I have three bolt action rifles that feel to me like they "fit" me very well. I can close my eyes, mount any of them to my shoulder, and when I open my eyes I have the full field of view of the scope and it is nearly on target. They all come to my shoulder smoothly and consistently. Two of them are early Ruger tang safety 77's, but the other is a pre-64 M70 with a cut stock. They are all straight comb stocks (I have not measured drop at comb or heel on any of them). The thing that gets me is that the Rugers are 13 3/4" LOP while the M70 is about 13 1/4". This seems like a big difference to me. Is it reasonable that stocks with that kind of difference could both fit well? Is there another measurement that may compensate for this difference? I guess I always thought that for two stocks to fit a person well they should have similar dimensions. Any thoughts?
LOP is not all that critical when Your using a scope with some variation in it's eye relief. To see if a stock really fits perfectly, you'll need the rifle to have iron sights. If you can mount the gun with Your eyes closed, and open them, and the sights are aligned, it fits with the iron sights!
Scopes are MUCH more forgiving. To have a gun made with irons and a scope, and expect the gunsmith to make it fit You PERFECTLY with both, is not reasonable. Think about what would have to happen in that case. The ocular center of the sight line would have to be dead center in the centerline of the scope. Those sights would be pretty high.
When I make a custom rifle for someone, I ask if it is going to be used with a scope, and have iron sights as a backup, or if he/she wants only iron sighted gun. I am working on one now. I'll have it done in about 2 days. I'll try to post a pic, (I may need help....I hate computers, and they hate Me) and You can see what I am talking about. This rifle is a 7mm Mauser and it is in classic form, with express sights and a scope. The comb of the stock fits the owner and sets his eye perfectly in line with the center of the scope. The way I have it set up, He only has to lower His eye 3/8 inch to be in perfect alignment with the irons, and the cast-off is perfect for him to align him left and right. But it can't be perfect with both. The scope is very low, and the sights are fairly high, on a sculpted quarter rib.
The pistol grip LOP is more important than the distance to the butt plate. At least thats how I view them. Nothing worse than those set trigger Mannlichers.
In Classic form, the stock is more forgiving, but in the more modern forms, hand size (which means grip size) is important. If the classic grip hurts the second finger with recoil, I will then use a shotgun style t. guard, and that solves that problem.
How do you figure out how much cast the customer is going to need and the other dimensions? Is there a way of measuring? I saw at a show recently stock fitting for $20, but was busy and didn't get back to that table.
I find it surprising what my body finds comfortable in comparison to what I see as comfortable. Example, I have one rifle with a stock that has a short LOP, and a high, rolled over cheekpiece, not my style. But on that rifle it just fits like a glove and comes up and swings so comfortably that I would never change it.
I have heard that before, that a stock can not be setup perfect for both scope and iron, there has to be a compromise. So do you decide what is going to be the primary sight system, the irons or the scope, and then make it fit the primary best with the other as a consideration after? Meaning if it is going to be used with a scope with iron as backup do you make it fit the scope and the person has to adjust a bit for the iron. then if somebody says that they want to have iron sights with a scope as an option for long shots, you setup better for the open sight and they adjust slightly for the more forgiving scope sighting?
Posts: 4740 | Location: Fresno, CA | Registered: 21 March 2003
Maybe I was thinking of this as a bigger difference than it really is. On one hand 1/2" doesn't sound like a lot, but when you look at the LOP on most rifles hovering around 13-1/2 to 13-3/4 and you don't see 13 1/4 until you get into "youth" rifles it seems bigger. That's a good point about checking the pull from the grip to the butt. I'll have to measure that.
Great stocks that are designed by really talented stockmakers tend to feel like they were fitted specifically for whoever happens to pick them up, unless, of course the length-of-pull is grossly too long or too short.
I first noticed this more than twenty years ago as a very young man when I became friends with an advanced collector of fine custom rifles; and this man owned a truly extensive collection, built by a literal "who's who" of top riflebuilders and stockmakers. You could pick up a Kennedy or Biesen or Goens or Goudy-stocked rifle off the rack, close your eyes, shoulder it, open your eyes, and those rifles literally were pointing themselves and felt like they were built just for me. I was amazed.......
I also notice the same thing when I have visitors come and look over my custom rifles. They can pick up a Milliron or an Echols, shoulder it, and this knowing look of revelation comes across their face right away. I had one of my long-time friends shoulder a Miller rifle one time, and he was amazed at how well it felt and balanced for him, personally, and this gentleman is a much larger individual than I am.
Where individual fitting becomes more critical is if you are building a bolt-gun that will be used exclusively with open sights, or if you have extremely large hands or other unusual physical characteristic.
Part of that phenomena is that most bolt rifle have almost exactly the same drop at the comb and heel: just enough to clear the bolt in front, and a half inch more in back. Bolt rifles are very generic.
