Bored today and was playing with MS Paint. I used a "drop" of 2.5" that would approximate the drop on a British Double, but in a bolt action length.

I determined the hypotenuse and used the Law of Sines to determine the angle from the bolt lugs to the center of the recoil pad. I then used a cast off of 5/16".

I added the angles and multiplied a hypothetical 100 ft/lbs force times the cosine of the angle and I get 96.24 ft/lbs.

I did the same for a rifle of 0.75" drop and returned 98.49 ft/lbs.

If you look at the rifle punching straight through your shoulder you can see there would be no reduction in the force. The drive from an angle reduces the force.

Having watched many hunting videos I think the best are Sullivan's, in the sense that his videographer is right behind him for virtually every shot. I particularly liked his one where he is using his .577 Nitro. There is a shot at the end where he takes one at a buff, the video is practically right down the barrel. You can see his head remains upright. The same as his other one where he hits the buff with his .600 and it falls down at his feet then he shoots it behind the head.

I look at these then wonder why I am getting tossed around so much. I am 5' 7" and 200 pounds. I would like to drop my .500 into a double style stock and see how it felt.

It looks like Roger is playing trig again. It's fun sometimes to do some of these calculations, especially the stuff related to the shooting hobby. Have fun calculating and shooting! Thanks!

Mingo,

I kept wondering for the longest time why the English had those knarly shotgun level drops to the heel. Then I start watching all these flicks with people using serious iron. Then I purchase my .500 and have a religious experience; I fired the thing.
You look at some of the older American rifles and you can see the gradual transition from receiver sights to glass. The comb heights crawl up right along with the quality and reliability of the optics. The "American Classic" style isn't "classic" at all, it is a new outgrowth of simply having to have your eyeball much higher above the stock to look throught the 'scope.

I emailed Butch Searcy since I felt he should know considering all the doubles he builds. He was kind enough to take the time to send an email back agreeing with me. He told me he gets all kinds of strange looks when he tells people a good drop will reduce the recoil.

On the other hand we have the "perceived". The only way for me to experiment with that would be to build a stock and see if it works...even then it would be subjective unless I used slow motion film to capture body movement.

[ 04-15-2003, 07:57: Message edited by: Roger Rothschild ]

Roger

You can easily experiment with a rifle with more drop in the stock. Shoot a M70 pre-64 with an early style of stock. They kick the crap out of you compared to a stock with half of the drop.

Perhaps, a rifle with the drop needed for open sights does generate less recoil in the horizontal plane. The pivot point of the stock with more drop is lower which causes the rifle to recoil more in the vertical plane. Quite a bit more, in fact. It would be interesting if you could calculate that out.

Just my opinion

R. Kehr

The force going straight back will be less with more dropp but recoil will not disapear, the remainder will travel in an other direction, uppwards perhaps. Laws of physics

Rodger- More drop in the stock causes it to climb like hell! With a scope on the gun, this is a perfect recipe for those 3 stitch scope cuts that ruin your shooting foreever! Some of those old British doubles were very muzzel heavy to compensate for this effect. I find that the most tolerable recoil is straight back!-Rob

I would rather take the recoil in my shoulder than in the forehead, so I prefer less drop on a stock.

Rob and 500
Ditto to what you said. I once had an absolutely beautful Remington 3200 skeet gun. Full feather crotch in butt and forend. That thing just slapped the hell out of my cheek every time I shot it. Too valuable to alter the stock. I finally just sold it.

For me, I will take it in the shoulder. Leave my face alone, thank you very much!

R. Kehr

shoulder....
cheek SUCKS.. and foehead... well (rubbing scars) takes MONTHS to get the flick out
jeffe