Eddystone M1917 Stock Warp Issue

[WarPig1976]

You'll have to forgive me, but I don't see how you corrected anything. In your original post you said the forearm was drooping an 1/8" down and to the left. I don't see how that was corrected from your photo. I just see a shim that takes up about the kerf of a blade, basically a zero sum game.

To bring the frontend up you'd have zero gap at the top of your cut and you'd need at least 1/8" at the bottom because you used a shim and the two halves where squared up. Otherwise you lengthened the stock. No way around the rails "the barrel channel sides" taking on a V shape in that case. How did you address the leftward twist?
Unless the problem wasn't as severe as stated then the slop in your joint was enough to correct any perceived issue you had.
Like I said forgive me, a warped/twisted stock can't be fixed this way without effecting other parts and functions of the stock.

[Hcompton79]

Perhaps I overstated the issue initially, but basically it seemed the front end of the forend seemed to cant slightly downward and to the left with the axis of the angle being right about near the rear barrel band.

The shim is slightly thicker near the bottom of the stock and on the left hand side, but not by much, a small change at that point was enough to correct the swing of the muzzle end to bring it to the point desired. I would think if you were to have a 1/8" difference in thickness near the middle of the forend this would create a much steeper angle and would pull the forend at least an inch upwards.

I probably should have taken before and after photos, but the barrel bands make for an unphotogenic muzzle end picture, and I didn't want to take off the front sight protector to get them off.

The proof is in the pudding though, whereas previously with the handguards and muzzle cap off the stock tip would only touch the barrel as shown on the below diagram, it now contacts the bottom with some upwards pressure uniformly and without interference from the nose cap. As long as that happens, and there is no contact between the receiver and that bearing point, it shouldn't really matter whether the stock has now taken on a small-v bend (although I would say the angle it was at was previously worse as there was a clear gap between the upper and lower front hand guard without the muzzle cap on.)

Attachment 96451

[CINDERS]

A good result the real test will be 50-100 rounds down range to see how the set up likes the jarring of firing & recoil forces, nice job.

[WarPig1976]

No, I don't think we were on the same page. It's your's and what's done is done.
Look on the bright side, you've created the proof some poor schmuck 100yrs from now will use to prove Doughboy's smuggled rifles home in duffle bags.

[fjruple]

Perhaps I overstated the issue initially, but basically it seemed the front end of the forend seemed to cant slightly downward and to the left with the axis of the angle being right about near the rear barrel band.

The shim is slightly thicker near the bottom of the stock and on the left hand side, but not by much, a small change at that point was enough to correct the swing of the muzzle end to bring it to the point desired. I would think if you were to have a 1/8" difference in thickness near the middle of the forend this would create a much steeper angle and would pull the forend at least an inch upwards.

I probably should have taken before and after photos, but the barrel bands make for an unphotogenic muzzle end picture, and I didn't want to take off the front sight protector to get them off.

The proof is in the pudding though, whereas previously with the handguards and muzzle cap off the stock tip would only touch the barrel as shown on the below diagram, it now contacts the bottom with some upwards pressure uniformly and without interference from the nose cap. As long as that happens, and there is no contact between the receiver and that bearing point, it shouldn't really matter whether the stock has now taken on a small-v bend (although I would say the angle it was at was previously worse as there was a clear gap between the upper and lower front hand guard without the muzzle cap on.)

Attachment 96451

I did the same thing to a M1903 C-type stock. The stock had looked like it was stored outside in the rain.

-Cheers

--fjruple

[rcathey]

To bring the frontend up you'd have zero gap at the top of your cut and you'd need at least 1/8" at the bottom because you used a shim and the two halves where squared up.

Well you stoked my curiousity. Pretty easy to sketch into AutoCad. I got lazy and didn't actually measure my 1917 but estimated the length of the forend at 10" and thickness as 1.5". If those are even close..well..your wedge shaped shim is not. If the forend is longer or thicker than this, the 1/8" shim would be even more wrong. As the OP said above, he's adding angle much further back from where he needs it. Thus he needed to add much less space to achieve the correct offset.

I'm sure there's some math that can figure this sort of thing...by why bother when AutoCad will do it for you!

Attachment 96457

[Hcompton79]

I'll take it to the range on Monday and see how she works, weather permitting. I'll let you guys know what happens.

[WarPig1976]

My apologies, I use Workbench not CAD. Workbench has difficulty taking into account all the variables such as angles, arcing wood, blade kerf, finished length, barrel to forearm contact, etc until it’s had it’s coffee.

[Patrick Chadwick]

To bring the frontend up you'd have zero gap at the top of your cut and you'd need at least 1/8" at the bottom because you used a shim and the two halves where squared up.

That's what happends if one uses all that high-tech stuff. Simple proportioning is sufficient. I actually measured my M1917, and at the position of the barrel band, the fore-end wood is about 30mm wide. The distance from the cut to the front bearing point is about 25 cm (depending on where the bearing point is taken to be). I.e. a good 8 times as much, so 1/64" skew at the cut would produce a change of 1/8" at the front end.

I would think if you were to have a 1/8" difference in thickness near the middle of the forend this would create a much steeper angle and would pull the forend at least an inch upwards.

Correct.

And now we can put theory aside and look forward to seeing the results on a target!

[Hcompton79]

I went to the range yesterday, the results are pretty good, I still need to make some small changes, but this is an improvement over how it was shooting before.

Attachment 96650

I was shooting PPU 150 grain M1 safe .30-06. Excluding the flier in the "7" ring, all 14 shots fired went into a group measuring a little under 4.75" across. The front sight blade is now roughly centered in the base, where it had been previously drifted almost all the way out and over to the left.

I think I can tighten the group up a bit though, the front sight blade needs to be taller, I had to aim about 8" under the bull with the sights set at 200 yards, and this rifle currently wears a -.015 "P14" marked sight, so I ordered an assortment of taller ones from BRP guns. I have no affiliation with them, but they charge only $2.00 per blade and allow you to choose what height you desire. Based on the distance and sight radius, a .075 should put me on target.