I can never remember whether a straight stock or
a "drooping" stock transmits the most recoil, and
why? Seems like if the recoil is xx pounds, it
should all reach the shoulder. Thanks.

577 NE (My favorite double caliber!)...You're right...a given force out the front will mathematically create a given force out the back, but a couple things can make the force seem less (or more severe). One is recoil velocity...how rapidly the gun comes back in recoil. The bigger, slower cartridges seem to elongate the recoil cycle...a big push vs a sharp jab. The stock comb, shape and attitude (angle) also matter. A straight stock tends to come straight back, allowing the body to absorb the forces. A drop comb tends to force the rifle not only back, but up, during recoil, getting your cheek/head into the process. This may create a "perception" that the recoil is greater. Stock LOP also matters...too short and the top of your fist on your shooting hand bangs up against your nose, and the trigger guard cuts into the back of your 3rd finger behind the guard.

So the delivery of 100 lbs of recoil force can feel quite differently, depending on these factors. There's the common analogy..would you rather be pushed in the chest by a 300lb guy, or punched in the chest by a 170lb boxer....same overall force, but the delivery makes its "perception" quite different.

If you aren't comfortable with a rifle, you won't shoot it; not often and not well. So it pays to do as much as you can to mitigate it, and if you can't, maybe a step down in caliber is in order. Hope this helps.

Biebs is right. A straight stock is best. Some bolt guns are even made with a comb that drops rear to front, causing the rifle to recoil away from your face.

The butt pad is also important. You need a wide one. I have an old Winchester Model 12 12 gauge shotgun with a pointy toe. It is impossible to shoot 25 target loads with that thing without getting a black and blue mark.

I also like a wide enough forearm to grasp the stock reasonably tightly with my left hand, absorbing some of the recoil. I don't like little bitty splinter stocks which make you grasp the hot barrels to do the same thing.

Hmmm! Not sure I agree but others know more. The concensus seems to be that the hogback or European stock is better for heavy recoiling rifles. Better in terms of "perceived recoil". Obviously perception is the key word here. The other issue of course is height of comb especially as it may affect eye alignment with scope or open sights.
Just my .02 Peter.

Peter, a hogsback and a Weatherby stock work in pretty much the same fashion. From the point of contact between the shooter's face and the stock, the comb actually slopes down as it moves TOWARD the action, so when the rifle recoils back, the cheekpiece actually moves down away from the face as it moved rearward. Keeps you from getting a faceful of recoil. Shoot an old Model 12, or a Kentucky BP rifle, with a heavy loading and you'd swear you just touched off a 700NE!

quote:

Originally posted by 577ne:
I can never remember whether a straight stock or
a "drooping" stock transmits the most recoil, and
why? Seems like if the recoil is xx pounds, it
should all reach the shoulder. Thanks.

They both transmit the same amount of recoil. With respect to perceived recoil, correct fit and design for use with the INTENDED SIGHTS are equally important.

With respect to rifles with material recoil, correct fit is a given. If it doesn't, it won't be pleasant to shoot. A rifle that fits perfectly with a scope won't fit for iron sight use, and vice versa, so it needs to be stocked for the primary system.

Proper fit with iron sights that are mounted properly (fairly low to the bore) will have some drop at heel and comb. If it doesn't, it won't point correctly when mounted quickly and naturally. Proper fit for a scope will have a fairly straight comb.

quote:

A straight stock tends to come straight back, allowing the body to absorb the forces.

Generally true with a scope, but not with sights. A straight stock used with irons forces the shooter to scrunch to get to the sights, causing transmission of recoil to the face. Straight stocked iron sight rifles are the most common cause of gun headache for me.

quote:

A drop comb tends to force the rifle not only back, but up, during recoil, getting your cheek/head into the process.

Not true at all. Drop at heel and comb doesn't cause transmission of recoil to the face. Bad fit and worse stock design do. Properly fit and designed, the stock will have adequate cast for the shooter, and a comb that is a straight taper from a thick butt to a thin, unfluted nose. With correct cast and comb taper, the comb slides AWAY from the shooter's face under recoil, transmitting the recoil to the shoulder, instead of the head slap from a poorly fit stock with a thick comb and bulbous, fluted nose. The straight taper comb is one of the attributes of the British design, and it works. I've never had a heavy British double rifle that was a reasonably close fit hit me in the face.

Whether irons or scope are chosen, the rifle must fit, or it won't come on target quickly and naturally, and recoil will be amplified. Once fit is accomplished, design becomes crucial.
--------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

It somewhat depends on whether it fits, but there are different definitions of fit. A straight stock has less perceived recoil for me regardless of whether it has a scope or not. My poor son gets whacked badly in the cheek with guns that don't bother me at all. He needs an even straighter stock.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
My poor son gets whacked badly in the cheek with guns that don't bother me at all.

So you are saying a lifetime of getting whacked in the face has left you desensitized to its effects? 'Splains a lot.....

Thanks for all that information. I've one gun with which I get hit in the nose, and another which bruises my middle finger really bad. Maybe
having Butch make the proper measurements, then
having a double custom made would solve problems.
Seems like there are enough variables that you take some risk buying sight unseen.

I find two factors affect felt recoil in my case. One is the width and shape of the buttplate and the other is cast-off. I have two BP guns I use regularly. One is a .62 cal German "Steutzen" short rifle (AKA "Jaeger") and the other is a 20 gauge NW Indian Trade Musket. Both are flint. For whitetail I use the same load in each - a .615 round ball on top of 120 grains of fffg powder. The NW gun has a very straight stock with a narrow, flat buttplate. The Steutzen has a very wide contoured buttplate and the butt of the rifle is cast off to the right allowing the face to come naturally to the sights without "scrunching". The Steutzen is an absolute delight to shoot and, as mentioned earlier here, the considerable recoil is felt as a push rather than a smack. The NW Gun, however, leaves one walking away wondering who got the worst end of the deal! Same bullet, same powder charge and approximately the same weight guns.

Interesting.

Tom

Try this.

Shoot an A-Square Hannibal in whatever powerful calibre you wish. Then draw your own conclusions.

This is the ONLY rifle designed from the gitgo with legitimate methods of perceived recoil reduction (i.e., no muzzle-mounted recoil reducers)foremost in mind. Good engineering ALWAYS works. Hell for stout action, too (P-17).

These things said, not exactly the Jennifer Aniston of firearms. No checkering, either.

YMMV, but I bet it doesn't.

quote:

This is the ONLY rifle designed from the gitgo with legitimate methods of perceived recoil reduction (i.e., no muzzle-mounted recoil reducers)foremost in mind.

Not even close to true.
------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Will is correct in that some stocks may be fine for one shooter and cause pain for another.

Let me also say, that I have hunted side by side with 400 Nitro Express, on SEVERAL occasions, and very few, if anybody, can shoot on live game, any faster and any more precise than he can.

Another aspect of stock fit that is seldom mentioned is the pitch of the stock. In other words how much of the upper chest muscle the butt pad contacts. Different people have a different slope angle of the muscle depending on how you are built and how muscular you are. If just the toe of the stock contacts your upper chest muscle, the rifle is going to be very painful to shoot no matter how well it is fit in the other measurements.

465H&H