Lately, looking at submissions on this board it seems that custom styles are moving away from the Jerry Fisher look that was quite prevalent for many years. Seems like longer more gradeful grips and oval cheekpieces are becoming more the norm. Seems like fancy additions and carvings have disapeared.

What is the current prevelent style?

I think it comes down to personal preference. I like the longer, open grip style.

looking at rifle stock designs, it seems stock designs started with no pistol grip at all. What was the 1st rifle to have a pistol grip stock? Historians?

Near as I can tell Jerry Fisher stock designs started with a more closed grip design then opened up in later works.

I see the open grip as a necessity on larger caliber rifles, as it keeps the middle finger from getting banged by the back of the guard by recoil while still giving ample palm purchase with the grip.

Remington Model 30 ?

I notice that ample palm purchase of an open grip requires one to hold the trigger arm higher. It definitely takes getting used to.

What about these football shaped cheekpieces? Do they offer an advantage to a "normal" cheekpiece?

I think the newer generation may go to the close, almost vertical grip what with the AR influence.

An open grip should not take "getting used to", more than a fine straight grip SS shotgun

Like Stuart says, the open grip keeps the "social finger" out of harms way and is an easy carry and easily mounted configuration in the real world of traditional hunting.

Straight grip SxS always banged my "social finger" more than a "normal" grip, but that's maybe just me.

I still like the American classic although I also like the European influence of some straighter grips and Euro cheek pieces. What the hell, I like 'em all!!!!!

Zeke

If you look through Monte Kennedy's "Checkering and Carving of Gunstocks" (1952)..you'll see ALL the makers of the day were prone to use the closer grip style Even an example of Linden's work shows a pretty damn ugly match.22 Pfeiffer; Kerrs, Hearn,Mews,Stegall. Ackley.Dunlap, the Bartletts.etc etc.

A lot of surplus wood in the form of long and large fore ends, roll over cheekpieces, recurved grips with stacks of excotic wood spacers.


It was just the style of the day that paid the light bill!

I guess because I have a long neck? that I like a lot of drop at the toe and all that wood above my shoulder is useless.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
If you look through Monte Kennedy's "Checkering and Carving of Gunstocks" (1952)..you'll see ALL the makers of the day were prone to use the closer grip style Even an example of Linden's work shows a pretty damn ugly match.22 Pfeiffer; Kerrs, Hearn,Mews,Stegall. Ackley.Dunlap, the Bartletts.etc etc.



A lot of surplus wood in the form of long and large fore ends, roll over cheekpieces, recurved grips with stacks of excotic wood spacers.


It was just the style of the day that paid the light bill!

40+ years ago, I built a 25-06 with a square-ish forend and a roll over cheek piece out of a nice chunk of wood. That thing felt (and shot) like a dream but it was pretty ugly once I was a bit more educated. Damn I miss that rifle!!! haha

Zeke

Good taste and quality will never go away completely. A look at old quality European shotguns is one example.

The American classic is an abomination. The fore-end has extra wood hanging out the front. May have worked for Colonel Townsend’s long arms, but isn’t needed. The fat grips may have been do to cheap and breakable Missouri black walnut, but it is clubby.

The English, and even Germans, had it right with their slim and graceful stocks.

Some rifleman rave about Al Biden’s stocks. I agree that they show beautiful craftsmanship, but way too much wood in the comb and worse to my eye is the toe line that aims for the bottom of the trigger guard. To my eye a toe line that intersects the top of the action, probably 3 inches higher looks far better.

Jerry Fisher’s were more streamline than Biden’a. I have had occasion to exam Jerry Fishers. What he nailed was the balance. The only other rifle that I’ve personally handled that I had perfection of balance is a David Miller. Actually, I think that’s where real art comes out in gun making, is getting a perfect balance. I confess that I’ve never handled a Weibe or any number of other makers.

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
The American classic is an abomination. ......


Jerry Fisher’s were more streamline than Biden’a. I have had occasion to exam Jerry Fishers. What he nailed was the balance.......

The only other rifle that I’ve personally handled that I had perfection of balance is a David Miller.

There's no comparison between Jerry's latest stocks and the Miller rifles stocked by Curt Crumb. While they both had/have exceptional attention to detail, the "flavors" of stocks were as different as KC barbecue and French cuisine.

Absolutely different in appearance and style. No argument there.

What they shared, at least for me, is that they had that nice between the hands balance, slight weight forward feel. Subjective, I know. But over the years, some rifles feel quick and “gunny” in my hand.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, I’ve been in hunting camps where I’ve had occasion to hoist other hunters guns. Proud of their synthetic stocks, their rough sounding stainless steel actions and large belled scopes, they handle like a five foot stick of 2x12. And it ain’t just the weight.

There are so many variables in a rifle,ie, density of wood, barrel dimensions from front of receiver to end of barrel, scope and on and on, it’s baffling that a custom maker brings all those variables together into a fine handling gun.

I might add. Everyone is hyper conscious of weight. I have found that there are rifles in the 9.5 pound range that feel as light as an 8 pound gun. All because they are put together right, either by accident or design.

HAR...I'm sure you meant BIESEN...not BIDEN! Anyway,. you mention "balance' that's such a personal interpretation, it would be impossible to say one or the other has "balance"

You're absolutely right on this weight thing. A six pound rifle with a 3 pound spotting scope on top? what were they thinking?

I like this one.

4 decimal places- impressive! Gotta love the power of the internet and computers. As Weibe states (subjectivity) one man's poison is another's pleasure. I suspect good builders fit and fabricate to the individual client, nothing more or less.

Rich, I also like that stock. To my eye, that is a very attractive stock.

Duane, Rifle balance is probably somewhat subjective. That being said, take a 2x4 and divide it into 3 parts. Each part weighs the same and it doesn’t move well. I’m guessing, but think if you were divide a well balanced rifle in three parts, one would find the middle section the heaviest, the barrel section next and the butt section the lightest. Strange that nobody has come up with a formula. I guess there are so many variables. For example one can have a 22 inch 244 barrel and a 24 inch 308 barrel with both a .565 diameter at the muzzle and different contours.

quote:

I like this one.

The line at the top is below the center line of the bore at least 1/4 inch. Should be on the center line of the bore. Standard distance at butt of the stock is supposed to be approximately 5.25 inch.

quote:

Originally posted by Craftsman:

quote:

I like this one.

The line at the top is below the center line of the bore at least 1/4 inch. Should be on the center line of the bore. Standard distance at butt of the stock is supposed to be approximately 5.25 inch.

Who, pray tell, has a standard?

Well..maybe a step in the direction of "standard" is to genetically engineer future shooters to be absolutely identical for the "standard" rifle

The pic was loaded into CADD, The scaling was done off the LOP or the action length (can't remember which) .

quote:

Originally posted by Craftsman:

quote:

I like this one.

The line at the top is below the center line of the bore at least 1/4 inch. Should be on the center line of the bore. Standard distance at butt of the stock is supposed to be approximately 5.25 inch.

quote:

Originally posted by richj:

I like this one, thanks for posting the photo.

My measurements are 14 inch pull, 1-5/8" drop at butt, 5/8" drop at front of comb, 3/8" cast off, the butt is about 6 inches high. No cheekpiece. When I throw up the rifle to my shoulder with my eyes closed, the sights are aligned and I do not have to do any contortions to see the sights properly.

I just receive a Jerry Fischer drawing, found it on the cast bullets site. Have not opened the tube yet, will do it today and see what his measurements are. Also have Col Whelen's drawing.

I spoke with Michael Petrov years ago regarding classic american stock dimensions and these are very close to the numbers he provided. These were for the most part iron sighted rifles using Lyman peep sights.

To a large extent, shooting style influences stock design. Shooters who shoot with their elbow high and the upper arm parallel to the ground, will prefer a more open, straighter, grip. One who shoots with his elbow low will like a more vertical grip. One who shoots offhand will probably want more drop at the heel and toe. One who shoots prone will want a very straight stock, with little drop.
Silhouette rifles will usually have a lot of drop, a high comb, and a near vertical grip. Prone rifles will have a high comb with little drop at the toe and a more open grip. Any of these requirements should be built into a stock which is still aesthetically pleasing and acceptable to both the buyer and the builder. Regards, Bill.

Well said Bill

I realize that will fall on deaf ears concerning the audience, but I never liked open sweeping pistol grips.

I got to handle some Henriksen stocked rifles, that are of the Elmer Keith era (not his guns though) and I felt like they were really comfortable. Most imporantly I thought they would be very shootable prone.

These had a mid-height monte-carlo, and a more vertical grip.

I spent a lot of my life behind a McMillan A-5, and now a GRS Bifrost. I have come to appreciate a more vertical grip.

Yes I realize that we are talking about "classical looking guns", but I think most people would prefer a firearm that fits them, instead of fitting a mold.

They are a hell of a lot easier to shoot.

...I know there are those who feel comfortable with this and that "rule"

A shooter with smaller hands needs a closer grip ..why? simple..so he can reach the trigger. A custom stock maker will take this into account (I always ask for a tracing of the hand)

By and large, the hunter (who actually needs a good pair of boots) will be best fitted with a rifle in the off hand position.

Here again. so many other factors determine the final shape of the stock the grip; and LOP; and pitch; and drop; and cast ...but all this has been discussed before.

Jeez, I still like short forends and barrel swivels, iron sights, schnable forends, side panels, steel butt plates and low combs even on a scope rifle..lean and mean, fit in a saddle scabbard or can be carried in one hand..those old European smith operating out of a closet in their home that could make a ball out of an anvil, had taste! Im not against any design, if the workmanship is there, to each his own on that, if its well built I can appreciate it but don't have to own one.. I really liked my Jack Hough Mauser rifles..

I agree Ray, I hold many of the German sporting rifles in the same high regard as English sporting rifles.

Roger Vardy once made a wise comment: If the wood on a stock doesn't serve a useful purpose...It should not be there.

I am not entering this fray, but before anyone condemns a stock design he/she should pick it up and put it to the shoulder.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Roger Vardy once made a wise comment: If the wood on a stock doesn't serve a useful purpose...It should not be there.

Well said.

It does, however, oversimplify things just a bit, and in fact reminds me of the quote erroneously but humorously attributed to the great Renaissance sculptor Michelangelo.

He was reportedly asked how he could possibly sculpt a masterpiece like his 17 foot tall marble statue of David, which now stands majestically in the Accademia Gallery in Florence.

He supposedly replied, but almost certainly in reality did not reply:

"It is easy. You just chip away all of the stone that does not look like David."

FWIW the 1949 M70 in 270 or 30 06 stock fits me as if made for me except I was born quite a ways after the fact!

IMO the fad for high comb stocks with little to no drop were not designed by stockmakers.

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
IMO the fad for high comb stocks with little to no drop were not designed by stockmakers.

That's correct but they were designed by shooters!

I love a lean, mean machine but one cannot turn his nose up at a perfectly functional stock (for the owner) even if it doesn't mesh with the acceptable fashion of the day.

Lots of ways to skin this cat!

Zeke

quote:

Originally posted by ZekeShikar:

That's correct but they were designed by shooters!

Zeke

Shooters that spent more time reading about hunting, or hunting targets from the bench, than actually stalking something with fur on it.

quote:

Shooters that spent more time reading about hunting, or hunting targets from the bench, than actually stalking something with fur on it

Or snap shooting standing on 2 legs. Somtimes a rifle needs to point and fit like a shotgun.

Exactly
This thread is about Jerry's stock design which was built to be hunted with.

Paper punchers can be fun as well, but I'd rather not try and hit a running coyote with the current fad in "custom" rifles. Ultra light stock, high comb, massive scope and a #4-5 barrel. You couldn't even lead a broadside running yote enough with most of the coolest new scopes.

The whole system has to work together.