Did the Brits have the right idea when using the low comb/heel to keep the head and neck upright on the big doubles? Or is the "answer" the "modern" style of straight comb zero drop?

Would the best of both worlds be the huge butt area of the A-Sq Coil-Chek and the drop of the British double?

Have been mulling this over for quite some time now and am formulating an answer for myself.

I know the primary reason for the "modern" style is the use of glass sights and the low comb height was to get the eyes in-line with peeps without having to be Harry Houdini. How did the "modern" style transmogrify to the heavy recoil mitigator?

Wouldn't allowing the rifle to expend energy rotating about a point (your shoulder) rather than driving directly back actually reduce the energy transferred?

I have watched some hunting videos and notice the various .470's, .500's and of course Sullivans .577 and .600 rifles do not appear to punch through the shoulder like on the flicks Saeed has put up of his T-Rex.

Your thoughts appreciated.

Roger,
While I like shooting big bores, I am somewhat recoil shy. I don't mind ~70ft/lbs in a well designed stock, but I can't take 36ft/lbs in a poorly designed on. The case being 416 rem boltvs 450 marlin lever, to give a nice frame of straightline vs lots of drop. I like the recoil pad to have as much contact with my shoulder, throughout the recoil as possible, and lot's O'drop stocks rotate upwards and reduces the effective surface area, thereby causing more felt recoil.

The straigher the stock, and the less drop, the more straightback you will feel, on a given shot. I've seen richard shot his 577 bam, bam, and hold it down, but he's built like captian america. But, at the range, it's BOOOOoooom, muzzleflip, most of the time.

My 500j is being built as a compromise, as the top of the stock, comb, must be lower in a gun designed for iron sights. Or, in this case, I put the cheekpiece at a kinda lower angle (shallower) then if it was a scoped rifle, and I still have a pretty straightback pull.

In the above example, my 416 rem wears a richards microfit old classic stock (as the basis) and the 450 marlin is an 1895. The marlin SUCKS to shoot more than once or twice, due to stock design. I used to have (on semi-perm loan) a 458x2" that was a putty-tat to shoot the same loads with.

We haven't talked about extreme stocks, like the weatherby design, as that's not "classic" in the context, I believe. Nor can one shot irons sights comfortabley, if the gun is step for a scope. But, for the sake of completeness, that stock design is meant to get the cheekpiece AWAY from your face, and the recoil into your shoulder.

I think the adage should go "you have X amount of recoil: Part of it will go into your face (lots O'drop) and Part of it will go into your shoulder (zero drop), you get to pick.

jeffe

Roger,
Yes, the Brits knew what they were doing in stock design.
The human body is capable of an enormous amount of abuse, if you let it occur properly. The trick is to keep everything aligned the way it was made. If you have to lift your shoulder, bend your neck, tilt your head, etc., then you are creating an unatural position. Bones become too close to other bones, cartilage gets out of alignment, etc. The result is pain (and damage)when you recieve a jolt.
Recoil management involves many areas, and stock design is obviously one of them. You are correct in believing that the recoil should not be directed straight into the body. Regardless of comb height, the pad should be considerably lower than the bore line. The idea is to let the muzzle rise while keeping your upper body steady with the rifle, not the ground. The biggest mistake shooters make is this macho crap about trying to not let the rifle move. Your body should be allowed to flex and return naturally. The hogs back and monte carlo designs are fine if you feel a need for a high comb (sighting purposes).
However, there are other things that are just as important. The stock has to properly absorb the recoil of the rifle. Inletting must be perfect so that the entire stock recoils evenly (without cracking). There are many reasons why proper doubles cost a fortune, barrel regulation is just a part of it.

Rodger- Jeffe is absolutely correct. What you want in a stock for a heavy kicker is as little drop as possible,with as wide a butt pad as possible. With a tripple X pad on it even the rifles with the worst reputations for kicking are easily tamed. With that said, nothing tames recoil like weight and you want the finished rifle to weigh between 10-13 lbs with scope. You also still want it to balance properly. I adjust this factor with lead shot and epoxy both in the forearm and the butt. The rifles that give people the big flinches are those that recoil upwards providing those nasty scopecuts. -Rob

My thinking is along the same line as Rob's. Using the larest butt pad for the biggest recoil absorbing surface and a straight inline stock. I like the recoil of a rifle to come straight back and not to loose sight of my target. I think with less muzzle jump a rifle is quicker for recovery and quicker for a follow up shot. My 470 Mbogo generates 90 ft lbs of recoil and has the above traits yet remains very shootable. http://www.470mbogo.com/RecoilVideo.html With the link you can check out how little the muzzle rise is and how you can stay on target for a follow up shot. This rifle is also set up with a peep sight and you don't have to go looking for it.
Take care,
470 Mbogo

I guess I will be letting you know. I will stock my 458 Lott with an express style (British) open-sight stock; the Griffin and Howe open sight classic to be exact.

Recoil hasn't bothered me much so far, although the biggest thing I have shot in the past 2 years is my 416 Taylor; I adopt the 'roll with it' approach instead of trying to keep the muzzle down tight on the target. I think a lot of shooters do the opposite -- watch them sometime at the range, muscles taut, veins bulging -- I don't know how you can shoot accurately that way. Plus you prime yourself for a flinch.

The Taylor has a relatively straight stock; I will be able to do a limited comparison between them, although they aren't quite in the same league of recoil.

Take care,
Todd

I like a classic english express stock with little drop and 1/8 inch wider in all directions to beef up the stock. My 458 lott has such a stock and hardly kicks at all.