First, let me say that I believe Melvin Forbes is a genius and he absolutely knows what he is doing.

Now, those who personally know Mr. Forbes might be able to tell me about the way he does his full-length bedding. (I know why he does it. I read about it on his web site.)

Is it hard to do it as well as he does it? Why don't more people do it? Is it because it's easy to screw it up if you don't do it well?

I'm actually happy with my free-floated barrels, but can't help but wonder why, since the full-length bedding works so well on NULA rifles, more people don't do it.

(Did I mention that I accept that Melvin Forbes absolutely knows what he's doing?)

I have a rifle that my smith full length bedded and I can tell you it is a lot more work to do correctly. works very well thou and looks good to boot

tjm,

I've full-length bedded a few bolt-action forends, and it is more difficult than it might appear. The biggie is to get the bedding even all the way out to the end of of the forend. It's relatively easy to end up with a very slight gap at the forend tip, so small you can't really see it, but if that happens accuracy ain't much.

The other trick is to have a very stiff, stable forend. And that's where Melvin's stocks come into play.

I wish that I knew calculus and could calculate the muzzle droop of the Ken Howell barrel contour. Intuition tells me that it makes the barrel stiffer, but I'd like to know for sure.

Others have "tested" barrel stiffness by hanging weights from the muzzle, which doesn't even come close to my idea of determining how much the muzzle droops because it's cantilevered.

I'd like to see somebody like Mel Forbes experiment with it. Barrel-makers and experimenters have so far been very distantly dismissive and uninterested in exploring the design.

Ken, check this out


http://www.varmintal.com/aflut.htm

Thanks for the reminder � I've been a serious student of fluting for a long, long time � its principles, its requirements, its effects, its problems, its dangers, its complications, etc.

My contour is simpler, safer, lighter, less expensive � in a word, better, IMHO.

He covers drop in the analysis if memory serves

Of my contour?

And you mean "droop," I assume.

Has anyone ever tried to full length bed a Kimber Montana ? Maybe a stupid thought, but they use a skinny barrel and seem to not shoot like the NULA rifles do (at least some don't ) and I think Melvin helped design the stock on the Kimber so does this sound crazy?

Okay. I can see where that can take some practice.

Have one coming in a couple months. Will let the fire know how it works out. The smith doing the work knows what he is doing. He originally wanted to FF but I asked to FLB. He said no problem.

I did mean drop. No he doesn't cover your contour

Ken,

Pardon my ignorance, what are the details on your barrel contour?

Goodshot,

I tried several bedding options on my 7-08 Montana including full length barrel floating, a bit of tip pressure, bedding under chamber, etc. and was getting 1-1/4" 5 shot groups consistently - not too bad really. I then bedded the rifle full length and it settled down, consistently shooting around 1" ... sometime a bit better, sometimes a bit worse. First cold barrel shot always seems to go to the same place - a trait I value.

Usual diameter over the chamber, then straight taper to a minimum muzzle diameter (bore diameter plus 0.240 inch, rounded-up to the nearest 0.050 inch). That's a skinny muzzle, all right, and it makes folks shudder, but it gets bigger fast farther up the taper � much faster than it does on contemporary contours. (And the internal pressure, remember, is much, much lower when the bullet exits the muzzle than it is when the bullet is near the breech.)

My goal was making the barrel stiffer. Shifting the center of gravity toward the breech was pure (but welcome!) serendipity. My 26-inch .220 Howell varmint rifle handles very nicely and isn't nearly as heavy or as clumsy as it'd be with a bull barrel or a fluted barrel.

Thanks Ken! Very interesting.

This,is VERY interesting to me, as I have a pair of pristine Brno actions, a 21H and a ZG-47 and am contemplating what/how/when to have really fine, functional light hunting rifles built on them.

I have several fine rifles, Dakota 76, P-64 70s, Brno ZGs and 21/22s with expert full bedding and many of the same makes-models with FF bedding. I find the full bedding does work better and I also do not get the copious BC rain down the barrel channel....this is crucial on multiday backpack hunts.

So, would ir be possible to post a picture, drawing or schematic of this contour as I can certainly see the benefits involved.

The dimensions on a specification drawing would depend on the caliber of the barrel and the desired barrel length.

It's easy enough to draw one if you can't simply envision it. I can't do it for you right now � sorry.

Start with the usual diameter over the chamber, for the length of the chamber, then draw the muzzle diameter (vertical line) out at the barrel length that you want (out there where you want the muzzle to be. Add 0.240 inch to your bore diameter and round the sum up to the nearest 0.050 inch. For example � 0.308 + 0.240 = 0.548. Round it up to 0.550 inch).

Then connect the forward end of the chamber reinforce to the muzzle diameter with a straight line.

Voil�!

'cuz free floating a quality barrel in a quality stock just works and it is rather easy to do. None of my rifles are full length bedded and they all shoot very well.

I like the contour concept of the Howell contour

Some barrel-makers just hoot and sneer at it.

I quit thumping drums and tooting tubas for one of my favorite barrel-makers for that very reason (plus the fact that he denied having done so in the presence of the guy who'd heard 'im do it repeatedly. Canceled my orders for barrels that he wouldn't make the way that I'd specified). He makes super-fine barrels if you let 'im do 'em his way in all respects.

Question for Ken.

How much influence does the shank length and taper have? I can see that a straight taper might be less prone to unusual vibrations or harmonics but no idea on the shank portion.

I like the radius step Douglas contour and have a tapered barrel I was thinking of having the straight tapered shank modified this way.

This barrel is very similar to your contour but with a long taper from the shank then straight to the muzzle at .600 for a .25 caliber blank.

Thanks

The chamber reinforce � which I assume that you're referring-to as the "shank" � that portion immediately ahead of the threaded tenon � is usually a right cylinder to accommodate the barrel vise. I see no advantage or reason to taper it or to make it shorter than the body-and-shoulder section of the chamber.

It has to be bigger in diameter to be sure that it safely and consistently contains the average peak pressures produced by the powder charge while the bullet is just beginning to move. Then, as the internal pressure decreases, it's safe enough to let the farther-forward diameters decrease. The customary contour � with the concave radius suddenly reducing the diameters � adequately accommodates the first sweeping decrease in internal pressures.

But my contour design is about the stiffness of the barrel itself, not its ability to contain the internal pressures.

The muzzle of a cantilevered barrel droops. How far down it droops affects the consistency of the bullets' exits, which in turn affects the repeatability of the bullets' trajectories and ultimately where each bullet penetrates the target.

That's why the "stiffness" of the barrel is important. The less the muzzle droops, the more consistently the bullets exit the muzzle on the shorter up-sweep.

This deserves its own thread....