Have you ever noticed the stock design on many of Elmer Kieth's rifles? Kind of Weatherby, but even more prounounced.

I have never shot a rifle with such a stock and wondered how it would be. I am 5'11 (178cm) 230lbs (107kg), and have a full face. Anyone similiarly built shoot such a stock?

They always struck me the same way, but one thing you have to remember is that Elmer was really a pretty small guy. He theorized in print that this was the reason recoil of heavy rifles didn't bother him (light and rolled with the punch).
I suspect this is responsible for the look of some of his rifles. The comb for a small person has to be much higher, since the trigger/bore/scope relationship doesn't change. Also, the length of pull is drastically shorter. I often suspected that the high comb/short pull dimensions of his stocks made them look somewhat the way they did.
Also, a lot of Elmer's heydey was during a period when that style was popular. A lot of his stocks were likely pretty conservative for that period. Look back through some old Gun Digests from the mid to late fifties. Stocks by some of the guys like Dale Goens, who were later considered classical stockers, looked like they were taken off a rocket ship from Mars.

D99: I´m almost identically built and the stock in my BRNO ZKK 602 fits me perfectly (that´s the European style or humpback). Alas, if I could duplicate in a big bore the stock in my CZ 452 that would be indeed better.
Regards

I have felt those 550/602 CZ rifles, but only shot the 602 with a classic stock. It was great.

Thanks for the info.

I had forgotten about Elmer being so small. I agree with the philosphy that small sized slight people can usually roll with more recoil than us fat tall bastards. I don't move much when I shoot a 375 (or a 416 for that matter), but I damn sure feel it all the way down in my spine. I bet if I lost 30 pounds (the max I could lose and still like the way I look)I might enjoy my big guns more.

The monte carlo designed so liked by Elmer was not a bad design to absorb recoil but it took a lot of recoil up, the American classic takes it all back..The English split the difference with some back and some up, I like the English design with some minor changes of my own..

Ol' ELMER has stated on print and conversations that his design pulled his stock away from his cheek during and thereby giving him great enjoyment with all big bore bolt guns.

You can always be assured that Elmer had things how they were for a reason having to do with functionality, as he was not an arm-chair sportsman. His writings and wisdom are timeless. So much of what he said 40-60 years ago is just being "rediscovered" today as if it were something new... God Bless him, I'd have loved to have met the man. I do have one of his signed books and have read all his work over and over again. He was nothing short of a marvel...

quote:

I don't move much when I shoot a 375 (or a 416 for that matter), but I damn sure feel it all the way down in my spine. I bet if I lost 30 pounds (the max I could lose and still like the way I look)I might enjoy my big guns more.

I've shot the big guns at 220 pounds and I've shot them at 180. Going by what I read in the gun press I'm just a big sissy, because heavy rifles hurt me regardless of my weight.

I said I didn't move, I never said I enjoyed getting belted by that damn 416 Remington.

The two best stocks for recoil for me so far, are a thumbhole and that big A-Square.

I'm bigish, about 230Lbs & 6'3" and recoil shy.
Just bought a '76 M70 .458 standard, except for a "spongy" butt pad.
This gun has never hurt me, even at the bench.
But, I do get a heck of a shock effect esp. to the head. A few full loads standing is sort of fun. :-)
John.