ruger #1 forend bedding

  • 1.8K Views
  • Last Post 30 March 2019
porthos posted this 19 March 2019

a lot of conflicting information about ruger #1 forearm bedding.so,  what do you think works best. not bedding the rear of the forearm and leaving clearance (lets say .020) between wood and reciever. or, bedding forearm to reciever. from what i read, free floating forearm  from bbl. and bedding forearm iron to wood seems to be popular. should i bed both the sides and bottom of the forearm iron. suggestions?

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
R. Dupraz posted this 19 March 2019

I had a Ruger # 1 heavy barrel 22-250 which I bought new and was one of my prairie dog rifles. It was basically a 1 1 /2 minute shooter and was one of those inconsistent examples. After trying every thing that I could think of to get some kind of consistent accuracy out of this rifle, I finally free floated the fore arm and then drilled and tapped a hole at the tip of the fore arm hanger for a set screw than then could bear on the bottom of the barrel to prevent flexing when over a rest. This was the best fix for this rifle that I could find.

No relief at the rear of the fore arm and front of the action  

R. 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
  • John F.
Bud Hyett posted this 19 March 2019

True, there is much conflicting information. I own six #1's and there is no consistent approach.

#1B .22 Hornet: Relieved forearm from barrel and .005 clearance forearm to receiver. The biggest problem was a sloppy chamber.

#1B .218 Bee: Shot well from the factory setup, No changes

#1V .22-.250: Forearm glass-bedded away from barrel and receiver. The clearance is .010 from receiver and barrel channel.

#1V .220 Swift: Shot well from the factory - no changes.

#1B 6 mm Remington: Forearm and receiver have .010 gap, 

#1B .30-'06: Forearm and receiver have .010 gap

I used brass shim stock in the forearm channel to pull the forearm forward and down while experimenting with loads. Once the successful paradigm of load and forearm was established as to what worked, I set the forearm up. 

One shooter I respect does not mess with testing. He works the forearm to be tightly glass-bedded to the receiver and forearm hanger, the relieves the barrel channel. He glass beds the butt stock to the action. He is seeking to eliminate the peculiar actions of a two-piece stock.

One other item to try while testing is to put the rear bag in your arm pit and not underneath the butt-stock. This approximates the in-field shooting position of the rifle. 

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
mashburn posted this 20 March 2019

Hello,

One thing for sure, make sure you put your front bag at the same place under the forearm every time. Nearly everyone of No. 1"s that  I have owned, and customers rifles that I've accurized,  all shot better with the bag at the very back of the forearm. There are numerous fixes for the forearms of #1"s, Your other responses were somewhat on the right path. I'm too tired at the present time to  get into the things that worked for me.

Mashburn

David a. Cogburn

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
John Alexander posted this 20 March 2019

We will wait until you are rested. Would like to know your thoughts.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
  • bjornb
mashburn posted this 28 March 2019

Hello John,

I've been considering doing a blog on Ruger No 1 rifles. I will more than likely do it. Stay tuned.

Mashburn

David a. Cogburn

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Bud Hyett posted this 28 March 2019

The accuracy problem may not be only in the forearm bedding. Frank DeHaas discusses the strength of the hammer strike on the primer and this attribute's effect on accuracy. He ranks the most popular actions with the Winchester High Wall being the top and the Ruger #1 at the bottom. 

I have long thought of ways to measure the hammer strike and then strengthen the strike to determine if there is a positive effect on accuracy with increased primer detonation uniformity. Tearing down the action, lubricating the pins for the hammer and transfer bar, being sure all are aligned and not dragging anywhere, and strengthening the hammer spring would seem the likely approach.  

The big question is; "After all this work, could you get a change that was statically significant?"

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
M3 Mitch posted this 28 March 2019

The accuracy problem may not be only in the forearm bedding. Frank DeHaas discusses the strength of the hammer strike on the primer and this attribute's effect on accuracy. He ranks the most popular actions with the Winchester High Wall being the top and the Ruger #1 at the bottom. 

I have long thought of ways to measure the hammer strike and then strengthen the strike to determine if there is a positive effect on accuracy with increased primer detonation uniformity. Tearing down the action, lubricating the pins for the hammer and transfer bar, being sure all are aligned and not dragging anywhere, and strengthening the hammer spring would seem the likely approach.  

The big question is; "After all this work, could you get a change that was statically significant?"

 

Do you have a link to Frank DeHass's work, or what book is it in?  I have never had a #1, but in general most Ruger firearms are robust, and all that I have owned whacked the primer with gusto.  I can see in diagrams how the #1 hammer goes through a rather indirect path to get at the firing pin, and I imagine that linkage does waste some of the hammer's energy.  The #1 has a big mainspring out in the fore-end and I think a bigger or stronger spring could be easily arranged.

 

Edited to add:  Google found this for me:  https://the-eye.eu/public/concen.org/Weapons%20Firearms%20Guns%20Schematics%20Blueprints%20Prepper%20ebooks%20archive/ebooks%202/Frank%20de%20Haas%20-%20Mr%20Single%20Shot%27s%20Guns%20Idea%20Book.pdf

Attached Files

M3 Mitch posted this 28 March 2019

Let me also ask as a separate issue, are you guys only working with #1's with the beavertail fore-end?  Is there any advantage or disadvantage to the Alex Henry type shorter fore-end? 

Attached Files

MarkinEllensburg posted this 29 March 2019

The solution that has worked best for the #1's I have is eliminating the gap between the spring hanger and barrel. Then full bedding the fore-end fully for bull barrels and light front pressure for sporter weight barrels.

As has already been mentioned the technique in shooting seems to have an effect.

What do I know though I have a .25-06 that I can't seem to find any reasonable bench accuracy past 50 yards. Jacketed bullets it is a consistent 1.25" 5 shot rifle.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
Bud Hyett posted this 29 March 2019

Frank DeHaas used an informal method. He aligned the barrels vertically to be perpendicular to the floor, inserted an aluminum rod in the barrel and measured the height of the rod after the hammer sent it upward. He did this ten times per action and averaged the results. He felt there was enough consistency in the findings for this to be a valid test. 

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
porthos posted this 29 March 2019

there are (is) a device that measures lock time of firearms. there is some degree of competition out there as to who has the fastest lock time among some of the custom built target shotguns (mostly for trap). i have read  information that reports the lock time of several trap guns in fractions of a second. don't know anything about this device, but , it is out there.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
joeb33050 posted this 30 March 2019

 

PRIMER TESTS

 

C. Dell

 

 

 

"I have been told many times down through the years that if a gun has a light hammer fall the groups fired with that gun will string up and down. I had always assumed that this was true as the persons reporting this effect were very respected men who had done a lot of really serious shooting.

 

Back before the primer shortage developed, I had made a test rig to test primers all by themselves (a standalone test of primers). Basically, I was able to hit primers with a very repeatable force and was determining how much force it took to reliably fire them as well as the velocity that they would impart to a specially made pellet. Results were determined by measuring the velocity of the pellets about fifteen feet from the muzzle of the test rig.

 

This testing was discontinued when the supply of the desired primers for testing dried up.

 

These tests have not at this time been resumed. Two observations were, however, made from the data collected at that time. One: the observed average velocities were not affected by how hard the primer was hit. Second: about one primer in five regardless of make or grade was to a noticeable amount deviant from the group average. This took the form of either being significantly higher OR lower in velocity than the average.

 

These properties were discussed with various shooters during the time that supplies of the various primers were not available. I was often asked if the same results would be observed if I were actually shooting cartridges loaded with powder and bullet. There was at that time no practical way that I could test this idea. As a result, the question was left hanging with no real answer.

 

Recently a method was conceived that would readily permit study of this as well as other questions. I had a spare Douglas 32-40-barrel blank with a 1-12-inch twist that could be devoted to a test program. A breech system was devised that would permit various firing pin impacts on the primer to be studied. It is not a fast system but permits one shot to be fired about every two minutes. Bullets are weighed, lubricated and swaged so that they are as uniform as can practically be made. All of the shots in the test were fired from my rail gun at a range of 100 yards. This test was designed to equate obtained accuracy with primer impact.

 

It was determined that six five shot groups under three different striker impact forces would be studied. The cartridge case was my 32-357 Magnum which was developed back in about 1971 but not really used until about 1993 when I received a barrel blank from Ken Bresein that was cut with Pope style rifling. It is the cartridge that my current competition gun is chambered for. The bullet is a 200-grain basic bullet from a Colorado Shooter's Supply mold. the bullet is subsequently lubricated and swaged before shooting. The swage is one of my own design and build. The powder charge for this test is 8.1 grains of Accurate Arms #7. Primers for this test were the Remington 7 1/2. One cartridge case was used for all shooting in this test. Powder charges were cast from a Redding M 3 BR powder measure and not individually weighed. Groups were evaluated by two methods, extreme spread of the two widest bullet holes and by the mean radius concept which studies all of the shots in the group.

 

In studying the velocity of all the shots fired on the record groups it was interesting to observe that about one shot in five was deviant from the group average by more than five feet per second. As most groups did not have an extreme velocity spread of more than ten feet per second this was considered significant. The deviance occurred both ways from the average velocity of the group. Some deviant shots measured a low velocity and others a high velocity. When more than one deviant shot occurred within a given group of five shots it would raise or lower the group average. Because of this, all comparisons were to the overall average velocity as all shots were fired under basically the same conditions of loading, temperature and load.

 

I will report the average velocities of each of the 30 shot study groups and the final

 

average velocity for the total 90 shots of the test.

 

In a similar manner I will report the average velocity spread within each set, the average

 

standard deviation, the average extreme spread and the average mean radius. All averages taken on six five round groups.

 

 

Phase I

Phase II

Phase III

 

 

Light

Moderate

Heavy

Average

 

Impact

Impact

Impact

Overall

Average Vel. (fps)

1227

1227

1228

1227

Avg. Velocity Spread (fps)

8

9

11

9

Avg. Vel. Std. Dev. (fps)

4

3

4

4

Avg. Extreme Group Spread (")

0.695

0.700

0.750

0.720

Avg. Mean Radius (")

0.281

0.252

0.276

0.270

 

This I believe shows beyond any reasonable doubt that accuracy is not affected one way or another by the force of the firing blow. If the primer goes off it goes off and the amount of energy transmitted to the powder is not affected by the impact energy of the firing pin. Even those primers that had to be hit twice in order to initiate ignition showed no difference from those that went off on initial impact.

 

While I believe that this eliminates one source of alibis for groups that are strung out up and down, it is one less thing that we as shooters of various old and new guns have to be concerned about. After completing this series of tests, I can say without hesitation that accuracy is in no way affected by the force of the firing pin impact on the primer."

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Alexander
  • Bud Hyett
John Alexander posted this 30 March 2019

Thanks Joe. A very interesting report on a timely subject.

Unless someone knows of a similar high grade test with results contrary to this one, any intelligent and open minded person should agree that uniformity of firing pin strike isn't a possible cause of vertical stringing after reading of Dell's results.

Instead, based on the history of other experimentation debunking other parts of the folklore that surrounds shooting, it will have little or no effect on what shooters believe.  If I live to be 110 I am confident that some wise old shooter will be telling me that my vertical stringing problem is probably because of inconsistent firing pin impact.

Note that this work also should destroy the old belief that primer pockets have to be cleaned or the crud will "cushion" the blow and cause inconsistent ignition and vertical stringing -- and almost all of us use reloading time to diligently clean primer pockets.

Oh well.

John

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
Bud Hyett posted this 30 March 2019

Joe - Thank you for the data. You have saved me several months of planning, setup and testing. I have been thinking of a way to test the hammer strike to primer ignition premise. You have also tested all the attributes within the discussion.

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 30 March 2019

Bud;

I got this from Charlie Dell years ago, he gave me permission to put it in the book.

This and lotsa other information is in FILES in the CAST BULLET INFORMATION Yahoo group. This info has been in the book for >12 years; I'm hoping this new group makes it more easily accessible.

joe b.

 

Attached Files

Close