Excerpt from an article comparing recoil of the .416 Rigby in American straight-stocked rifles vs. the CZ �hogback.� Any comments?

�I believe Jack O�Connor did dangerous-game hunters a great disservice with his unrestrained advocacy of the straight stock. He actually said that a straight stock reduces recoil, which is neither true nor even possible. All any stock can do about recoil is direct it. O�Connor did make a true statement when he said that a straight stock directs all recoil into the shoulder. Now, O�Connor was a tall, lanky college professor with a long neck and thin-cheeked, bony face who was an admitted stock-crawler and mostly liked to shoot small-bore rifles (�miniature rifles,� the English call them) from sitting and prone positions. Since a .270 Winchester has no recoil to speak of, a shooter sitting on a rock or lying on the ground can pretty much get by with a rifle stock that fits as well as a sharp stick. On the other hand, a big-bore shooter standing up on his hind legs, with a proper weld on the cheekpiece of his stock rather than stretching his neck out far enough to bump his nose into the cocking piece of his bolt, is quite willing to let his heavy-recoiling rifle expend a little of its energy rolling back and lifting the muzzle of his gun rather than delivering it all to him personally. Thus the greater drop-at-heel and pitch that is characteristic of even factory-made English and European rifles of any substantial caliber. Only a typical academic mind like Jack O�Connor�s could make the senseless argument that a certain kind of stock reduces recoil by directing every last foot-pound straight into a tender part of the shooter�s body.�

You'll find me in O'Connor's corner on this one. He an I aren't built the same eigther.

Chuck

O.K., the recoil has to go somewhere. Would I rather take it in the shoulder and roll with it or take it in the thinly covered cheekbones? Hmmm, I vote for the shoulder, even with a "proper weld on the cheekpiece". Now, I fear that I ain't lanky any longer, but I am slab-sided on the right side of the face. Maybe a fatter comb or something is in order but until I can have all my rifles re-custom fitted by someone who has a degree in ergonomics as well as a wizardry with a chisel, I think I'll stick with Jack.

..fully agree, insofar as my 9.3 ou double with a euro-style 'hogback' stock is concerned...the felt recoil is so miniscle as to be nearly un-noticeable, even after 20 rounds, and leaves but a reddish rash on my shoulder...

...on the other hand, a 12 bore side-by-side with a straight english grip and stock after 25 rounds kicks somewhat harder, but leaves large black bruises on my shoulder afterwards...

I have owned and shot a great many centerfire rifles, including "kickers" such as the .338 Win., the .375H&H and the hot loaded 45-70s I use for bear protection. My most comfortable rifles to shoot have been my Dakota with it's straight stock and a Clifton stock which was a copy of the Dakota. I sold a gorgeous Browning F.N. .375 which had the Monte Carlo comb because it recoiled too much.



I am short, stocky with an 18" neck, 46" chest and a full face. I crawl my stocks and find that a straight stock with a full comb works best for me; the old Ruger 77s felt good too, with max. .338-250s. The Ruger RSM .375 was a pussycat, but, too heavy for a working rifle where you must carry it all day, in steep country.



I might add that my Merkel drilling, in 9.3x12ga. has the hogback which bothered me at first, but, now I am getting used to it. The Brenneke 1.25 oz. slugs out of it are quite managable, but, they do get your attention!

See my comments at the Big Bores Forum. For a bolt action rifle, O'Connor's preferred straight comb, American Classic style stocks are absolutely superior, and he couldn't have been more correct.

AD

Where from is this hypothetical article, and who is the hypothetical author?

This just sounds like so much bullshit...including the conclusion about straight stocks.

Whatever else may or may not be true of them, hogback stocks are grotesquely ugly, but straight stocks are beautiful. I also think that rifle stocks with any drop are less beautiful than straight ones, and the more drop the uglier they are.



See this picture of a D'Arcy Echols/Tom Burgess .416 rifle on a re-worked Enfield action.



www.hallowellco.com/Echols%20Burgess%20416.htm



That rifle, with its straight stock, is one of the most beautiful pieces I've ever seen.



Compare it with two from Saeed's collection. The first is a .22 with its ugly hogback stock on a Brno action:



www.accuratereloading.com/rc19.html



The second is a Holland and Holland Best Quality Magazine Rifle in .244 H&H magnum. This one is not quite as ugly as the hogback Brno, but compared with the Echols-Burgess piece, the Heym .600 Nitro Express pictured just under it, or even Remington 700 Classics, Ruger 77s, or other rifles with properly made stocks, it is a dog:



www.accuratereloading.com/rc13.html

I agree with Will. Who wrote that nonsense?

I dunno......I think it depends on the stock fit to the individual . I wear 36 inch sleeves,

have a 46 inch chest , a long neck and high cheekbones . I have found that moderate monte carlos like the early post 64 m-70 s fit me pretty well and handle recoil very well for me . I can shoot hot loaded .338 s and .375 off the bench with those old ( and much malingned ) stocks with very good comfort .



In recent weeks I have been shooting a Whitworth .375 . It has the small egg shaped cheekpiece and a fair amount of drop at the heel . It is also quite comfortable and points very , very well with the issue express sights . It is a much better stock for a back up rifle , from my viewpoint , than the very straight stocks on recent M-70 express models. Those stocks would be very slow pointing and , I'm guessing , somewhat uncomfortable to shoot for a person of my body build .



And it is just simple physics that if some of the recoil impulse is converted into muzzle rise , rather than all coming straight back at you , it is going to pound your shoulder a little less..........

True, a hogback should theoreticly hit your shoulder with a little less recoil than a stock with drop at the heel. But I think the issue is what feels more comfortable? I for one HATE getting slapped in the face. Any recoil to the face is much more uncomfortable, and more likely to make me flinch that a straight shot to the shoulder. Maybe i should take up boxing and get my face toughened up some?? Naw, think ill just stick with what works.



I recently shot a friends 1903a3 sporter. It was a heavy rifle and 30-06's arent heavy hitters in the recoil department. His sporter stock had substantial drop at the heel and a slightly raised cheekpiece. Oh my god that thing is nasty to shoot. It really hurts to shoot it. Felt like i was punched in the face. Actually the times ive actually been punched in the face with a fist didnt seem to bother me as much as shooting that rifle. I switched to my scoped 03a3 sporter in a different stock and at least 1.5 lbs lighter. Should recoil more right? What a difference. I was actually smiling as i let it hit me in the shoulder and realized how much i loved the rifle. No face slap. What a pussycat. What a difference stock design makes!

all I know is that hogback stock on my 416 rigby will ruin a good dip of snuff, I guess the 416 part might have something to do with it too.

I personaly don't care for the looks of a "SchweinsRucken" stock. To me the perfect stock would come to your shoulder like a fine shotgun. You could close your eyes shoulder the stock and when you open them you would be looking straight down the center of the scope or sites. To much drop makes me shoot with a head-up style that I'm not accustomed to. I like a bit of cast off to keep the recoil off the cheekbone. I'm just about the opposite of O'Conner physically but like him prefer the Beauty and fit of a straight classic stock.......DJ

Well----- Like the old sailor used to say "Whatever snaps your pipe, sonny!"