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.�

O'Connor was absolutely right, and whoever made those comments needs to take a physics class, or at least refer to Jim Carmichel's, "Book Of The Rifle" and study the section on stocks.



That CZ "hogback" stock is an abomination, and functionally inferior to the American Classic style in all respects.



AD

Re: Allen Day's comment:

AMEN, Amen, and amen. Ol' Jack O'C used a LOT of rifles other than the condescendingly-referred-to "miniatures", and knew whereof he spoke. For instance, he liked the .375 H&H and the .416 Rigby. Carmichael's book is correct, too.

Regards from BruceB (aka Bren Mk1)

First, there is no such thing as the "American Classic" rifle stock. The straight stock can be called "the American Scope Stock", due to the development of reliable glass sights. The real American classic stocks looked quite a bit like the Continental and Bristish classic stocks because prior to glass sights, all had pretty much the same shape since they all used iron sights.

O'Conner had a degree in English I recall. Good thing for writing articles, poor thing for examining relationships in terms of vectors and such.

A straight vector does nothing to reduce force. An angle to the original vector will. With about 2 inches of drop and 3/8ths inch cast off, the reduction is roughly 5 foot pounds.

Just a note of historical perspective.

Not sure who coined the term "American classic" but I believe it was so named in response to the dominance of the Monte Carlo stock and perhaps even the extreme Weatherby designs, which were themselves created in response to the greatly increased use of scope sights after WWII to keep the same drop at heel while maintaining a higher comb and hence higher sight line.

In the late 60's Ruger's Model 77, IIRC, was the first "mainstream" American factory rifle in quite a few years to feature a stock sans Monte Carlo.

Another little tidbit - if you like the Al Biesen stock style that Jack so loved and want a synthetic copy - get a Rimrock. It was designed by Jim Cloward who I believe studied under or at least was a student of Al Biesen.

Now all of you collectors and experts on Biesens don't take my head off if the Rimrock is not completely true to Mr. Biesens "standard", but from what I know of the subject (admittedly not all that much) - it is a pretty close example.

Don't have my references handy so take those last paragraphs with an "If I recall correctly" caveat.

FWIW - that dastardly, bastardly Remington BDL monte carlo stock fits me extremely well, handles recoil well for my body type and face shape and has proven to be equally useful with both scope sights and receiver sights. People come in all shapes and sizes and no one stock shape will fit everybody, so lets not get caught up in the search for the "best stock design in the world next to which everything else totally sucks" - there ain't no such thing. Just get one that feels good and go with it and don't worry if it doesn't fit someone else's idea of perfection.

Besides, subtle differences in stock dimensions can make a lot of difference even if both are of the same style. I had a M70 .375 H&H with a McMillan Winchester Super Grade stock that handled recoil extremely well. My other .375 H&H M70 wears the current factory wood Safari Express stock. Two "American Classic" style stocks, each with the exact same LOP, but the Safari Express jams my thumb knuckle into my nose and whacks my cheekbone on recoil where the Supergrade did neither. I believe it is because of the ever so slightly higher comb of the SE (1/8" higher?) and subtle differences in the pistol grip shape.

Good post Jim . For long , lanky people , a monte carlo can work real well .........

Well, at least that response should make just about everyone happy, but I surely don't buy it!

For those hung up on nomenclature, I call pre-war custom stocks (Griffin & Howe, Linden, Minar, etc.) pre-war stocks (or British stocks in the case of Rigby, H&H, etc.), and I call post-war, Biesen-type stocks American Classics.

I'd invite anyone to shoot a scoped pre-war style G&H or H&H bolt gun in, say, .375 H&H alongside a Biesen, Miller, or Goens rifle in the same chambering, then tell me which stock design handles recoil better.

Likewise, shoot a factory-original Mark V in .300 Weatherby, complete with Weatherby's Monte Carlo stock alongside an Echols custom job in .300 Weatherby with the exact same ammunition and tell me which one not only kicks less, but which one better reduces muzzle jump.

AD

No arguments on that at all, especially comparing the post war "American Classic" as you defined it with those pre-war stocks with thin combs and lots of drop. Generally speaking there are definitely some stock designs which will be better for a larger variety of people. The worst dang kicking stocks I ever shot were on lever actions - a .444 Marlin was the only rifle to ever give me a real, "jerk the rifle off the bags" flinch, and the Winchester Model 94 .30-30 whacks my cheekbone all out of proportion to the power of the cartridge.

I had a nice phone conversation with Mr. Echols one day and learned how he designed his stock to handle recoil. I'd love to get one of those McMillan Legends, unfortunately they don't come in left handed versions as of yet unless one wants to get a laminate.

All I'm really saying is, different strokes for different folks, there's more than one way to skin a cat (or tame recoil) and a few other tired homilies which, tired though they may be, are still true. Maybe with a bit of defensiveness thrown in toward the maligned monte carlo. I mean, they work for me - at least the Remington configuration - so I have no problem with them. If someone else does not like them, that's cool. I don't force my favorite color, ice cream flavor or female somatatype on others and would not accept anyone forcing their personal preferences on me.

BTW, the Miller designed Winchester factory LT stock is a great design and feels great (to me ) and seems to handle recoil very well, although the hardest kicker I've shot in it is the .30-06. One of these days I'm going to send that factory LT off to Rod at Serengeti and have them duplicate it in a couple of their laminates - one to replace the LT on the '06 and the other to replace the factory Safari Express stock on the .375. That should make for a handier .375 and I'd thinking it would stop me from whacking my thumb on my nose to boot.

If you need to talk:



LHSA (Left Handed Shooters Annonomous)

President: C. Charles Nelson

Meeting place: I'm just a phone call away

Tele. # 403-3**-****







Chuck