Seems to me like us americans are fixated on our stocks not having any drop on them for scope use. I have found stocks with a little drop to them seem to fit me best especially for off hand shooting. I have a winchester 88 with a super low scope mount, and a CZ 527 carbine, both these guns fit great and come up fast and right on target better than my rifles that are strait combs. I will admit I don't much care c for the drop when I am shooting them off a bench, and the drop makes recoil worse. so my question is am I weird or does anyone else feel the same.

I tend to agree with you..A straight stock sends the recoil back into the shoulder with very little muzzle rise...This is fine on a American classic in 270, but in a 416 or larger, I like to set my rifles up for iron sights, then I just use a scope on them that way, having been raised on low comb M-70s I never knew any better so it works for me...But I will assure you a low comb rifle on an big bore caliber with my stock pattern will divide that recoil half up and half back more or less, and it certainly feels better to me..I think many have been brainwashed with straight stocks absorbing recoil....

The line of sight should be about 1 1/2 inches higher than the top line of the stock to the average person. If you wear glasses like most of us than a little more drop at the comb and heel will let you see the scope with the head held more up right. This is a problem with the classic line as it is very straight. Weatherby had a good stock design for the recoil. He made his stocks to pull away from the cheek so it wouldn't feel like a mule kick to the jaw. A little cast off helps also. It takes a try stock to get the correct feel and sight pattern correctly set. Ususally the person wanting the stock made has no idea what he needs to fit him. All he has seen is the magazine articles on how great the classic stock line is over all other styles. Take a look at the other styles and find what fits you the best and then have it made. Put the stock up to your shoulder with the eyes closed. If you aren't looking into the scope or open sights without moving around to find the center then you need to make adjustments.

Stock fit is the most neglected part of the whole rifle business. To think that the same stock dimensions will work for me AND, Slingster for example, is as ridiculous as him and I trying to wear the same size suit.
The US Army in co-operation with Rugremchester Inc. decided a long time ago that "one size fits all" was good enough for the likes of Joe Rifleman. Joe don't seem to care much.

The shotgun world has it all over the rifle world in this regard.

By the way... I use high scope rings....Oh, the shame of it all!

Regards
Elmo

I like a high heel so when I shoot prone (especially uphill), the butt does not slip off my shoulder.

I like some extra drop on my stocks, too. I've discovered it makes a big difference in instinctive shotgun shooting for me. But here's what I think I've observed about rifle stocks:

I'm amazed how comfortable it is to shoot my high-combed M70 .375, even off the bench. It's almost painful to squinch down my cheek to line up the irons, though.

I've got a Ruger .375 with a little more drop, and I think the perceived recoil is a little heavier than with the M70, even though the Ruger weighs more. When I take the scope off, it's much easier to get down on the iron sights with the Ruger.

On the other hand, I really like the hogsback stocks on my CZ's. The 9.3x62 ought to be painful to shoot with as much drop as there is and as light as the gun is, but it's a pussycat. And the iron sights (which is all I use with that rifle) line up perfectly. But relative to felt recoil, it makes me wonder whether more drop in the stock really makes it worse. Maybe the 9.3 is just a mild cartridge.

I've been considering blowing the money on a custom rifle, so I've thought quite a bit about this. I like a thin wrist, for handling at high port, but I prefer a fairly sharp and pronounced pistol grip for shooting control. I like a medium width forend, not as thick as a varminter because that's uncomfortable to hold walking around at high port, but not too thin to get a comfortable grip when firing. I think the Model 70 safari stock is really good, except that it's too high for easy iron sight use. I also like the Tikka stock, which has drop coupled with a Monte Carlo. Don't know how that combo handles recoil, though, since mines a .243. The similar-shaped Sako in 7mmRemMag seems to have a high felt recoil relative to the cartridge power.

So, for me, stock shape depends on recoil level, whether its a carry-around stalking rifle or a varminter/stand hunting rifle, and whether it's an iron sights or scope rifle.

If you do a search, there was a great thread on stock design 2 months back or so. Grandview has done some formal study, and he made some really informative posts that might be useful to you. So did a number of other experts.

Steve

Here's that post from Grandview I mentioned:


Rifle magazine of November 2004 has some rather good pictures that may help to illustrate. BTW......it also has an article about Serengeti Rifles. Good article, Rod.

The subject of the article with the pictures I refer to is about the new Nosler rifle. It's pictured on page 37. A straight edge will show that this butt stock has a nearly straight comb......drop at comb nose and heel are nearly identical.

The angle of the comb defines the relationship between the cheek and the shoulder. The reason this angle is referred to as an "anatomical" angle is because it's set by the skeletal structure of human beings. Husky, broad-shouldered, short necked people will likely have a shallower angle......when standing and in a firing position, their cheek may be only slightly higher than their shoulder. But it's amazing how uniform this measurement actually is. The shoulder is lower than the cheek....that portion of the cheek that rests against the comb.

In other shooting positions, other than standing, the angle of the spine comes into play. When shooting off the bench, the spine is at a slight angle. This affects the relationship between the shoulder and cheek. Humans don't have double-jointed necks, so the shoulder gets raised and the chin lowered when taking this position. Likely putting them on the same plane. I'm sure you noticed this when shooting off a bench. Elevating the butt of the rifle with bags, and having an "inlet" cut on the bench is an attempt to get the rifle in somewhat the same position as off-hand. I believe pictures on pages 34 and 36 of the Rifle magazine article illustrate this.

From the prone position, the spine is at a more acute angle, and raises the shoulder to a level that is likely higher than the cheek. A position that surely fits the Serengeti Zephyr.

The natural position when shooting offhand is the cheek slightly higher than the shoulder. This defines a comb that slopes back down toward the butt pad. Field shotguns will definitely have this angle, and it will be more exaggerated than rifles. Why? Because typically the shotgun is used for wing shooting, and the act of raising the shotgun into the air increases the differential between cheek and shoulder. In order to maintain contact with the comb, that angle or slope is increased on a shotgun.

The angle or slope of the comb also dictates how quickly the gun can be brought into shooting position.......cheek to the comb and butt to the shoulder. The grip hand does most of this work. And actually it works mostly to bring the comb up to the cheek.....hoping, assuming the butt will meet the shoulder at the same time.....correctly positioned. The cheek-to-comb is the more important anchor point because it controls the eye-to-sight alignment. Extremely important on a shotgun because it's your "rear-sight".

On a rifle, the desired angle of the comb remains the same regardless of open sights or higher scope mounts. The entire comb, respecting the angle of butt and cheek, is ideally raised or lowered to align the eye to the sights or scope.

If you've ever shot or shouldered any of the early custom guns with rather extreme drop at heel, you'll understand the premise. These guns, particularly those that are slender with nice grips and forearms are wonderful to handle. They mount like magic. The sights are right there. Even the early examples that started to raise the comb a bit for scope use.

So why was this angle, more drop at heel than comb nose, changed if it provided such a nice fit? RECOIL...

There is less felt recoil the closer the plane of the stock to shoulder gets......to the plane the cartridge and barrel are on. Additionally, any angle or "hinge" defined by the grip and slope of comb can exaggerates recoil by distributing it to the cheek as well as the shoulder. The monte carlo comb was the first attempt to raise the cheek to scope level and respect the cheek/shoulder angle. The monte carlo was then angled forward in an attempt to "slide away" from the cheek under recoil. Roy Weatherby sold a ton of guns with this style. Here's an example of what he did in relation to the Zephyr stock...



The comb on the monte carlo slides away from the face under recoil, and the dimensions of the butt and cheek are preserved for a quick mount. To this day people swear by them....or at them.

As the "Classic" style (a style erroneously known as minus-monte-carlo more than anything else) became popular, the comb was designed as "straight", or with very minimal drop at heel in relation to the comb nose. It became the defacto standard for rifles.

In a previous post, SDH related James Tucker's opinion about the severely straight stock.
Most rifles with less than normal DAH won't be mounted with the full butt on the shoulder. With a hard kicking rifle it is good to have the entire butt surface contacing the shoulder." "Lessens felt recoil,"

From experience, and from watching others shoot, I believe this to be true. An example of such is on page 34 of the Rifle magazine I referred to earlier. I think that's a classic off-hand shooting position that young Nosler is demonstrating. That's also about an inch of butt projecting above his shoulder.......on a stock with a straight comb. The Zephyr (dimensions supplied by Rod in this thread) would have a heel that is an additional 6/16 inch higher......assuming the comb nose on both is just high enough to clear the open bolt. Regardless, the comb on the Zephyr slopes in an opposite angle of what I've previously described by a differential of 6/16 inch. (3/16 drop at heel vs. 9/16 drop at comb nose).

It's certainly not my intention to hammer away at the Zephyr, or Rod, or his company on a whim. I support any work in the firearms field. I'm intensely interested in stock design and what it can do for the shooter.......both functionally and aesthetically.

Having played around with my homemade "try stock", and after reading and watching others shoot various stock styles, my opinion is as follows....

The "straight" stock is a compromise solution for recoil, quick mounting and handling, scope sights, and aesthetics.

The Zephyr is a further compromise solution for recoil and shooting poistions.......leaning heavily to bench and prone.

And that's what SDH said in his posts.....perhaps less diplomatically. Does it work? It probably wouldn't for me......and I've experimented with the premise. On the other hand, straight stocks don't work for me either. I definitely require more drop at heel than comb nose........a comb that slopes down toward the butt. I further would bet that a significant number of shooters would shoulder the Zephyr stocked rifle in an off-hand position with a whole lotta butt visible above their shoulder.

Respectfully submitted......

GV