JD,

I'm just back in town and I've got a tremendous amount of work to get done in the next week or so. I haven't had a Merkel in my hands in a while either. I'll shoot you a PM regarding your issue when I come up for air.

First thoughts are:
How open is the grip? Is the "pistol grip" full or more open? Does it start right behind the gaurd or further back?
How long is your stock compared to the shotguns you shoot? Compared to other rifles?

Have you had this issue with other rifles? Have you shot english style staight stocks? If so, any similar issues?

Also, did the nerve damage result from the gaurd hitting your finger or is it pre-existing?

JPK

JD

In regards to the trigger guard bashing your second finger.

That seems to be an indivdidual thing.

A friend of mine had a Chapuis in 470. The trigger guard would bash and even cut his second finger.
Another AR poster and myself shot his gun several times and had no discomfort at all.

You might be relaxing your grip to soon after pulling the trigger, and/or, letting your shoulder colaspe.

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
JD,

I'm just back in town and I've got a tremendous amount of work to get done in the next week or so. I haven't had a Merkel in my hands in a while either. I'll shoot you a PM regarding your issue when I come up for air.

First thoughts are:
How open is the grip? Is the "pistol grip" full or more open? Does it start right behind the gaurd or further back?
How long is your stock compared to the shotguns you shoot? Compared to other rifles?

Have you had this issue with other rifles? Have you shot english style staight stocks? If so, any similar issues?

Also, did the nerve damage result from the gaurd hitting your finger or is it pre-existing?

JPK

JPK, I see where you are going with this, and those were my thoughts as well. I've met JD, and if I remember correctly, he has fairly short fingers, and chubby hands,and is a fairly large man, and In my opinion, one of three things, or maybe all three are the problem.

#1 it is my belief that he is not gripping the pistol grip hard enough, but this may be caused by a pre-existing nerve damage in his hand, causeing him to let go his grip, under recoil.

#2 Beacuse of his thick chest, and arm length, the pull for the front trigger may be too long, if it is he wont have a problem with the back trigger. If the back trigger still lets him get hit, the back to #1!

#3 He had a recoil pad installed on this rifle, and I don't know if the length of pull changed there after, if so, then back to #2 for a pull adjustment. I have a rifle exactly like his, and I don't have that problem.

It is my opinion that he is letting his grip on the pistol grip relax at the moment of fireing the rifle!

I wish we had looked further into his problem at the 4K hunt in june,where we could have had a better chance of finding the problem, but we didn't! Too Bad!

He shoots the rifle very well! on the chargeing Cape Buffalo target he placed two rounds into about 1 1/2" side by side in the brain portion of the target before the target got to him from 30 feet, moveing quite fast! His shooting, under pressure, is not effected, and that's good!

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

So, 400 Nitro Express,

You moonin' me because we agree on something?

No, that wasn't aimed at you at all. Sorry you took it that way.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
less drop, EVERY THING ELSE BEING EQUAL, kicks less, everytime

False. By definition, they kick the same. The difference is the way the recoil is transmitted to the shooter. Most can take recoil on the shoulder all day, but not to the face, and that's where the straight stock is at a bad disadvantage when used with irons.

But, hey, all of that has been explained above. The truth is that the myth that drop=recoil has reached the level of religion, especially with American shooters, and the reason is simple. Most American shooters KNOW that nobody else can do it better with respect to every aspect of firearms, and others can't be expected to even get it close to right. As a result, they can't learn from others with more experience (like the British with respect to big bore rifles) who actually HAVE learned how to do it better. American stock design highlights this cultural myopia.

quote:

and, of course, a well fitted little drop stock feels WAY VERY much better than a poorly fitted lots o'drop

A poorly fitted stock is a poorly fitted stock. For a rifle that's to be used with irons, a properly fitted stock must have the correct amount of drop or, by definition, it doesn't fit. A rifle meant for irons with no drop doesn't fit, because it can't...unless your name is "No-neck".
---------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

So, 400 Nitro Express,

You moonin' me because we agree on something?

No, that wasn't aimed at you at all. Sorry you took it that way.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

I didn't, just havin' fun.

JPK

One thing to consider is that Americans spend way too much time shooting off the bench.

British doubles, and British bolt rifles are designed to be shot from hunting positions.

By Manly Men.

Mark,
*I* don't shoot more from the bench than off hand. The total reaction, of a rifles weighing the same, with the same loads, is, of course, the same, but we aren't talking about goofing around in a lab, measuring sums of forces.

which is easier, to push a car that is on level ground or is already headed down hill? the car weighs the same... aebe, the downhill push makes your job easier to move that car.

invert that, and you have minimal drop (level ground) or lots of drop (headed down hill) in terms of recoil.

This is nearly as much of a religous opinion on this matter as folks saying that the amount of powder burnt has no effect on recoil...

I've been reading this thread off and on, and I have to finally jump in.

The intent of a parallel (straight, whatever) comb is not to make a gun shoot high, which seems to be a theme almost all the detractors are throwing out. It's intent is to give the same sight picture, not matter where you place your cheek along the comb. It works ideally for scope sighted rifles and shotguns. It will not work well for a rifle with both irons and a scope, since it can accomodate only one (as pointed out above).

I fully believe that, for a double rifle with iron sights only, it would be the best setup, since your eye would always be at the proper elevation to align with the sights. The problem with this is physical. With a double, which generally has relatively low profile sights, the required drop is so much that a functional stock would be hard to build. If you assume that the drop required (at the cheek) is around 2", take a typical double, mark that elevation on the side of the comb, then run that line forward to the pistol grip. It wouldn't work very well. Generally, the nose of the comb is about as low as it can be made on a double. For a parallel comb, that sets the drop of the whole comb without radically altering the grip. This measurement is much too low for iron sights. It works with scoped rifles due to the high sight line, and is made to work with competition shotguns by using a high sighting plane.
Bottom line is, I think it is a great idea, It would lead to more consistent sight alignment under pressure, and reduce felt recoil to the face. However, given the design of a double action, I don't think it can be made to physically work.

Simply stated, I have never seen or owned a rifle that worked well with both irons and scopes. It can't be done unless the sights stick up to the center of the scope. With a small or medium bore rifle, I would either forget the irons or have a stock which favors the scope. With a heavy double, I would always have a stock on which the irons fit perfectly and then take the punishment when using the scope.

So, the straight comb is for women, right?


So go with a stock made for the fairer sex or man up!

This post reminds me of Bill's famous quote of how do you define sex. In this case how do you define straight comb? If you mean a strict definition in that the comb and heel have exactly the same amount of drop then, in my opinion you have an exceedingly poor fitting stock. In that case if the comb of the stock is correct for open sights, the heel of the stock will be sticking above your shoulder and you will lose some of the recoil absorbing ability of the stock because it does not contact your shoulder. I fit my rifles to have 11/2" drop at the comb and 21/4" drop at the heel. This is a relatively straight stock but it is not exactly straight. I have two doubles in 465 Nitro and 470 Nitro. These measurements are perfect for me and the guns always come up with the open sights perfectly aligned and I don't even have to think about it. I use my big doubled for DG in the Jesse where shots are close and may be needed very quickly. I see absolutely no need for a scope on these rifles. If your eyes are bad and you can't see open sights then you will need another plan. I have two bolt rifles suitable for DG, a 375 H&H and a 458 Lott. Both have scopes fitted. The measurements are exactly the same as for my doubles. I am most concerned about the up close and personal use and have them so fitted. On these rifles I use low power scopes, a Leupold 1X4 on the 375 and a Leupold 2.5 X on the Lott. I find that I have to raise my head approximately 3/4 to 1" higher than when using the open sights. I have never found this to be a problem as I always do several quick shoulder mounts with the rifle as I leave the vehicle to fix in my mind where I will cheek the stock with the sights I will be using on that day. I never even think of it after that. My suggestion is fit your stocks for the most common use you will have for the rifle.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Mark,
*I* don't shoot more from the bench than off hand. The total reaction, of a rifles weighing the same, with the same loads, is, of course, the same, but we aren't talking about goofing around in a lab, measuring sums of forces.

which is easier, to push a car that is on level ground or is already headed down hill? the car weighs the same... aebe, the downhill push makes your job easier to move that car.

invert that, and you have minimal drop (level ground) or lots of drop (headed down hill) in terms of recoil.

This is nearly as much of a religous opinion on this matter as folks saying that the amount of powder burnt has no effect on recoil...

More theory that has no application in the real world and is, again, a gross oversimplification of something that will never be simple. Up to a point, big bores can actually be fun to shoot, and don't have to hurt. Blindly following dogma simply isn't productive.

I know you've never shot a British double that actually fit you, Jeffe. For a 6' guy like me, finding one that does can sometimes be a slight problem - most are too short. In your case...well, they built virtually none to fit knuckle-draggers. Barring a miracle, you're just too big to find one that fits without having a BRITISH stocker re-stock it, and that's very expensive. A close friend just got the bill for his British re-stock, and you can buy a once fired Merkel .470 for what it cost.

The British design just plain works. Earlier this year, I had two weekend-long sessions helping CFA develop loads for his 1927 Holland .465 in preparation for his April elephant hunt. I didn't measure it but it's typical British, so it has significant drop - I'd guess 2 1/4" to 2 1/2" drop at heel, with a 14 5/8" LOP, while I need 15". With full loads (and we fired everything over the chronograph), and despite being too short, it was one of the softest shooting heavy doubles I've ever shot, and I shot it a lot. Same with other British doubles in the .450/.470 group that are roughly close to decent fit. I've shot typical American .375's that gave me a splitting headache in a half dozen shots.

But hey, American big bore shooters aren't having fun if they can't bitch about how much they hurt.
---------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
In that case if the comb of the stock is correct for open sights, the heel of the stock will be sticking above your shoulder and you will lose some of the recoil absorbing ability of the stock because it does not contact your shoulder. I fit my rifles to have 11/2" drop at the comb and 21/4" drop at the heel. This is a relatively straight stock but it is not exactly straight. I have two doubles in 465 Nitro and 470 Nitro. These measurements are perfect for me and the guns always come up with the open sights perfectly aligned and I don't even have to think about it.

Bingo.

The drop on my doubles is virtually the same as yours. You DO realize, don't you, that that amount of drop is EXTREME to the post-modernists here like Jeffe and Will, and is certain to fracture your cheek-bone.
----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

If you mean a strict definition in that the comb and heel have exactly the same amount of drop then, in my opinion you have an exceedingly poor fitting stock. In that case if the comb of the stock is correct for open sights, the heel of the stock will be sticking above your shoulder and you will lose some of the recoil absorbing ability of the stock because it does not contact your shoulder.

I have seen that many a time by shooters of the "classic" stock, even with scopes on bolt actions. The makers are so hung up on getting away from the Monte Carlo that they lose sight of the function of the buttstock.
How about a nice Greener Rational Stock or Continental hog-back?

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:
n your case...well, they built virtually none to fit knuckle-draggers.

hey, i resemble that comment!!

So, that may be the grab, no british rifle fits me, so they call feel like they are beating the crap out of me....

and my monster bigbores DO fit me...

ah, is what is it, no doubt

465 got it right for most builds, 1.5 at the comb and 2.25 at the heel.

As to stocking a doube straight like many do a bolt gun, that makes for a horrible fit IMO..A double should have some drop and some barrel rise on firing, moderation is the key IMO, Too straight drives it into your shoulder and too much drop brings it up to high in front, split the difference and it works well, at least for me in both bolt and double guns.