stock I'm using for the Peabody./Martini/Enfield is a Weatherby reject. Rough shaped out but to the point there's  not much work left to do. Plenty big enough in the action area to make even a Savage 99 stock. It had small flaws in it but easily fixed using epoxy mixed with grinding dust from the same piece of wood. Best I remember I got it from an outfit in Kalifornia that deals in stocks & factory rejects. It was classed as semi fancy & I paid 40 dollars & shipping around 35 or 40 years ago. .......Paul H

Quote from: Paul Hoskins;151295Paul, I've read some reports about moly coating bullets but you know how gun writers are prone to suck up to products just to gain favor with companies that provide them with free products. Generally you can take their word with a box of salt. Supposedly moly coated bullets work best if the bore of the gun is also moly coated. That part does make sense BUT I just don't see going to all that trouble for a few fps gain in speed. You have to take into consideration that the rifling cuts thru the moly into the copper. In my opinion moly coating is just another money gimmick. The only reason I tried it was just to  see if it reduced chamber pressure when I was "hunting" for more speed with the 22/6mm Rem. AI & the 17/225 Winchester. I couldn't tell any difference. I managed to get the 80 grain 22 bullets up to 3741 fps & 25 grain 17 bullets up to 4505 fps but moly coating made no  difference. Don't try these velocities at home if you aren't sure of what you're doing. I don't know why one would want to remove moly from the bore of the gun  since it has lubricating qualities for the bore.   .......Paul H

That's my take as well!

The moly coating in the barrel is supposed to be hygrosopic.

Something I have come to understand once I got off of the "speed uber alles" race horse, is that there can be more to increased velocity than just 'speed'. And I'm not talking about kinetic energy. Much.

If you can get your bullet going faster with the same charge of the same powder, OR, you can get your bullet going just as fast with less powder, then you are 'improving' the performance of your firearm.

It's easy to assume that such endeavors are based on a desire for SPEED. That's NOT the case!

Within reason, I couldn't care less about 'speed' (OR "TRAJECTORY"). What I care about is DELIVERED ENERGY. BUT...

To deliver the most energy to the animal, you have to maximize speed, but you have to keep pressure down below SOME threshold! Because I shoot "old" and "big around", that pressure threshold is fairly low in comparison to the current vogue of 'supermagnimitis'. If you can maintain the same speed with a lower charge of the same powder, you have lowered the PRESSURE! THAT'S the goal I am after these days.

Put differently, it's the 'best' speed (in a barrel harmonics/timing context) at the lowest pressure that I'm after.

If I was after speed alone, I wouldn't care what the max pressure was. That's the raison d'etre of all of the supermagnumitis rounds produced today.

So... My interest in "moly" and "lube" is NOT to squeeze an extra 100 f/s out of a given round. I've got ALL KINDS of pressure headroom that would allow me to do that if speed was all I was interested in. What I'm "interested" in is keeping the velocity I have while lowering the pressure. That's 100% a function of reducing friction. We can reduce friction by "lubing" (moly or "grease"), or by changing the bearing surface - like 'ribs' on the bullet. It appears that both moly and grease require way too much effort for the potential gain. These days, I'm more interested in REDUCING effort than increasing it!

Paul

Paul, THAT is also the reason I moly coated a few  bullets when I was looking for the max. speed I could get in the 22/6mm AI using 80 grain bullets & the 17/225 Winchester. Moly made little or no difference that I could detect. Now that I found out what I wanted to know, I have little interest in the project. In the 22/6mm AI best accuracy was obtained at considerably less than maximum  velocity.  .......Paul H

QuoteIn the 22/6mm AI best accuracy was obtained at considerably less than maximum velocity.

With all the fiddling around I've done with QuickLOAD AND live-fire, I think I understand the cause for why the above statement is often true. It's the relationship between pressure, velocity, and the barrel length. The barrel length is a significant factor when trying to keep pressure down and velocity up.

When Ol' John created the .338 MAI and made a rifle for each of us, I 'ordered' a 24" barrel, and John made his 26". I wasn't worried about the extra speed I would get out of the extra two inches of barrel. What I didn't consider, because I was unaware of it at the time, was the speed/pressure relationship. Turns out, 26" is a much better barrel length for that cartridge than 24" is, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THE MAX PRESSURE BELOW THE CIP SPEC OF 56,565 PSI FOR THE '98 MAUSER ACTION AND 8X57 CARTRIDGE.

I had no problem with running the pressure up to 56565 PSI in my rifle. The 'problem' arose when I started looking at the timing of the bullet's exit from the muzzle. Because the timing was different on John's rifle due to the extra two inches of barrel, I could get his rifle on a timing node, while still being UNDER the 56565 PSI pressure ceiling. I could NOT do that on my rifle. Which means that in order for me to get "on node", AND BE UNDER THE PRESSURE CEILING, I have to LOWER THE MUZZEL VELOCITY rather significantly.

In my rifle the most accurate loads (on node loads), were significantly slower than out of John's rifle, while the most accurate loads in his rifle (same bullet), were at a highter MV simply because I could reach the next higher timing node with John's 26" barrel BEFORE I HIT THE PRESSURE CEILING.

Here's the point: It is absolutely true that some rifles demonstrate the best precision with muzzle velocities well below "max". If that same rifle had a longer barrel, it's likely that it would achieve the same level of precision at a higher MV due to the harmonic timing of the longer barrel allowing the bullet to get on a timing node without exceeding the spec on max pressure.

Paul

Paul, the barrel length of the 22/6mm AI is 28 inches & fairly heavy. I never really liked it because of the long barrel.  The barrel is still around here somewhere. It has a 9 inch twist. .....Paul H

I haven't posted on the forearm shaping for a bit. It's tough (for me anyway) to take pictures and "do". Most of the 'doing' is pretty boring anyway. Regardless, While I still have a lot left to do, I thought I'd post some pictures and solicit comments, NOT praise. This is the birch, practice forearm. I've got a little more shaping to do on it. I'm not finished with the schnable shaping and there is some fine tuning on the main body. There's a bit of 'belly' that I'm not too fond of, but there isn't a lot I can do about it. The attachment screw is right where that belly starts, and because of the inletting for the hanger I can't really thin that out any more and have any substantive "meat" for the screw head to seat against. So in large part, what you see is close to the final shape.

This first image is just the "side view". It's tough to get lighting 'right' on wood. Especially, pieces that contrast as much as the birch and black and white ebony.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/i6xe1yojb/IMG_0288-sm.jpg)

Here's the "bottom view". I forgot to take a "top view". I'll get that when it's finished.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/s48ev0ofb/IMG_0293-sm.jpg)

Here's the first attempt to show the "flame" of the birch. It will look good when it has been stained and finished.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/9bwjrg7gn/IMG_0291-sm.jpg)

Here is an attempt to show the flame a little more.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/3nq90jfyv/IMG_0294-sm.jpg)

I'll finish fine tuning the shaping, sand to probably no finer than 320, (but I might go to 400 on the ebony), then seal the grain with shellac, stain (probably something like "pecan"), and then finish with Linspeed or Birchwood Casey's stock finish.



Paul

I just got an idea...

There is a store in Anchorage named "The Fur Factory". It's been in business for a LONG time, maybe before statehood. It is a place I tell people to go when they ask me "Where can I get some Alaskana to take home?" This store has the REAL Alaskan 'stuff', not the tourist stuff. Sue and I were in there on Wednesday, and I was rootin' around the antler, horn, whalebone, and walrus 'pieces'. We got a couple of pieces. Some antler tines for Sue to make ear-ring and pendants with, and I got some walrus and whalebone pieces. The walrus jaw for forearm end-pieces and  the whale rib to send to England for knife scales or whatever.

I was just looking at the above pictures and thinking about the "screw issue" and it first occurred to me that I could reinforce the 'belly' of the forearm by putting a plate of antler or whalebone on the underside. A piece large enough to checker. Then I thought about the inserts in the Ruger Model 77 "paddle" stock, and thought it might be very cool to inlay some whale bone or walrus bone or even moose antler or sheep horn in the side of the forearm and checker those pieces too. Those pieces would be glued in place, not screwed in like on the Ruger stock.

I'm going to have to give that some serious thought. I'll be practicing my checkering on bone.

Paul

Love that schnable...

Paul, that looks really good. Nicely proportioned & shaped. The schnable is the same as I would shape it. I think I would thin it down a bit in the tip area but it looks good just as it is. I always liked the shape of fore ends on old '99 Savage rifles & most SS rifles look good with that fore end shape. It adds class to the gun that you don't find on a gun any more. Especially modern factory guns. The Ruger "schnable" fore end is NOT a true schnable. It's ugly too. With that birchwood stock & fore end you don't need a persimmon stock. You can justly be proud of the birch.   ......Paul H

I like your idea for some bone inlay.....is it hard to checker? My thought are probably not. You may want to order new checkering tips from Brownells.....I just changed mine and I couldn't believe the difference......like night and day! I only use the straight fine and medium pointing 90 deg. tips which are all I use these days.

Quote from: Paul HoskinsThe Ruger "schnable" fore end is NOT a true schnable. It's ugly too.

Couldn't agree more!

Thanks for the compliments and suggestions, guys. The schnable is going to get the most significant work. I already fixed the 'wows' in the birch part. I may have to wait for a specific file to finish the schnable. I could simply use dowels and sandpaper, but it's so much nicer to work with a good file/rasp.

I'm going to the Homeless Despot today and see if they have any analine dies. If they do, I'll practice on the scrap pieces that came off of the butt blank and try to get a color that I like. The sapwood of the birch is just a little too light for my tastes, and it seems exaggerated against the BWE. Anyway, I'm almost finished. Not thinking that the 'practice' piece might turn out good enough to use, I ordered only one escutcheon and screw. I think I'll save that for the persimmon, and order another for the birch. I'm waiting to fit the escutcheon until I am completely finishes with the shaping and right before putting the finish on.

It's surprising how little 'meat' there is left on this forearm. The inletting for the 'hanger' takes a lot of the guts out of it. Inlaying an antler insert might be a bit tricky, and at the moment, I'm not sure whether it would weaken or strengthen the forearm.

I think antler - the outside of an antler - may be 'hard' with respect to checkering. Walrus and whale bone, (the dense parts), are much like ivory in density. I THINK they will be relatively easy to checker. I'll be practicing on some pieces I have while I wait for the files to come in the mail.

Paul

That Schnabel really is awesome Paul!




I'd say: "You make a nice schnabel."

But that sounds kinda weird and I wouldn't want anyone taking it the wrong way.
:D

Quote from: Jamie.270But that sounds kinda weird and I wouldn't want anyone taking it the wrong way.

:MOGRIN:

Paul

PS - You spelled it correctly, Jamie.270. I looked at that when I wrote it the first time and said to myself, "That's not the correct GERMAN spelling", but when I looked it up, the first place I looked spelled it with the "e" and "l" backwards, so I wrote it wrong in spite of 'knowing' better. Won't happen again. At least not for a while.;)

Paul

In truth, in the old days I always had to think of "Schnitzel" and "Strudel" to remember the correct way.
Us Yanks tend to do to el/le what Joe Bloggs and his UK friends do with er/re.


I didn't mean to correct anyone's spelling when I wrote it.  My typing skills are so poor I rarely correct anyone's spelling on purpose anymore.
When my typos are involved, it matters not whether I know how to spell correctly.
 It still looks/reads like a moron wrote it.
:anxious:

:biggthumpup:

Paul

There ya go Jamie, I corrected my initial 'bel' to 'ble' as I noticed Paul's spelling.....cannot win sometimes!

It was 'late' when I finished with the shaping, sanding, and seal coat of shellac, but I wanted to make sure the new rings I bought would be high enough for the scope I intended to put on this rifle, so... I took some 'late night' pictures to give you (and ME) some idea of what this is going to look like with the birch 'furniture'.

Here's a picture of the whole thing. Of course that's the original butt, but I thougt it looked more complete with that on than without. Also, I wanted to test how the mounted scope 'comes to eye'. With this butt, just right.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/tx2lawr47/IMG_0299-f.jpg)

This next one is just a close-up of the forearm, scope base, and mounted scope.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/yk8nci6pj/IMG_0296-f.jpg)

Tomorrow I'll stain and finish the forearm and take some "done" pictures in the daylight.

It's about time to get started on the persimmon forearm. I figure I should work on the persimmon forearm while the lessons from doing the 'practice' forearm are fresh in my head. For example: One thing I think I'll do is shorten the BWE cap. I think this one looks just a little 'long'.

More pictures tomorrow.


Paul

The flame in that birch looks surprisingly good.
I agree, the cap appears slightly too long, but I'm wondering if the contrast in the wood colors is contributing to that.


Still, I like it.
Great work Paul.

Nahh, not too long at all!

I don't particularly care for fore end tips but what you have looks good. Much better than factory tips. ......There's not much you can do to beef up the  fore  end on a Ruger SS rifle & still have strength & keep it slim & trim looking. That hanger welded on the action messes that up. It's much like the fore end wood on a pump or autoloading gun. I don't think whale bone or antler inserts inletted in the wood  will add strength but would look good. Looking good & adding strength are two different things.  .......Paul H

Forearm caps are just one of those things that I 'like' for no practical reason. In other words, it's purely an emotional perspective. I was 'raised' on rifles whose forearms had endcaps (even if they were just black plastic, not true ebony), and so they seem 'right' to me.

Another feature that is mostly cosmetic for most rifles is checkering. Not entirely cosmetic of course. However, checkering may be more necessity than p imp for this rifle. (Interesting. THL editor doesn't like the word p*i*m*p.) I only took the forearm to 320 grit sandpaper. "light" woods like walnut and birch - as opposed to "dense" woods like ebony and rosewood - rarely benefit from sanding to grits finer than 320. However, with only the seal coat of shellac and 'only' 320grit-smooth, it was pretty 'slippery'. I didn't feel really confident one-handing it without a strong grip on it. This is in part due to its length. While the rifle is relatively well balanced, (and will be moreso when I get the persimmon butt-with-tungsten-shot-in-it on), because of the length and weight, when 'tipped' fore or aft, it tends to want to go that way and slip out the hand, if, as I said, it's not firmly gripped. Checkering would lend a higher level of confidence to a one-handed grip, as well as make it look - to my eye - "finished". Jay Edwards used to swear at checkering, saying "It's just a place for blood and dirt to collect!" I don't disagree. But... Like I said, I grew up with checkered stocks on the rifles everyone had, therefore that's what looks "right" to me.

I bought a can of "Gunstock" stain and tested it on the scrap pieces of birch. I was worried it would be too red. It WAS! YUCK! It MIGHT look ok on walnut, but it looked like what a boss of mine once said about a 'fix' I had to do to someone else's screwup - "manure on a white horse". Only he didn't say "manure". The "Gunstock" stain is going back, and I am going to get some aniline die and make my own. (I'm sure you're stunned to read that.)

This whole "stain thing" has me a bit on the horns of a dilemma. The 'natural' birch is too light for my taste, but if I stain it, especially with all that 'flame', it won't look 'right' because I know it's birch. Which is NOT "dark". I may have to wrestle with that a bit.

Thanks for the kind words and comments.

Paul

I found a stain that yielded a color I thought was 'right enough', but... highly figured wood is VERY tough to get stained evenly. Because of the figure, (and in this case also the shape), there is always some significant end-grain. And try as one might, there is no 'perfect' fix for the difference in the way end-grain takes stain versus the way face-grain takes stain. "Experts" will tell you that you can "fill" or "seal" the end-grain, and it will "look the same" as face-grain. They're full of it. You can get 'close', for sure, but to MY eye, "close" ain't close enough. So....

I'll be sanding this out, and just leaving the birch "natural". I'll darken it a bit by using garnet shellac as the seal coat, but shellac is NOT an "exterior" finish. If it gets water on it, it clouds up. Therefore, I'll have to put some form of exterior final coat over the shellac. The good news is that shellac bonds well with just about every known finish. That's yet another characteristic of shellac I like. It's too bad it can't handle moisture.

I'll post some pictures when I get the stain sanded off and the final finish on it.

Paul

I have finished (at least for now) the persimmon forearm. I'm pleased with it. Some of you may find the schnabel more 'robust' than you like. I gave this considerable thought, and the shape is the way I like it, like I said, at least for now. The birch forearm is a little too much like a spear; too pointed for my taste. Not much, but a little. I wanted something less spear-like and a bit 'beefier'. This rifle is a .416. If it were a .22 or mabye a .24, a 'splinter' would be more proportional, but given the caliber, I did't  want 'delicate' as the gestalt.

(https://s5.postimg.cc/crjpkshdj/Rifle_Rt_Side-2sm.jpg)
I forgot to take pictures of the "whole" rifle from the left side. I'll get those later and post them.

(https://s5.postimg.cc/pvp9xhouv/Rifle_Rt_Side-3sm.jpg)

Here's a picture of the three tips: Factory, birch, and persimmon
(https://s5.postimg.cc/vjvkoegcn/Tips_Close-up-1sm.jpg)
You can see that there really isn't too much difference from the side. There is more 'beef' when viewed from the end.

(https://s5.postimg.cc/ydyq1u33b/Tips_Close-up_Endon-1sm.jpg)

Here are pictures of the whole forearms, left and right sides.
(https://s5.postimg.cc/sd114ro6v/All_3_L_Side-1sm.jpg)

(https://s5.postimg.cc/sd114s3mf/All_3_Rt_Side-1sm.jpg)

I'm looking forward to having the birch and persimmon butts on, but I'm not looking forward to actually performing the work. :sweatdrop:

I'm also thinking seriously about putting a front ramp on the barrel and using open sights. This rifle looks really sleek without the scope. We'll see how things look after the birch butt is installed.


Paul

Aw heck, I'm gonna go ahead and say it,...






Geez Paul, that's a really nice schnabel you have there!


All kidding aside, I like it.  

When it's finished, I'll just hafta complement you on your whole rifle.
Rather than than say I like your butt and your schnabel separately! ;)


(Can't wait to see it, especially if it's getting iron sights.)

Sensational.....no other way to describe that work. I love the whole thing....congrats, Paul!.

Thanks!

I hope that practicing on the birch piece will reveal a process/prcedure/technique that will make it easy to get the angle right. This all becomes so trivial when you employ CNC tooling.

On another note...

I have already cut the birch for a 'straight' stock without a cheekpiece. Similar to, but not as "2-by-4-ish" as the factory stock. However, I am contemplating forming a cheekpiece on the persimmon butt that would be similar to (but not exactly like) my thumbhole stocks.

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/Thumbholes/quickage-IMG_5553-IMG_5555.jpg)

(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/Thumbholes/quickage-IMG_5575-IMG_5579.jpg)

It's a bit garish, but that stock design does not kick my face! As you can see, the cheekpiece does two things: 1) It gets my head up to align with the scope, and 2) the cheekpiece actually 'falls away' from my face forward. Meaning, that as the rifle recoils, the wood isn't moving into my face!

Tough decision really. I'm going to shoot the birch stock before I decide on what to do with the persimmon butt.

Paul

I finally got the birch butt stock inletted close to the point that I can start shaping it. I've got about an eighth of an inch to go. Hand inletting that stock is a BEAR! I'll post pictures when I get ready to start shaping.

Paul

Quote from: gitano;151546Hand inletting that stock is a BEAR!

Paul

No kidding!!!

I finally got the butt fitted. In the picture below, the butt is actually bolted to the receiver.

(https://i.postimg.cc/26S4fCL6/Birch-1.jpg)

I'll post some more pictures as I start shaping it.

Paul

I have essentially completed the shaping. I have to fine-fit the contour of the wood where it meets the metal, but the shape is finished to the point that I now start with sandpaper. I was going to post some pictures (I did take some), but its difficult to get the light right and I don't like the ones I took. So... I'll get it finished, with the FINISH on it and then post some pictures. If you want to see some of the interim pictures at that time, I'll post them then.

I am pleased with the straight stock, and I am very pleased with the birch. I will definitely be doing that again on something. I really like working with that wood. My curiosity is piqued with regard to how this stock is going to transfer energy to me. The drop at the comb is the same as it is on the factory stock, but the shape of my stock is MUCH friendlier to my face. I am hoping that the perceived recoil will be less with this stock than the factory stock. I am almost certain that it will be, but won't truly know until I get a recoil pad on it and shoot it. It does 'come to eye' well, and it feels good against my cheek. (The factory stock REALLY DOES feel like a 2x4 against my face.)

I don't imagine that I will get this finished completely before I head to Colorado. It's getting to be winter here, and I have to get the place both ready for winter and ready for me to be gone for a bit. However, "you'll" be the first to know when I get it finished.

The persimmon stock MAY be the same simple design, but I am almost certain that the drop at the comb will be less on that buttstock.

Aw heck, might as well post one of the quick and dirty pictures.

Paul

What's the LOP? It looks pretty long.

That butt is 'extra' long for the finishing. BUT... the finished stock, with recoil pad, will be near that length. Length of pull will be between 14.25" and 14.5". That's my personal "standard length". All of my custom stocks are at least 14.25". That's ANOTHER whine I have to endure with stock-makers: "That's too long. Are you sure you want it that long? It will cost extra to make it "extra long"." Why can't people just DO THEIR JOB! It's fair and reasonable to ask if one got the number right. But @#$%^&*! when I say "YES!, THAT IS THE LENGTH I WANT", that SHOULD be the end of the conversation, AND I shouldn't get CHARGED EXTRA for doing NOTHING. Just another example of why I try to do everything I can to avoid the "experts" in the firearms industry!

I'll climb down from that hobby-horse.

Most stock-fitters suggest that the first thing one can do to check for the "right" length of pull is put one's finger on the trigger, and rest the butt on their forearm. The end of the stock should lie in the crook of the elbow. FOR ME, that means an LOP of AT LEAST 14.25". I actually prefer 14.5".

I need to find a recoil pad that gets close to the cross-sectional profile of this butt. I'm toying with the idea of a skeletonized metal buttplate like this: https://www.gunsamerica.com/971388914/Skeletonized-and-engraved-shotgun-butt-plates.htm

BUT... Obviously, that particular design won't work on a rifle with a 7/8ths inch bolt hole in it. However, there are designs that cover bolt holes. That's not the real problem: The REAL problem with a skeletonized butt plate is RECOIL. And in this rifle, that's no small matter.

So... The final LOP will be somewhere between 14.25 and 14.5. I hope to find a GOOD recoil pad that will fit the x-sectional profile of this butt. If I can't, I'll probably MAKE a skeletonized metal buttplate in yet another exercise in I HAVE TO MAKE IT MYSELF IF I WANT TO GET WHAT WANT.

Paul

That pad might be a problem. Decelerators don't have much extra rubber to sand down. When you it to the aluminum it's too late to save the pad and they only make them in small, med and lg.

QuoteThat pad might be a problem.

Yup.

I've got a great pad that I bought for this project, but it's too long (comb to toe). Too much to grind off at the toe. This is the pad: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000JWEZZU/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I'll keep looking.

Paul

Quote from: gitano;151805Yup.

I've got a great pad that I bought for this project, but it's too long (comb to toe). Too much to grind off at the toe. This is the pad: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000JWEZZU/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I'll keep looking.

Paul

Paul, they make that in a small which just might be the ticket....call brownells tomorrow and give them the measurements and they can tell you if the small will work. I used the medium on my 35W at it worked perfect.....got to get the stock out of the tin foil now. Later.....

I'll call Brownells, but I'm not holding my breath. The birch butt is 1.625" wide at the widest.

Paul

PS - Don't need to call Brownells. I got the Lyman catalog, and there are several that will work. When I pick one, I'll post it here. I intend to make the pad I have in hand "work" for the persimmon butt.

I have to keep reminding myself that this is the practice stock, and not to get too 'into' getting anything butt the shape and fitting "right"! I'm not going to concern myself with getting a recoil pad for it. If I need to shoot it with the birch stock on it, I'll jury-rig something.

Therefore, it's "finished" for now. Here are some pictures (with scope mounted) in which I try to show the quality of the wood. (I fail.) As I said before, this birch is quite nice to work with. It's pretty hard, especially the heartwood, but the sapwood is at least as hard as walnut. This particular piece has really nice 'flame' to it, although that is difficult to 'catch' photographically without expending more effort than I care to.

(https://i.postimg.cc/LX6s2DJF/For-Arm-LS.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/nhBrkMyg/Left-Side-Butt.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/tRvsRKdS/Left-Side-Whole.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/bvRv7WNR/Right-Side-Butt.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/Jh8ndMmn/Right-Side-Butt-2.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/CLWdkbQb/Right-Side-Stocks-only.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqPq257S/Right-Side-Whole.jpg)

It really is a pretty stock. I'm hoping the persimmon LOOKS as good as this. I think it will, but it is a very straight-grained wood, and there will be no 'flame' in it. You've seen the persimmon forearm. It looks great. I'm hoping the butt does too.

Speaking of "straight grain", have a look a the pictures of just the butt. Especially the right side. You may note that the grain runs perfectly through the wrist. That was no accident.

Final weight is exactly 9 pounds 0 ounces with the scope and NO WEIGHT in the butt. I would add another tube of tungsten 'sand' to this. In the H&R, that added 1lb 10oz, which would bring this one up right near 11 lb. I like that weight.

I'm hunting for the next two weeks-ish, so I won't get to the persimmon until I get back from that effort. I want to have that stock completed and finished for the elk hunt in Utah over Christmas.

Paul

OK I get it now. Stock looks great!

With this butt, it 'comes to eye' perfectly if I were using iron sights. With the scope it's still 'good', but as you can imagine, the cheek-weld is not as firm.

Common sense would dictate that I shoot it with this butt to see how it works so I can adjust the persimmon accordingly. However, I do not intend to shape the persimmon like this one. It will still have a straight wrist, and it will still have that flat right behind the upper tang. That was somewhat serendipitous, but I really like it. It may have a cheek-piece. I haven't decided yet. I would like to shape it like the but of my thumbholes (without the thumbhole), but having already drilled the through-hole, that option may not be available any longer. If that option is not available, I want the comb to come straight back parallel to the line of the bore. Stocks so configured recoil straight back into your shoulder. At recoil, stocks that have significant drop-at-the-heel, (like this one), rotate at the shoulder, pushing the stock up into the cheek and raising the muzzle. The "classic" Remington stock of their Classic Series, and the factory Ruger Number ONEs, (NOT number 3s), have stocks with combs that are parallel to the line of the bore. Have a look at these:
(https://i.postimg.cc/NfZ6jwNg/RugerNo1COV.png)

Notice how the comb of the thumbhole stocks I have actually raises as you go from the action to the butt, and how the "recoil line" of the stock is parallel to the bore. That's a big part of why THESE thumbholes are so pleasant to shoot.
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/Thumbholes/Myrtle%20TH%20Butt_zpstmmoqlj6.jpg)

Here's the factory Number THREE.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCsdbgNS/Birch-1.jpg)
That angle, both of the line of the comb (AKA Drop-at-the-comb), AND the "recoil line" mean that the rifle WILL rotate UP at the point where the stock meets the shoulder, thereby pushing the comb INTO the face of the shooter.

Here's the Remington Model 700 Classic:
(https://i.postimg.cc/RF0G2xCw/Rem-700-Classic.jpg)

I would have lost a bet over whether or not there was ANY drop-at-the-comb on this model rifle, but it kept not 'lining' up in my picture editing so I put a ruler on it.

(https://i.postimg.cc/d064WVFq/Rem-700-Classic-with-ruler.jpg)
As you can see, there is a tiny bit of drop-at-the-comb. These rifles are VERY comfortable for me to shoot.

I will be TRYING to mimic the thumbhole design (without the thumbhole or pistol grip.) I don't know if I will be able to do that now that the through-hole is already bored.


Paul

Paul, it's all looking real good. I dislike straight grip stocks but that's just me. Maybe you already know it but if a cheek piece is too high at the rear end it makes shooting uphill difficult. I don't think you'll be squirrel hunting with this rifle though. Good luck hunting in Colorado.  ......Paul H

Quote from: sakorick;151791What's the LOP? It looks pretty long.

Here ya go, Rick. Does this look more properly proportioned? :D
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pq3C74cH/Ruger-No2-Recoil-Pad.jpg)

As you can see I got the recoil pad installed. This birch stock set was the 'practice' set, but I don't want another monkey on my back with regard to getting prepared for the buffalo hunt so I decided to go ahead and install a recoil pad on the 'practice' butt. If I get the persimmon stock made in time, great. If not, this one is field-ready. I have not yet added any weight to the butt. As it sits, it is 8lb and 7 ounces. Pretty light for what I have in mind for it in terms of muzzle energy, - probably 4000+ ft-lb - (hence the 1" thick recoil pad). I will be installing a "weight tube" like the one you can see in post #80 in this thread: http://www.thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19857&page=8.

I have to refinish the butt, as it's a fact of life that grinding/sanding the recoil pad to the profile of the butt will remove any finish if there is any. And there was. That's a non-issue though.

So, the Ruger No.2 chambered in .416x348 Win is ready for the buffalo hunt if I decide to use it. I do need to work up a "buffalo load" for it though. I don't anticipate too much difficulty in that endeavor. (You can file that casual comment under "Famous last words".)

I'm sure the new Factory Crimp die from Lee Precision will be here next week, so before long, I should have "buffalo loads" for the .50 Alaskan, Quigley .50-90 Sharps, and this Ruger No.2. (I already have "the" load for the Sako .338 Win Mag. IF it gets called into action.)

As I have said repeatedly before, I made the .50 Alaskan specifically for this buffalo hunt, and therefore I am loathe to use any other rifle until circumstances dictate. However, the truth is that I really LIKE that .416x.348 Win cartridge, and even more so on the Ruger with 28" barrel. The ballistics are really very good for this application! Time will tell if I can 'leave it home' when the season arrives.

Paul

PS - Since you asked: The length of pull is 14.5". With just a shirt on, it's about 3/8ths of an inch short. With a coat on, it comes to eye perfectly for me.

Paul

Wow! Bought another rifle... Sako .338 win mag, cool!

OK smardass. Sauer.:stars: I regularly get the words "Sako" and "Sauer" conflated. Although never the firearms.

Thanks for catching that.

Paul