Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Nula Guys

I don't know if my information will help or hurt you.

I have two Model 20's; a 7mm-08 with #2 barrel and a .243 with a #1 barrel. Both barrel's are 22" long.

Their weight are 6 pounds 1.4 oz and 6 pounds 2.4 oz.....respectively. Yes, the .243 weighs a touch more than the -08. Both guns have identical scopes (VariX III 2.5x8) and Talley 1" mounts. The only difference I can see is the recoil pads, the -08 has a ULA marked 1" pad and the .243 has a Colt Light Rifles 1/2" pad.

Both guns handle like a dream for me. Sometimes I "think" the .243 with its #1 barrel seems lighter but the scale doesn't lie. Neither choice is wrong on barrel contour as far as I'm concerned.

My Model 28s has a #2 on it and it also handles peachy....

I'd like to handle a #3 just for giggles but doubt it'd sway me away from the other two contours.

I think barrel weight will varie according to how the barrel is cut. I always have Mel take as much off of the breech end as he can, then it is worked down to fit the action and stock. I will have to weigh a few rifles, I always went by how it felt to me, never concerned by actual weight. Regardless the ULA action and stock is a great platform. Very interesting topic.

Gary U

My first one was a .308 with a #1 22" barrel. With a Leupold 6x scope, total weight is under 6 lbs. It took a little getting used to shooting off the bench, but it's very accurate and balances well. The barrel is not "whippy" and I've taken three bull elk with it, one at a little over 300 yards.

I can't see any advantage to a #2 barrel unless you want just a hair more weight for a cartridge that kicks. I have a #3 26" barrel on my Model 28 in 7x61 Sharpe & Hart for that reason.

#1, 22" on all my NULA's but they are all model 20 Shorts (2.5" magazine) .223, 6x45, and .22-250.

I could not imagine myself ever going a NULA only to then spec. a barrel two profiles heavier
than a Winchester FW.

having said that, the whole idea of custom is to do what pleases the individual.

My idea of a NULA model 20 is something like... 7mm/08 22" with the Dakota Arms
profile .540 @24" chopped back at the reinforce and muzzle to make 22"...resulting
in a smaller muzzle dia. than a Win FW, but a longer reinforce area, and a less gradual taper.

I've owned and used several NULA's, and the stocks can vary as much in weight as #1 and #2 contour barrels--not much, but some.

As for balance, it depends on the shooter. The first NULA (actually ULA) I owned was a Model 24 .270 Winchester that my wife hunted with for a number of years. It had a #1 22" barrel and weighed 6 pounds exactly with a 2-7x Bausch & Lomb scope. Eileen killed two deer offhand with it at 150-160 yards. She doesn't like rifles to be much heavier, because she can't hold heavier rifles offhand as steadily as she can light rifles, no doubt a question of upper-body strength as compared to the average man. That rifle also grouped three shots in about 2" at 300 yards with the load we settled on, using IMR4350 and the 130-grain Nosler Partition.

For a while I hunted with a Model 20 in 7x57 with a #1 22" barrel, and had no difficulty killing animals offhand at typical "woods" ranges--though I never shot any at 150 yards. It weighed around 5-3/4 pounds with scope.

For over 20 years have hunted with a Model 24 .30-06 with a 24" #2 contour that weighs 6 pounds on the nose with a 6x33 Leupold. Have shot a few animals offhand at close range with it too, but also a few at 400+ from prone. Probably could have done the same with a #1 contour but who knows?

It's a tough decision, and unfortunately it's not like I can go to Cabelas and try them both out. I have tried a Forbes model 20b that I wasn't too crazy about the balance with, but in the same token my Forbes model 24b doesn't balance out as nicely as my Nula model 24.

Mass weight isn't an issue, just a preference. I've worked my whole life and can probably lift more than an average guy, I've noticed that balance means way more than weight when it comes to freehand shots, at least for myself. Maybe a call to Melvin is in order but I know he doesn't like to make any decisions for his customers.

Had a .260 number one at 22 in. If I did it again I would use a #2 at 22-23 in.

I understand that some can't see getting a lightweight NULA and then using a seemingly inconsistent weight of barrel. However, another way to look at is this: the basic rifle is so light that you can add more barrel and still have a light package. For example, most would instinctively choose a #1 or maybe #2 that is 22-24" long for something like a .260, but you could get a #3 26" and still have a light rifle. Rigid stock, rigid action, and rigid barrel.

I can see the attraction to a very light rifle for backpack hunting. I can also appreciate Hagel's comment that hunters carried heavier rifles when they served the purpose, for many decades, and today's hunters should be able to do the same. With NULA, you don't give up capability with the light weight. You simply pick the barrel contour and length that optimize the package for your purpose. I find a somewhat heavier barrel helps stability for me.

I don't consider a #2 a heavy barrel. He keeps the shanks under control (unlike a lot of smiths) and a #2 at 21"-22" would be sweet.

A Nula with a #3 barrel is probably lighter than most realize. My Model 28 with 26" #3 weighs under 7 lbs. with a Leupold 2.5-8 x 36.

Mine too! And that is plenty light for a 300 WM..

Well I know for a physical fact that a Pre64 complete with all steel bottom gear(42oz?) /McMllan std fill/ Douglas #2 cut to 22" 7mmCal
is front heavy( with preferred scope of choice 2.5-8x36 Leupld)....from that I know I would not want the further increased front heaviness
of the same #2-22"barrel mounted to a flyweight NULA action(20oz) and flyweight stock. Its not just about final weight, but also ones
preferred degree of weight distribution.

I also know from the slim WBY-V 6 lug action rifles(35oz action) #1, that I would not want a #2 on it, so definitely not on a NULA.

I called Melvin today and asked the question, keep in mind it's a 6.5 Creedmoor with a 22" barrel,

"What would I gain by going to a #2 contour?",

his answer was simply

"Weight".

So then I asked the question

"How will it balance compared to my model 24 280ai with a 24" #2 contour barrel?",

his answer

"Exactly the same, what I do north of the guard screw I do south of the guard screw, there is weight added to the back end of your 280ai."

I think I'm going to just go with the #1 contour, my theory is it's all about the balance, if it's a well balanced ultralight rifle it will hold on target better than a heavy rifle that isn't balanced. Nula's are different from pretty much every other rifle in that there is just as much, if not more attention put into the stock as there is to the action and barrel.

I suspect there are NULA fans who didn't know MF slips some extra balancing weight into his stocks as required.

My Model 28 has weight in the stock; balance is great.

Gonna be a very cool rifle.

my model 20 with a 23 inch #2 in 260 balances one inch in front of the action screw...Melvin will balance a front heavy rifle with weight in the rear of the stock if needed but I think you are only looking at a 4 oz difference between the two tapers

That's the exact same conversation I had with Melvin when I ordered my 270 win...So I went with #1 countour at 22" and am happy with it. I did put a #2 on my fast twist 22-250 tho. Like them both.

Damn....

Every time I convince myself I don't need a NULA, a thread pops up or I talk to somebody who has one...