I like rifles that tend to have a forward balance as it seems to me they are easier to shoot accurately from a standing position. I grew up on a Stevens .22/.410 with a plastic stock and also a Sheridan pellet rifle which was light but also had a muzzle heavy balance. I guess it might only reduce the weight of the buttstock by a half-pound or so but has anybody ever hollowed out the buttstock of a wood-stocked rifle? To me it seems that this might be a good way to make a wood-stocked light rifle hang well for offhand shooting, or at least make it better. I think it would make the buttstock less strong, but would it really matter for any rifle with less recoil than a .30-06? And as far as banging around a gun, I've hardly ever put even a very small dent in a gun's stock as I am very careful with mine although I've shot over 200 deer and probably more than 1,000 pheasants and lots of other game. I am not talking about the remaining wood being like a hollow violin but at least 3/8th inch thick. Has anyone done this?

The early Mannlichers as the M1 had hollowed out buttstocks to accept cleaning rods + tools, etc. I never noticed any difference in balance though. When I built my Krag scout I took a lot of wood off externally for weight but left the butt solid.

Don,

I have done it, several times. If done properly I don't think it weakens the butt stock significantly, the weak spot is normally the grip, and I don't bore them that deep.

I build my rifle stocks very slim & trim, and I can usually remove 3 to 4 ounces without a critical loss of strength. You may be able to remove a bit more that that from a broader, thicker stock.

BTW, I do not completely hollow mine out, I bore a series of holes with forstner bits.

Model 70 featherweights weights have hollowed out buttstocks too.

I had a recently built Ruger No. 1 in .257 Roberts balanced by hollowing the butt stock. Really balances nicely and the butt is more than adequately strong.

I also have several game guns with hollowed but stocks and I like the balance and quickness.

The high end shotgun makers do this to balance their guns (or move the balance point forward of the hinge pin for their customers that like a forward-heavy gun). They remove wood from the butt to move balance point forward, or add lead to a hole in the butt to move it backward. Then they plug the hole with a walnut plug. You also do this on heavy bore rifles with mercury recoil reducers.

Just don'd go nuts and get it too thin. Drill one or two holes to move the balance point and plug them.

I like the balance point forward for off-hand shooting or tracking for a running/flying shot also.

Given a choice, I would opt for a solid stock..Not that some rifle could use that for balance.

I like muzzle heavy rifles for off hand shooting, and most of mine are..a bit more than most..I don't like the rifle to balance just in front of the action as recommend in print by many experts and most do like that point of balance..I just like a little more out front. I can get that with a tad heavier or longer barrel or a shorter thicker barrel of the same weight, its just a matter of balance and what feels best..

The buttstock of the British .303 SMLE and No4 are also hollow. A 7/8" diameter hole for the stock bolt and the oil bottle and pullthrough. So yes, Lee Enfields have hollow stocks.

The stock on my Boss and my father's Henry Clarke have also been bored.

But another "trick" when choosing a blank is to choose a walnut blank of lesser weight. Even in selection of blanks of equal figure there'll be various weights between any selection.

Aternatively rather than modifying your existing stock, I would suggest replacing it with something nicer and suitable to the weight you are looking for. I sell stock blanks of three different weight ranges for different types of rifles and shotguns, feel free to take a look at: http://www.rogervardystockwood.com/