Printable View
It's only confusing on modern riflesQuote:
Originally Posted by 6x47
But on vintage rifles they are generally in the correct location For their intended purpose
They snuck onto longer stocked bolt action rifles where they didn't belong because they are beyond the fore hand
Style over substance
Sorry....are we still talking about guns? :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Ross Nolan
I had read that it was to stop the foreend slipping off the pack when you were using it for a rest.
I reckon Parker Hale nailed the schnabel forend with their safari de luxe series, not over stated but not over the top
I am sure there is a joke about an Englishman, Scotsman and an Irishman that talks about your hand not coming off the end............
So moving on from whether the sling stud is in the right place or not we will wait until @makka has finished and declare his the winner
Hey @makka I would call myself a stockmaker, and am going to come at this from a completely different angle.
A stock is a sum of its parts, and all of those parts need to work in unison. The buttstock you have crafted so far, has no cheek piece (which I prefer in a hunting rifle myself). From that standpoint, the rifle has been crafted as a tool. Adorning the forend with a schnabel is a departure from that aesthetic (in my opinion). If you had shaped a Monte Carlo or pancake cheek piece with shadowline, then yes- a nice subtle schnabel is where it’s at. A nice correctly rounded ebony forend is still a nice addition.
At the end of the day though, it’s your rifle- shape it how you like! Take it slow and you’ll find what you like. Invariably you’ll find that the best proportions for a little rifle like that are smaller than you’d expect.
Cheers for the advice, especially considering I'm not a stockmakers arsehole!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter_Nick
I think it will look OK with a schnabel, I hear you about the cheekpiece but wasn't going to attempt one on my first walnut stock, maybe the next one though!
If you look at most or all forends of rifles with a schnabel, they taper in towards the schnabel. your forend appears almost parallel with only a very slight taper, so the tip looks pronounced.
You need to decide what works for you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m a bit of a fan of a schnabel, a few of mine. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...c86240bda7.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Winchester model 70 featherweight has a good one, the BSA Imperials and Majestics also. Understated.
They are functional but now also part of an old school aesthetic: They are to help hold the rifle when walking uphill, carrying the rifle by the foreend in the hand almost like a walking stick. It came from European hunting, red deer in Scotland and Chamois in the Austro-Hungarian empire. You can wear puttees and breeks if you wish.
It's personal preference, I hate them and wouldn't own a riffle with one but others love them so make it exactly how you want it.
so... shorter forend, and sling swivel on barrel band - or no schnabel required?Quote:
Originally Posted by 6x47
Just copy the stock shape and dimensions of a Winchester model 70 or a Ruger 77, or a Remington 700 CDL. You cant go wrong with any of them.
There's still quite a bit of timber to come out of the forend in those pics, it will end up tapering up at the same angle as the action doesQuote:
Originally Posted by Dicko