Length of forearm compared to length of pull

[rich pierce]

I’ve not taken an extensive survey - maybe a couple dozen guns in the Rifles of Colonial America book. It seems that for guns with barrels of average length, the length of pull and the distance from the trigger to the end of the forearm are very similar. If barrels are especially long I sometimes see the forearm about an inch longer than the length of pull.

When you who design a build, do you work from measurements on an original that’s inspiring your build, or do you have standard practices for forearm length?

[smylee grouch]

? I wonder if that would be different for rifles vs fowlers or on American, British or Continental guns. ? 

[Jakob]

I think LoP is a lot less important for aimed guns than it is for disciplines where you have to mount and shoot in same motion.

[dadybear1]

I READ ONCE THAT THE MASTERS USED "THE GOLDEN MEAN" IN A LOT OF THEIR WORKS---

[smart dog]

Hi Rich,
I don't work from any formula.  I essentially look at the proportions and adjust them to my preference at the time unless I am copying an original.  The distance from the trigger to the step at the rear pipe on my guns is never longer than 14" regardless of barrel length and usually about 13" and sometimes a little less. I want the stock to be mostly slim fore stock with the forearm kept fairly short.  I don't bother with Golden mean proportions.

dave     

[rich pierce]

Dave, I’m thinking it may be coincidence that trigger pull and forearm length are pretty close. But it’s possible that a longer armed person would hold the forearm further out. It’s also likely that gunsmiths of the era followed templates or built this one like the last one. I don’t use the golden mean because some of its devotees use it this way or that way to explain dimensions of originals. If it was used commonly all guns would have had similar proportions.

[AZshot]

I've got 2 Appalachian style flintlocks I shoot.  The Kibler I made a few months ago I've been handling and shooting recently the most and it fits me well.  I'm 6' 1". 
Yesterday I got my other rifle down the shoulder and look over the sights, thinking about shooting it this weekend.  It felt much shorter, constrained really.  I measured and it is only a 13" pull, the Kibler is about a 13 3/4.  It made a huge difference in feel. 

Now the forend doesn't make as much difference to how a rifle feels.  As long as you have somewhere to rest it on your hand.  I shoot "target style" with my elbow against my ribs mostly.  So my fingers touch the forend wood pretty close to the lock.  Others may hold way out, but it's a full stock so there is always room to go out further.

[alacran]

You can make a short barreled gun appear to be longer and slimmer with a shorter distance from the end of the lock to the entry pipe.
I have never based the location of the entry pipe on the location of the trigger.
This rifle has a 36-inch barrel. The entry pipe is nine inches in front of the lock. The barrel is 15/16 atf.


The distance from the front trigger to the entry pipe is 12 inches. The LOP is 13 and 1/2 inches.

[Bob Roller]

Whatever looks good to YOU and don'r worry about anyone else I really like the rifle and it makes me wish I could make just ONE more.

Bob Roller.

[rich pierce]

You can make a short barreled gun appear to be longer and slimmer with a shorter distance from the end of the lock to the entry pipe.
I have never based the location of the entry pipe on the location of the trigger.
This rifle has a 36-inch barrel. The entry pipe is nine inches in front of the lock. The barrel is 15/16 atf.


The distance from the front trigger to the entry pipe is 12 inches. The LOP is 13 and 1/2 inches.

Nicely done; looks much longer!

[TommyG]

Rich, When I am making something "in the style of" a particular school or maker, I try to take an average of the percentage of forearm compared to barrel length using various reference materials(RCA, KRA discs, etc.).  Say I'm building a Dickert style gun that originally used a 44" barrel, but I want to use a 38" barrel, I will then find the percentage of forearm compared to the barrel.  It usually falls out somewhere between 26 to 29% of forearm length to overall barrel length.  This just seems to work for me.  TommyG

[Pukka Bundook]

Rich,
Where you Will find a longer fore-end is on British half stocked guns from the late 18th C.
Of course no hard and fast rule, but the types with double bolts and the low combs.  Single barrel of course.

[t.caster]

Rich, I don't have a hard formula for this but in general I usually put the rear barrel lug/pin 10" (+/- 1/2") ahead of the breech. Then the entry pipe around 2 to 3" ahead of that, so say 13". I don't think I have ever looked at the relation to the trig. pull and entry pipe. Seems like a lot of originals had shorter pull than we make today (13.5" to 14") for men.
Sometimes I step back and look at the layout before cutting wood and whatever pleases my sense of proportion, regardless of the numbers.
If you apply the golden mean to the barrel length, I think the entry pipe would be placed about 16.8" on a 42" barrel....so that's not so good to my eye. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[whetrock]

I haven't paid attention to the pull-to-forearm ratio you mentioned. In general, I think it's helpful to try to maintain proportions of the original.
One of the original Oerters, for example, has about 10" of forearm. If an Oerter is built with a 12" forearm, it's gonna look different.

[TommyG]

I haven't paid attention to the pull-to-forearm ratio you mentioned. In general, I think it's helpful to try to maintain proportions of the original.
One of the original Oerters, for example, has about 10" of forearm. If an Oerter is built with a 12" forearm, it's gonna look different.

Or it will look like an Oerter with a 12" forearm.  I recently stocked an Oerter William Marshall gun.  Taking measurements from various photos of the original, the forearm falls out around 26% of total barrel length, which put it around 11.5".  This was with a 44" barrel. 
But I totally agree to try to maintain the proportions of the original.

[whetrock]

Sorry, Tommy. I hadn't meant to sound as if I was disagreeing with your earlier post.

[rich pierce]

Good discussion! Thanks!

To be clear I do follow proportions from originals when building a close re-creation. I really do like the look of a shorter forearm on a short-barreled gun. It really helps the gun nog look short.

[Waksupi]

I've built a lot more cartridge rifles than muzzleloaders. For modern guns, the standard is 2/5 length of the barrel.

[J.D.]

Should the proper length of the forestock place the location of the entry pipe at, or just in front of the balance point?

[whetrock]

That's a common assumption, and it might seem to be a good idea. It gets mentioned in some of the books about building, but examination of antiques shows that that rule wasn't always followed. (Maybe even seldom followed?)
It seems to me that many of the old masters seem to have kept closely to a stock pattern they liked, including the length of the forearm, but the actual weight and balance of the barrels they were using wasn't always the same, so the balance points sometimes differed a little, even if the stock pattern didn't.
I own four antiques. All of them have the balance point centered in front of the entry hole, beyond the wood of the forearm. For two of them, my hand wraps around the entry pipe, forward of the tab. For the other two, my hand is several inches in front of the entry pipes, so that when carrying them, my fingers don't touch the pipe at all. (Actually, one of these rifles had been shortened by 2", so it would also put the original carry point forward of the pipe. So that makes three of them with the balance point forward of the pipe.) These are all southern guns. 44-46" barrels. Others can speak up about what they find on PA stuff. I imagine that a wide breach and heavy swamp on a PA barrel is more likely to have the balance point on the forearm.

[rich pierce]

Yeah, I doubt a builder calculates the balance point then sets the forearm length. I don’t know the balance point until the stock is shaped and I don’t shape before setting up the ramrod groove and drilling the ramrod hole. I try to not put the rear sight at the balance point.

[Daryl]

A sharp sided rear sight makes an uncomfortable holding location.

[TommyG]

I think Peter Alexander mentions this in his book.  You would need an almost completed gun to calculate this correctly.  I for one set my pipes early on in the build as I like to have the entry pipe set before installing the trigger plate to create a flat and consistent plane on my lower forearm from the entry pipe tail to the trigger plate.  Now as far as setting the rear sight goes, that I do once the gun is almost completed and allows me to find the balance point for holding.  Then install the rear sight accordingly - not at the balance point.

[Daryl]

For a faster handling rifle, balance back towards the breech is better, but then, muzzle weight is needed for more accurate standing shooting.
It's a tread-off, but a smoothbore will be best if balancing closer to the breech for better point-ability, that is if you are wanting to shoot flying(birds).

[alacran]

Where I install the sight has little to do with balance point. At a minimum I install the rear sight 10 inches from the breech. If the rifle is a heavy Chunk or Crossticks rifle I won't be carrying from loading bench to shooting position horizontally. So, my hand will not be in the way of the sight.
A hunting rifles weight is such that the balance point is less than 10 inches from the breech. At least mine are.