Perhaps this has been covered in a previous topic, but as I'm new to the board, I'll risk redundancy and post anyway.

Could some of the more experienced shooters of the larger bores provide some thoughts on stock design for the thumpers? Specifically, profile of the stock would seem to be an important consideration. I've read some articles where brief mention was made that the stock had too much drop (for a 458, 505, etc). It appears to me that drop at the comb and at the butt should be carefully considered for a hard kicking gun. Also, we Americans seem to prefer straighter stocks and European and English stocks typically have more drop. Is that because we tend to do so much shooting from the bench? Does one design or the other seem to make recoil more manageable when the gun is fired from a standing position as these should be? Also, depending on the sights (I'm talking iron for now), a straight stock might require the cheek be pressed more firmly to the stock for proper sight alignment.

I realize there are other factors affecting felt recoil than just drop, ie., surface area of the butt. I'm assuming a large rifle will have a butt of decent cross-sectional area. Are there any other factors regarding stock design that are important?

Below are two different links to photos for large bore rifles that I think represent different approaches to stock design.

http://www.sigarms.com/sigarmsweb/mauser_magnum1.htm

http://www.winchester-guns.com/prodinfo/catalog/cstmguns/70afrexp/70afrexp.htm

I often think not enough attention is paid to this topic.

The modern high straight comb design is absolutely the best thing going in stock design. It really does help tame the kick and help you get back on target faster. The new M70 design is by David Somebody or Somebody Davis (I'm suffering a brain fart), it has received a lot of praise.

Don

The new M70 stock is a David Miller design. Another consideration is the profile of the pistol grip and fore-end. You want them to fill your hand enough to be able to hold on to.

I totally disagree, the American classic is strictly designed for scoped rifles and is impossible to shoot irons or as a compromise...

Once again the English and the Germans have showed us that we are still remaking the wheel...they went through all this 100 years ago....Holland and Holland, Rigby and the bloody English new what was needed in a DGR rifle, short forends, barrel band sights and swivels, egg cheekpiece or no cheek piece at all, a little drop and a lower comb for iron sight work and offhand shooting, and yes they work just bloody fine with a scope, Hunters been using them for 100 years that way and so did the old Americans with the low comb M-70,s, but Lord, listen to the howls of the less experienced about how you can't shoot a low comb gun with a scope, to this I say HORSEHOCKEY, YOU HAVE NOT TRIED IT.....All my guns have iron sights, detachable scopes and low combs, and I can shoot as well as anybody....No brag, just stating a fact to make a point...

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

I think that Ray is correct in that the modern American classic stock is too straight to make a good offhand stock. A stock with more drop at the heel is a much more natural offhand rifle. The straight stocks make a pretty decent prone rifle.
Some of the European rifles go too far in the other direction. I recall one Ferlach built mauser which, when you shouldered it, lined you up beautifully with the cocking piece! With the scope in it's claw mounts installed my neck wasn't long enough to allow me to look through the scope. A little too much drop for sure. Regards, Bill.

Another factor in reducing felt recoil of the big rifles is the the butt dimensions of a proper stock for a big caliber rifle will be that of a large recoil pad, most american classic designs are made to a dimension of a medium or even a small recoil pad. The larger the area of the shoulder that contacts the butt, the less it hurts.

Ray is right. Ditto Ray on this one. Not everything he says is gospel, but almost everything is. He only gets confused occasionally. He is human after all, but a man of vast experience.

Right on Ray!

Regarding drop of stocks and iron sights and scopes: One cannot have his cake and eat it too.

------------------
Good huntin', Bwana Ron

ZERO?? Did you read this thread??!

Ray this isn't for a big bore (6mm303) But I'm making a 1 pc full lenth stock on a #4 enfield instead of a barrel band like my BSA Stuezen. Would a lug soft soldered on about 6-8" from the tip work as well.

Rich

Ray. It�s "common knowledge" that a straight stock will reduce the felt recoil in a largebore. As common knowledge usually is only half right at best, I would greatly appreciate some hard data. I will make a laminate stock for my 458 and would like to get it fairly right.

Could you measure the vertical distances from the bore center line to the middle of the comb and to the butt of a rifle that you consider good. Thank you. AKI

Yay Ray,
for a guy that knows nothing about single shot rifle hunting I gotta hand it to you on stock design.
The brits especially, and a good few of the european makers had stocks down to a fine art, and their designs had a lot to do with the "felt" recoil appearing more manageable.
Their stocks also give a far better pointability and handling characteristc to the rifles, scoped or iron sighted.
bjdoerr would be well advised to have a look at some of the Rigby, Holland or Westley Rihard stock shapes for a heavy custom rifle.

Ray is absolutely right.
The argument, that the felt recoil is lower with the low drop design is imagination. You only have to take care for the upwards movement of the rifle. Beware of the scope! But the recoil feeling you can compare with a 44 Mag handgun. A S&W 29 may hurt your wrist, but a Ruger SA flips high in the sky and you feel much less recoil.

------------------

RR,
I don't see where the soft soldered lug would accomplish a thing...In that caliber its not a problem anyway..I would just attach the forend cap to the bottom of the barrel near the muzzle with a small screw,,if I'm reading you right....

To All,
A stright stock of the American design will not work with iron sights unless the irons are as high as scope center line and that would be plumb ugly......A little drop that lets you get a comfortable and quick look at your iron sights is the best of all and the scope will do fine also...It is not even a compromise to me, I like the set up....

The only thing that reduces felt recoil is less powder and less bullet as far as I'm concerned....

Remember the gunwritter that said a composite stock absorbed recoil??? what a dumb butt he was and some folks bought that without considering the 2 Lbs of weight reduction in the stock, now wouldn't that bring the reduction back up??? unless of course it was all in your mind in the first place....

the older I get the more I realize the English and the Germans had it all figured out and we screwed it up, but have had a ball reintroducing everything they did, re: RUM's, Mausers, stock design, double rifles, all our wildcats saw daylight 100 yrs ago...

Our latest is the development of cartridges on the 404 case, Lord the English went every way in the world with that one, and Dakota, Remington and a bunch of other followed a century later, albiet renamed them conviently, Even old Ackley tried all of them..At least he gave credit to the developers. Remington designed the 416 Rem., George Hoffman had been using it for half a century..

I predict our next brain fart will be the belted case, wow!! something new to redesign the world of gundom, but I'm getting ahead of myself now, that will be down the road 50 years from now....I suspect.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

Could the American straight stock be a result of the early propensity for tang sights and their respectively higher profile?

------------------
~Holmes

Ray (& others),

How do you rate the stocks on the modern CZ550? There seems to be alot of conflicting
reports on these. What do you mean by an egg
cheek piece??

Thanks,

Pete

Well I for one disagree to a certain degree but only can base this on a .358 Norma and 458 G&A.
Having purchased 359 Norma used 3rd owner and receiving original box of shells with 7 fired rounds in it.
I proceeded to chamber and fire this rifle instant head ache. This was also the same time frame I was likely shooting 500 rounds a week trap so was used to a fair amount of recoil.
By replacing the stock with a Bishop straight this rifle tamed down and shoot many animals over the next 20 years.
Granted this was scoped.
My 458 Bruno was also a bear with the factory stock again taming down considerable with proper stocking.
I agree that the whole stock design must be taken into account for comfortable usage.
Then again can never truly remember recoil on a game animal it just seems not to exist.

[This message has been edited by dcan (edited 04-08-2001).]

Well, I will agree with Ray up to a point. I have a couple of old Winchesters, one with the original factory rear receiver sight. I don't know if that was a normal of the shelf or special factory option. Anyhow, these old Winchesters have a bit of drop at the stock.

I scoped one of them, a .270. With the steel buttplate, this thing has a vicious recoil all out of character to a .270. A friend didn't believe it and was invited to have a go, he sat there with a pretty amazed expression after the first round. The others are better.

So I will say that the old M-70 stocks can be scoped, but are certainly not a first choice with me.

Another friend picked up a CZ-550 with the European style stock and iron sights and for me it was just perfect. I couldn't believe that this relatively inexpensive factory rifle felt so good. I may have to get one for myself. In .416 or something just to have another impractical rifle.

On reinventing the wheel...

Yup, my .338 RUM is a .338/.404 Jeffreys, the new .300 WSM is the old .30 Howell or 30/348 AI or several others based on the .348. They aren't quite the same, the dimensions are a little different and the brass is a little thicker but the apple didn't fall too far from the tree.

I sure didn't mean to be the last word in what is right or wrong...I was simply saying what is correct for me...

I'm sure facial and body configuration have a lot to do with what is right or wrong for an individual....Sharp combs and narrow butt plates have no effect on me...A too high comb hurts my cheek and gives me head aches..
the old m-70 with or without a scope has no effect on me at all..

AKI,
Depending on your stature, about 2-1/4 to 2-1/2 at the heel and an inch lower at the comb seems about right for most shooters.

Pete,
An egg cheek piece is a European Oval as opposed to an American classic style that flows into the grip...Actually a cheeck piece of any style is little more than extra weight and decoration, commonly know as proud flesh in Texas.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Atkinson:
Ray,
I think you hit the nail on the head. Individual shooting styles will dictate the style of stock that is best for each person and nothing is in stone. I personally like the straight stock with a large but pad area as in a large size Pachmayer. The other thing is that the length of pull is correct for the individuals shooting style. I like to lean in on the big bores and therefore put my cheek hard down on the stock and my sights are always there for me. The other thing I did on all my stocks that I built for my big bores is cut the stock off close to 90 degrees to the bore of the rifle. When they go into recoil they come back very straight and are very quick to get back on target. This also makes it so that you don't loose sight of your target because of high muzzle jump. It's not for everyone but most everyone that has shot my rifles liked it.

My preference for recoil has been the Wby style stock, which of course has the center of the butt well below the bore as did the od English rifles.

The rifle expends a lot of energy in the upward swing.

However since many shooters say they prefer the stock when the center of the butt is much higher, perhaps our different physical builds mean either type of stock can be "better".

Mike

Pete E and others,

While I can't claim the experience of most here, my own experience with the CZ550 in .458 Win was brutal. The stock did fit well as far as off hand shooting, but I think the pitch of the butt was way off. Similar to 470 Mbogo, I think the pitch should be as close to zero as possible (90 degrees to the bore) on big hitters. The factory CZ stock (don't know if it's called positive or negative pitch) is angled quite a bit. The toe (top part) of the butt really dug into me when shooting. I think it could be improved greatly by simply squaring it off to the bore line.

-redleg

There is no way I can accurately shoot any rifle with my head off of the stock, which is just where it is located with any English or European low combed stock. I use a scope and for that there is nothing better than a straight American classic design. Apparently, many younger English and Euro hunters feel likewise as the last several Rigby and H&H stocks I've examined definitely had an American look to them!

One thing a stright stock will do and that is drive that puppy stright back into your shoulder....I like 2-1/2" drop at heel, 1-1/2 at comb and about 3" of pitch and 5/16 or 3/8 cast off..That works fine with scope or irons. Cast off is what takes up the recoil and makes a gun point...Thick combs, wide butts, and long forends turn me off, they just add bulk and have all the design of a stump.....

People that shoot my Holland and Holland 375 are absolutely amazed at the lack of recoil..It even amazes me and it is thin in the comb, narrow in the butt, with the above measurements....

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

Stock fit is a complex subject. I tried to stay out of this as it is a lengthy subject too. But here goes.

Like a couple of people mentioned there are differing opinions due to a big differance in everyones physical build.

Some factors mentioned that I agree with.

Length of pull, if the stock is too short it will kick the stew out of you.

Pitch, Mbogo has a very good point, the pitch must be minimal, not zero but almost. Not enough and the gun will not mount and point good, too much and it will recoil into your cheek.

Cast off, Atkinson finally brought this out. Cast off is the least known about factor in stock fit to the average sportsman. In terms of reducing recoil it is EXTREMELY important, you can not beleive the differance it makes. In terms of pointing well it is very important. I've had customers brag on the pointing qualities and ability to hit targets and game with a lot of Benelli and Beretta shotguns, when I show them the 3/8 inch cast off in them they understand why old thunder nails birds effortlessly like magic.

Gun manufactorers in the US omit cast off because it costs more. Even when a lot of gunsmiths use a 90 % shaped and inleted stock to build a custom rifle it will have no cast off to simplify machining of the stock. A knowledgeable and skilled custom rifle smith will build your stock from a blank and incorporate cast off and cant to suit your physical build.

I have a Ruger 77 RS African in .458 that handles recoil pretty good. The barrel doesn't raise up much at all, recoil is almost straight back. You guys caused me to put my shoes back on and go unlock the shop and measure the stock. It is: Drop at comb, 5/8". Drop at heel, 3/4" (from centerline of the bore) Pitch, 1". Length of pull 13 5/8".

I agree the butt must be large. And a quality pad made of sorbothane ie Pachmayr Decellerator or Kick EEZ. I prefer Kick EEZ, if you haven't tried one your missing out.

I have no problem seeing the sights on the Ruger 77 RS African even though the comb is very high and straight, could be the large barrel diameter and fairly high sights. Which ever I can use the sights with out pressing my cheek too hard to the comb.

Somewhere down the road I intend to build a stock bending fixture like they use at Purdey and a lot of other european establishments. Then I can alter cast off, drop and cant on factory stocks and semi inletted stocks too.

Good Hunting To All
Craftsman

So Ray how do these dimensions relate to the CZ magnum stock and or the Brockman's workingmans stock you refered to on the other post? I am going through the decision making process on "restock or not to restock" on the CZ 416. The current stock feels pretty good and has some nice figure in it. Thanks "D"

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Atkinson:

I see a small descrepency here. The original question about stocks was for a big bore rifle in 458 or 505 Gibbs. Ray mentioned that his rifle was a 375. I punched in a 375 shooting a 300 grain bullet at 2600 fps out of a 10 lb rifle. The powder load 85 grains. The recoil calculation came back at 39.8 ft lbs. and recoil velocity at 16 ft./ sec.It is an entirely different senario when when the original question is pertaiming to recoil in the area of 60 to 90 ft. lbs and recoil velocities of around 22 ft./sec. I'll still take a straight stock with a large surface area and a Pachmayer triple X magnum pad. I've tried the Kick Eze pad and although their selling point was dropping a steel ball down a tube and showing how the ball didn't bounce compared to other recoil pads I found them to not be very forgiving on big kicking rifles. The ball didn't bounce but the pad is still very firm. Have a gunsmith fit a triple X magnum pad and see what you think.

Seems to me that a good shot can adapt to any reasonable stock. Someone like Ray will be able to shoot a canoe paddle. Ever nottice how really good shotgun shooters can shoot any shotgun?? Same thing. As for Americans and stratight stocks. We mount the scope and never take it off. We do take off the iron sights. I think that idea gets transposed onto large bores too.

Ray, finally got around to mentioning "cast off" this may be one of the most important aspects of quik or snap shooting in an emergency. NO...factory fits me...of cource I as short necked and heavy chested. I need about 3/8" cast off and a little more drop to use iron sights. I also, like a thinner and longer pistol grip, to keep your second finger a little further back to keep it it from getting hammered. I like a little thiner at the top of the butt stock with a small neat check peice. If shooting a kicker I like a wider than average recoil pad this inturn causes a taper towered the front and the recoil slides away from the face. But every body is built a little different. I do not know where they came up the the "average person" I don't think I ever saw one.
George

P.S. bjdoerr... I might be in Alanta sometime in June to have some cancer treatment maybe we could get together and talk rifles. I know I will get bored. If there is a SCI chapter there I can bring my slides and do a little presentation on here to shoot dangerous game etc. Just a thought.
George

[This message has been edited by George Hoffman (edited 04-25-2001).]

Bwana Hoffman,
You will do well. You are a fighter and have a positive attitude. That is the "big stick" that will make you go far. Heck, any of us that live long enough will get prostate cancer eventually. It is a slow cancer and responds well to treatment.
Best Regards,
Ron Berry

------------------
Good huntin' and shootin',
Bwanawannabe, Daktari Ron

Ron,
Thank you for the encourging words. I need to get this over with so I can get back to Africa. It is getting where I can't get to sleep at night because I cannot hear the lions roaring and the leopards sawing.
Thanks
George

Can anybody esxplain what "pitch" relates to in a stock??

Craftsman,

Are saying that given the correct tools ect
a good gunsmith can add a little castoff to
a standard factory rifle stock in the same
way they can to a SXS shotgun?? Briefly saw a demo once with a guy pouring hot oil over
a sxs stock while it was held in a jig. Is this the way it is done?? Do the better custom gun makers use some sort of "trygun"
when fitting a customer for abolt gun??

Regards,

Pete

Do any of our stockmaking members do castoff alterations? Does the alteration affect the strength of the stock? What should this cost? I have a double that's a good candidate for this procedure, but have not been able to find a good stockmaker to do it.

Jim

Thanks to everyone for their inputs. This subject is more complex than I originally thought. And it makes sense that since everyone is built a bit differently, there will be individual preferences in stock design.

I for one tend to favor the straighter approach to stock design as I don't mind that puppy coming straight back. Then again, I'm not massively built and don't offer much resistance and my shoulder and torso "give" to the recoil.

I also appreciate comments on pad size and construction as well as Ray's comment on cast off. I have a couple of Schultz & Larsen's, one in 358 Norma Mag, which incorporate castoff and I don't much mind the recoil.

I guess if you've got the bucks, it pays to make a trip to your stockmaker and get measured out properly and discuss fit with him before the wood is shaped.

Pete E

The video you saw using hot linseed oil to bend stocks is the accepted method. This particular video was filmed for the Custom Gunmakers Guild, the gentleman doing the work was Bill Nitler, trained by Purdey. He is retired now.

I also have his book and drawings for the fixture for this setup. As I said earlier, I plan to build one somewhere in the future.

A lot of custom stockers use a try stock, some of them have been doing it so long they can come pretty close by your physical build and refine it from there.

Living in the UK, you should be close to a lot of skilled stockers and smiths set up to bend stocks too, as the art was developed and is more in use over there.

Mbogo, bending an existing stock does not affect it's strength using hot oil, the only time it would is if someone uses steam which makes the wood brittle for some reason. In fact it does not even affect the original finish on the wood.

I am currently not set up to do it but I think there are a couple of smiths here in Texas that probably do. Kirk Merrington comes to mind, he's a premeir double barrel smith trained in Europe and also is a top notch instructor for NRA gunsmith classes on high grade doubles.

If you like I'll shake some bushes and come up with a couple of names for you to check with.

Good Hunting,
Craftsman

Craftsman,
Thanks for the reply. I can't turn loose of the double until after my trip to Africa in July, but I would certainly be interested in getting it done after that. If you come up with any names I would greatly appreciate hearing from you.

Jim

Bending stocks is very tricky business and few will do these days and thoes that do are extremely high priced...It is just too damn easy to break the stock, if it has a flaw or you push a little hard or it dries a little fast or slow, Lord knows what else...personally I'd rather build a new stock...

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

Howdy. Mike Brown the newbie here.
If I may, first off, Ray is 'spot on' about cast off being a great recoil reducer. Gunmaker John Ricks and I are testing and modifying stocks right now, to determine the correct stock for my 6'4" 300 lb frame. I have the luxury of being able to go outside to the shop and carve samples all day(or until my feet hurt) as I bought Wiesners 5 spindle duplicating machine from Chehalis Wa.
We are currently building a 416 on a stainless 700 action, and a 404 Jeffries on a virgin Argentine action, blued of course. I looked through the 700 different patterns that came with the machine, and found NOTHING close to what I needed for a iron sighted big bore gun. So...I started with a stock 700BDL stock, and started cutting, sawing, dropping, lengthening, bending, Bondo-ing, gluing and cursing until I now have what I think is the right stock for me. I don`t give a rats potato what looks stylish or proper. I want a gun to fit and shoot right. Here`s what I ended up with:
Wider... I added some wood to the sides of the stock, especially near the action, as 700`s are too damn thin, and flex til they crack. I made the butt fit a large Decelerator pad, so it is wider by a 1/4" or so. I also made the butt a bit taller.
Length: I lengthened the grip by almost an inch. To do this, I moved the comb rearward. I also added a bit of meat to the wrist for strength, with a VERY slight swell at the palm, just enought to where I can feel it in my hand. Looking straight down on the wrist will show it, but you have to look for it.
Comb: Lowered it to 3/4" and 1-7/8"
Cast off is at least 3/8" and some say 1/2!
As Ray said, why add weight out front on a gun with a 25" barrel? The barrel may get shortened a bit after trial shooting tests.
The forearm tapers up from the mag to the tip quickly.
For testing purposes, I dropped in a 30.06 barrelled action to a factory stock, fired it, then did the same with my modified stock(actually a maple duplication of my modification).
I am ruined forever! I will never be able to enjoy shooting a factory American gun now!
The modified gun whips up fast, and you are looking RIGHT DOWN THE BARREL!!! It is so natural that I wonder why I didn`t do this years ago! Recoil is without a doubt less than with the factory stock. The Maple stock by the way, weighs LESS than the factory garbage walnut stock, so all things being equal, would lend to harder recoil....
The test stock I made has a medium sized cheek American style, but after looking at stocks till I`m blue in the face, I am modifying it to the "egg style"... so I guess there shall be at least a modicum of vanity built into the stock, hehe.
The reason steam is so bad is that it actually heats the moisture in the wood, to the point the it turns to steam and ruptures the cellular walls, which weakens the wood. I cut and sell hi grade spruce for wing spars for the antique aircraft restoration industry, so have enough knowlage on that subject to be dangerous. My customers will not buy wood that was kiln dried, and put it in an airplane wing. The loss is quoted at 10 to 15% in bending loads.
I would worry that hot oil will do the same thing, but am no authority on that one. Better to hire me to cut a new stock, hehehehe.
There`s the Bear`s two cents worth.
Back to "Lurk" mode

I just had a laminated piece of Turkish Walnut turned and a few things of note..

I had a a nice piece of old turkish that was plain on one side so I laminated it and had them put the pretty stuff on the outside and the plain in the middle, looks great..So I destined it to my 9.3x64 FN Mauser.

So I sent it off to be turned on my personal pattern stock that has 3/8" cast off.

The cast off made the laminate lines off center and it takes a little getting used to. but its looking better all the time and laminate like plastic, ain't a thing of beauty to start with....It is 100% functional.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

I recently saw one of Remingtons new DGR rifles at a gunshow. It was in .375 UM with a lamininated stock. The stock was so straight that I could not acquire the open sights when I shouldered it. The fellow that had it said it was one of Remintons first rifles that he got from Reminton at a dealers convention and they had only fired it with a scope. His comment was "Well you probably would only use it with a scope." Just an observation.
Ralph