I am having both a detach scope and express sights put on my custom. Today I was asked what drop at heel and comb I would need for using both by a friend. Can anyone help? The length of pull will be around 15" and the sights are on an island from NECG with a 6X42mm Leupold scope in Talley rings.

I can only tell you how I have MY guns stocked. I stock to use the iron sights perfectly. In other words close my eyes mount rifle and Irons are perfect. I put the HIGHEST irons to show well over the scope mount bases. Then in most cases the scope is a little high but does not present a problem in use. If you don't stock for the Irons why have them other than for looks. In over 50 years of building rifles I have yet to see a magic way to do this without copromise in favor of one or the other. To me it's easier to lift my head to see thru the scope than it is to force my cheek down on the comb for the irons. My fat face won't squeeze that far.

Unless you mount iron sights at the exact same height as the centerline axis of the scope, “close†is all you are gonna get when designing the stock...and “close†is all you really need.

It is fairly simple (as long as you don’t use ultra-high scope rings) to have a stock where only a slight cheek adjustment is necessary when going from one to the other.

You can also install an adjustable comb if you find that your set-up just won’t work at all for you.

Is it common for a stock maker to have more drop at the comb than at the heel?

Roughly what would be your preferred numbers?

I'll take a shot at it, although I do not claim this to be gospel.

I do my own stocks, this is what I do on a mauser, I give myself 1/8" clearance between the bolt and the nose (with bolt back) and set heel line about 1/2 lower than the nose, maybe a little less, but I get to set it where I want it depending on the sights/scope height, but I try to set mine up for both.

But in your case, they want a number, with your long length of pull your a big guy,15 lop if I read right, I's say about 1 1/4" drop at the heel would be pretty close for both iron and scope, but get several opinions. I wouldnt go anymore than 1 3/8 drop at the heel. Chic or some of the other guys may be able to give you a better answer. I'd set the nose 5/8 or so, but no more than 7/8. Be nice if you could go to the shop and see for youself what you like.

I'd get several opinions

333-0kh " More drop at comb than heel"? Those Sarengetti stocks they have on their web site some have a lower comb nose than Heel. Some of there heel drop is like 1/8" I think . Yikes!

Laying a bare stock upside down On a straight edge, forend top being centerline of bore.

I have a European stock with quiet abit of drop at 1 5/8 " at heel

Another European stock with less drop at 7/8 " at heel

Im doing one now that is 3/4" at heel. Pretty straight stock , comb is higher but plenty of room for a mauser cocking piece to clear.

GAG Gary Goudy 3/4" at heel

Billys numbers are about what I like too.

Buy an old beater stock off ebay and a can of wood putty or bondo and make yourself a rough pattern stock that fits you. Glob the putty/bondo on to make everything oversized and then rasp to shape once it dries. It’s fun, gives you a bit of experience shaping a rifle stock, and you end up with some fairly accurate measurements that fit you.

I think I will have to go that route. I was just wondering what people preferred??? It has been recommended that I look into a 2 3/8 inches drop at heel and 1 3/8 inches at
centre for the optimum use of shooting with open sights and scope. What do you all think?

Pardner, without more info your are literally asking: “What size shoes do you think will fit me the best?â€

Just latching on to arbitrary figures that might fit other people is not the way to size something for you and your rifle/scope/sight combination.

Who is David Miller??

22WRF, he also will not change the grip shape of the gun for you. Do you think he is doing that to serve you or himself?

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
I wonder why it is that David Miller will not build a rifle that takes both a scope and iron sights? Could he know something that you don't?

I’m not even close to being a professional and even I can fit a stock that will allow someone to comfortably use a scope and iron sights unless they have a really abnormal physic, or use ridiculously high scope rings.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
I wonder why it is that David Miller will not build a rifle that takes both a scope and iron sights? Could he know something that you don't?

I’m not even close to being a professional and even I can fit a stock that will allow someone to comfortably use a scope and iron sights unless they have a really abnormal physic, or use ridiculously high scope rings.

Okay, lets see you do it.

Whats so great about David Miller 22wrf? Does he lay golden eggs?

22WRF,

What is the big mystery about this? My Lyman 48 sight set for a 300 yard zero places the aperture of the sight a bit over 1 inch above the centerline of the bore. The center of my scope mounted on the same rifle sits a bit under 1.5 inches above centerline, and I don’t have to go through any contortions to comfortably look through either one of them.

I regularly shoot two military model 1917 Enfield‘s (that literally have no comb at all) and I don’t have any trouble seeing through the very high rear sights on those either.

I was in the military when we still used M14’s and our qualification course required shooting with open sights at 200, 300 and 500 yards. I don’t know if you’ve ever shot an M14 but the rear peep sight is way up in the air when you are shooting at 500 yards. In fact, its about as high as a scope would be. The difference in rear sight height on an M14 at 200 and 500 yards is probably greater than the difference between iron sights and a scope.

22WRF,
David Miller and one "famous stock maker" will not change the grip because of the work involved. Pure and simple, they claim it is a grip that fits everyone. Try that in a store that sells suits.

And there are a lot of gunsmiths that have extensive experience building guns that will and do successfully build guns that accomodate irons sights and scopes. It is not necessary to have a solid cheek weld with a scope. You eye an move slightly and the crosshairs remain the same, given that the scope is on for parallax.

333_OKH is asking a question that does not lead to a ready answer over the net. As Rick suggested and I told him in a PM, he needs to acquire a stock and find the highest comb he can use with the irons. He also should place them as high as practical to give the least difference between his eye position on the irons and that on the scope. We don't know his facial configuration, his best bet is to fiddle with some comb heights. Expressing a number for drop on the comb will not serve him well at all, unless he is very lucky with the suggestions he picks.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
Rick

I served in the Navy on board an Aircraft Carrier so we didn't shoot M-14s much. But as I mentioned, in looking at many stocks over the years, and having a few iron sighted rifles as well as scoped rifles, It is apparent to me that while it is possible to make rifles that use both sighting systems, it certainly is not optimal. You may not have to go through a contortion, but if I am going to spend money on a rifle, even if its not an expensive custom job, I want it to fit me for the task I am going to use it for, and I would much rather have two rifles, of which one was set up for scope and one set up for irons, than to have one rifle set up for both.

GSP7

No, David Miller doesn't lay golden eggs. But he does have extensive experience in making rifles. And his experience tells him that it is not optimal to make a rifle that uses both sighting systems. It doesn't matter whether the gun costs $300 or $30,000, the same principles apply.

22WRF,

It has been my experience that head/eye position while using a scope is not anywhere near as critical as when using an iron peep sight. You have quite a bit of leeway behind that scope.

Most, if not all, people have quite a bit of difference in head/eye position as well as scope eye relief between off-hand, sitting and prone positions...so what do you do, have a different rifle for every position? No, you slightly move your head up/down/forward/bakward/side/side as needed.

I shoot with a cheek weld and use a very short LOP (12 ¾ inches, and I’m 6 feet tall with long arms) so I don’t care about cheek pieces or comb heights since its all behind my head anyway.

quote:

We don't know his facial configuration, his best bet is to fiddle with some comb heights. Expressing a number for drop on the comb will not serve him well at all, unless he is very lucky with the suggestions he picks.

One of my friends has this odd slimline target stock that is full adjustable in comb, heel and pull. I will give it a try and see what feels the best too, just for kicks.

Thanks guys for all of the help, I do realize the one size fits all does not work for almost anything. Hell try buying a pair of jeans when you 6'8" and 250 pounds.

Part of my problem (though I’ve never viewed it as such) comes from the fact that I really learned to shoot when I was in the Marine Corps. I had shot some before that, but the Corps “taught†me to shoot and their philosophy was to fit you to the rifle, not the other way around.

My PMI in boot camp was a sniper school graduate, ex-sniper school instructor, and wore a Distinguished Marksmanship badge on his uniform. He took me from throwing shots all over the target on the first live-fire qualification test, to qualifying as an Expert with the second highest score in my platoon on final qualification day.

Exactly the reason you shouldn’t be asking others for stock measurements!

quote:

Exactly the reason you shouldn’t be asking others for stock measurements!

Understood, but I was looking for a kind starting point to go from. Some of you guys have been helpful.

quote:

Originally posted by 333_OKH:
I think I will have to go that route. I was just wondering what people preferred??? It has been recommended that I look into a 2 3/8 inches drop at heel and 1 3/8 inches at
centre for the optimum use of shooting with open sights and scope. What do you all think?

In the Gun Digest book of RIFLESMITHING by Jack
Mitchell, page 200, shows the average
drop at the comb is 5/8 inches for scope use
and 7/8 inches for open sights. Drop at the
heel is 1 1/8 inches for scope use and 1 3/8
inches for open sights.(measured from the
center of the bore.)

When I make a pattern for duplication, that is what I use, 5/8 inch for the nose and 1 1/8 inches for the heel. 13 1/2 inches length of pull. 2 1/2 inches of pitch is average but 2
inches even fits me better. (slight cast off)

Grip circumference is 4 7/8 inches and depth of
heel is 5 1/8 inches.

Some stock makers I've encountered tell me they
never make anything this radical? Nothing else will fit me comfortably! This is the main reason I stock my own rifles....now if I just had some talent!

I seriously doubt these "average" measurements will work for you, 333. I'm 5' 11" and stocky.
Whereas, If I've read your posts correctly, you are a giant with a very wide wingspan. From
personal experience, a long neck will require
a drastic change in dimensions.

As long as you are, I suspect that a pure classic stock will never fit you, and that some
type of monte carlo will be required to keep
your head upright?

Don--Thank you, your comments have been very helpful.

I did some looking around for published measurements and here is what I got:

Ruger Express comb: 1 7/8 heel: 2 1/8
w/70 pre-64 Fwt comb: 3/4 heel: 1 3/4
W/70 Featherweight comb: 9/16 heel: 7/8
R/700 Mtn Rifle comb: 3/8 heel: 3/8 (=)

A lot of variance to say the least. I was concerned on the accuracy of the Ruger information, but I found it published three times as such.

333 OKH

I'm a pretty average built guy, 5'9" and 175 pounds, I haven't measured mine, but the stock on a Ruger RSM will work pretty darn well with irons (on a high base, there's are on a quarter rib) and the scope mounted low. Mine has a 1.75-6x Leupold in the stock Ruger mounts that comes with the rifle. I know if I were to build a custom rifle, I'd use the measurements off my Ruger since it is the closest to feeling natural with both. When I get home from work tonight, I'll measure mine and see if those are right.

quote:

Ruger Express comb: 1 7/8 heel: 2 1/8

Doesn't that seem like a lot of drop for both the comb and the heel? I have a little SXS 28 gauge with less drop.

quote:

Originally posted by 333_OKH:

quote:

Ruger Express comb: 1 7/8 heel: 2 1/8

Doesn't that seem like a lot of drop for both the comb and the heel? I have a little SXS 28 gauge with less drop.

Yea, Where are the measureing from the top of the reciever? or the site plain?

This is what I am talking about.




by Todd Ramirez

quote:

Originally posted by 333_OKH:
This is what I am talking about.




by Todd Ramirez

You think they could have mounted the scope a bit higher?

With that sucker mounted that high it’s gonna be pretty tough to have a stock to allow comfortable use of both the scope and iron sights.

The gun was made for Craig Boddington on his specs. Must be his preferrence?

quote:

Originally posted by 333_OKH:
The gun was made for Craig Boddington on his specs. Must be his preferrence?

To each his own!

I would like th escope lower too. These mounts are really tall, but the rifle also has another scope that maybe has a larger front bell?

Take a look.

Life is full of compromises!

The rings on that rifle are Smithson's QD design. The scope has to slide rearward to detach; and if it were much lower, the front objective would hit the receiver ring before the scope rings cleared the bases.

Life is indeed full of compromises.

That seems like a poor design, doesnt it?

*I messed up the numbers before with a 22LR measurement in there*


I handled two rifles today that I liked the fit on for heel and comb. The first rifle had no open sights and was 5/8 comb and 1 inch heel. The next was 3/4 comb with a 1 1/4 heel and open sights. The opens were a little higher on a NECG base, similar to what I will use. The 13 3/4 LOP was so short it made it tough to tell really well.

The Smithson system is fast and solid. To lower the scope another quarter inch, and keep the same speed on attaching and removing the scope, you'd have to use claw mounts - and they bring into play another level of compromises. It ain't easy (or cheap) to have it all in one package.

On a light rifle, where it isn't misson critical to get a scope off fast, I'd just as soon use Talley lever-locks. Now some people don't like the levers, so they could use Talley screw-ons, but then you have to carry a tool and it's even slower to remove the scope. It's those damn compromises again.

Irons and Optics?

Which do you plan on using more, and which are you more comfortable shooting?

believe it or not, the CZ hogback is one of the easier patterns to shoot "good enough" with both sights, but you wind up holding your head at two pretty different angles (in all cases you would, btw) but your cheek weld stays the same.

the considerations for this compromise are that the scope pretty much can't both be in alignment with the LOS of the irons without getting in the way of the irons, or the bolt, or the ejecting rounds... in a conventional arraingment.

If you wanted to do a scout mount, then it's pretty easy.

In short, most stock designs are best for one or the other (though some suck for either), and you may decide to build your setup with that in mind.

6'8? you long waisted or long legged? I myself am only 6'4, but wear ~39" shirts,,, no, my knuckles don't actually drag the ground billy!!

jeffe

The other option you might want to consider if practicality is more important to you than 100% classic looks, is an adjustable comb and/or a removable comb pad.

True, they ain’t all that pretty to some, but they will get the job done for you.

quote:

6'8? you long waisted or long legged? I myself am only 6'4, but wear ~39" shirts,,, no, my knuckles don't actually drag the ground billy!!

We were the same shirt size, but a 40 sleeve would be nice. I wear between a 40-44 inseam dependent on brand. The extra leg keeps my knuckles off the ground!

This is a small caliber rifle (6.5 SE) so I am not too concerned about having my cheek welded to the comb of the rifle. I have always loved the hogback stocks, but would prefer to go classic English such as the Ramirez stock above on this rifle. I see Boddington had this stock made for the irons (my opinion) and then scope mounted high. This is similar to my Mannlicher S's sights and some of the other continental European rifles of the early 1900s. BTW no caught on that I changed the rifle over to right handed in this post from Boddington's lefthanded gun.

quote:

The first rifle had no open sights and was 5/8 comb and 1 inch heel. The next was 3/4 comb with a 1 1/4 heel and open sights.

The difference between these two rifles was really not much, but I did like the geometry. I see these are a little more drop than a lot of current factory rifles (see above post), but still not too much. Does anyone else use a rifle with this kind of drop? The Remington Mtn Rifle has no drop between comb and heel which I would think might not work with irons if they had them?

I would still suggest what I did earlier to you.

Get yourself a beater stock and a can of wood putty or bondo and make yourself a rough pattern stock of what you like and what fits you. Just gob the putty or bondo on the stock and sand or file it to the shape and size you want.

If you go to a hobby shop or crafts store you can buy modeling clay that works great for simulating scope bases and rings that you can even sit your scope into to see if the height is right for you.

Just about everything else you do is going to be by-guess and by-golly and pictures ain't gonna help you much, especially for a guy your size.

Dirk Johannsen of Reimer Johannsen GmbH recently e-mailed me to say that on rifles designed for both iron sight use and scope use, such as the Modell Tradition or Modell Professional Hunter, they use a drop at the nose of 1.5" (40mm) and a drop at the heel of 2.0 inch (50mm). These guns certainly look straighter than that on the net? The measurements they gave me were off of the square bridges of the action however?