When having a stock built for heavy recoiling rifles and seeking to minimize/distribute the
recoil as best as possible how large should the butt area of the stock be?

I am thinking of a 375 H&H & 416 Rigby on up using an American Classic type stock pattern.

What should the specific measurments heel to toe as well as width should be.....?

Lastly, which recoil pad would you recommend? (I have my heart set on a Red English Style Pad.)


Regards,
Dave

Well, free advice is certainly worth the cost..but here goes: I've made custom stocks for about 37 years and I think the primary consideration is FIT! I don't believe there's a formula for "big guns must be ------" Some folks really like the "kick-eze" pads. I had one on my 500 Jeffery, but replaced it with a Silvers, because I just didn't like the "squishy" feel. Kick-eze makes one 1 1/8" thick, sure absorbs recoil, but be careful of a scope meeting eyebrow... Most Africa PH's frown on muzzle brakes, but don't seem to mind a hunter with Magna Porting...have as much fun as you can!

Duane,

Can you tell me more about how to get the proper fit? How does one establish the critical
measurements & dimentions to ensure the stock is setup properly for a big kicker?

What guidlines do you follow for a client that wants a properly setup DGR?

I am very interested in learning more about the "How To" of this process.

Thanks for the help,
Dave

I would recomend one of the new Red Decelerator pads like the one I'm having put on the Ruger #1 458 Lott. If it works like all of the other Decelerators I have (why wouldn't it?) it should be great for the calibers mentioned and look great as a plus!

---Catter

As Mr. Wiebe mentioned, be careful with the soft pads on heavy recoiling SCOPED rifles....

Red recoil pads should be mandatory on all rifles! I just had a stock made for a CZ 416 Rigby. It is the one on the bottom. I specified a Red Pachmyar recoil pad. I think it looks great!

The top rifle is a Winchester Custom Shop 458 Lott. The stock pattern on it "felt" much better than shooting the 416 Rigby with the factory humpback stock. I'm anxious to shoot the Rigby with the new stock. It is a British Stalker pattern from Great American Gunstocks.

Red recoil pads should be mandatory on all rifles! I just had a stock made for a CZ 416 Rigby. It is the one on the bottom. I specified a Red Pachmyar recoil pad. I think it looks great!

The top rifle is a Winchester Custom Shop 458 Lott. The stock pattern on it "felt" much better than shooting the 416 Rigby with the factory humpback stock. I'm anxious to shoot the Rigby with the new stock. It is a British Stalker pattern from Great American Gunstocks.

The Red Decelerator is up at the top of my list.



Correct me if I am wrong but, isn't it only made in a Medium size? I was thinking a larger surface area for the rifles butt will better distribute recoil and that coupled with a good pad will go a long way in making something like a 416 shootable. (Red pad in Med size is No. 690-000-015 at the bottom of the page)



http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/ProductDetail.aspx?p=9749&title=D752+DECELERATOR+RECOIL+PAD





There is also the Pachmayr Old English Pad. I don't know how they compair to a decelerator though.



http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/ProductDetail.aspx?p=9746&title=OLD+ENGLISH+RECOIL+PADS



I must admit I am suprised to hear that it is not common practice to use stock with a large butt and recoil pad.



Longbob,



Nice set of rifes you have there!! I bet that Lott is a thumper!!! I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on how the recoil of the Lott with the American Classic Stock compairs to the 416 with the British Stalking Rifle Pattern.



Regards,

Dave

David,

I'll let you know pretty soon. I have a box of the medium red Pachmyar pads from Brownells. The one that Henry put on this rifle is a thick, magnum pad. He must have had a stash of them.

Well, this may get involved and there are certainly opinions across the map, so these will be my ideas and opinions. Let's start at the front. Pretty accepted that the sling eye should go on the bbl. to keep hand from getting damaged. I like to place the eye at a spot on the bbl, so when carried, you can easily grab the butt for manuevering under and around obstacles. Same thing for buttstock swivel when rifle is carried muzzle down/butt up. You want to be able to grab bbl comfortably for same reasons...usually this will place the eye a bit closer to the grip cap than "normal" I don't like long fore ends, but here is a matter for personal taste..9 1/2" is usually plenty long enough. Slim and trim is desireable, but leave enough wood to get a comfortable grip...Most of us will wrap over the bbl, which is fine, but rapid fire can produce a fair amount of heat...Just kind of find the compromise (or wear a pigskin glove on left hand as do I) Moving back along the stock, the carry area, usually about the magazine or balance point should be slim..You don;t have to leave lots of wood here, I've never seen a stock break between the guard screws. The grip should probably be 4 3/4 in. around or larger...Some like the Wundhammer swell...I personally don't. The grip should be long and open so your social finger doesn't get battered by the guard. Make sure that the point of the comb will keep your thumb far enough forward to keep from hitting your nose...about an inch will be enough. From here on back, dimensiions become highly personal. As a rule, we Americans haven't missed too many meals, so a heavy set person will have cast to advantage. Cast on for the Right hander and vice versa for lefties. Generally more cast will be built in at the toe than the heel to fit the shoulder pocket better. Pitch is more important than it's given credit for. This can raise or lower point of impact on instinctive shooting the same as cast will move impact right or left. Not enough pitch and the butt tends to slide down the shoulder when firing..too much the opposite occurs.
I like to make the pull a little longer on heavies as long as butt doesn;t catch the armpit upon mounting. I'm 5-10 215 lbs and use a 14" LOP 1/4" cast at heel and 3/8" at toe.(Just to give you a reference) My pitch is 4 degrees down.
Seldom can the comb on a bolt gun be made too high for scope use. It would stand to reason the iron back up sights need to be high to reasonably accomodate. There was and still are makers that actually make the butt higher than the comb in some effort to reduce "climb" Never seen a guy built that way, but if you;ve got a very short neck, might be worth a try. I almost always drop the butt from 1/4" to as much as an inch..just makes the gun more comfortable to mount. I like the balance to be a little muzzle heavy. Pads are a matter of taste...they're all pretty good at reducing some felt recoil. Don't go overboard on the width 1 3/4" is plenty. If you're anticipating severe use, reinforcing the grip with tang extensions is a good idea and sure looks pretty. Checkering shouldn't be TOO coarse...say about 24 LPI will give a good grip and isn't rough on the hands. I'd say keep the shooting sessions down to just a few rounds at first, but try and accumulate about 100 rounds practice before the hunt. Whew....probably more than you really wanted to hear????seeya

David, as a consumer and hunter, I prefer the American Classic style stock best for all hunting purposes - heavy-kickers especially included. I've found that such stocks featuring a high (so the bolt just clears the nose of the comb), straight, thick comb, a full cheekpiece, a bit off cast-off, and a nicely curved pistol grip that allows the shooter to control the rifle with the shooting hand (instead of the other way around) works best for recoil reduction and complete control of the rifle.

I detest old-style British magazine rifle stocks with pre-war style low, thin combs with pancake cheekpieces, shotgun-style pistol grips, etc. - all the stuff that astute expert riflemen like Jack O'Connor evolved away from after WWII, and that genius riflemakers like Al Biesen worked so hard and successfully to modernize during that same post WWII period. Sadly, today the old disfuctional pre-war styles are back in vogue.

Even today, Biesen's (now Roger's) style is as good as it gets for recoil reduction, fast handling, and overall shootability. Earl Milliron's pattern (inherited from Russ Leonard) is superb in every way, and Dale Goen's and David Miller's stocks are of about the same pattern as Biesen's. D'Arcy Echols' stock is another great, functional stock that handles recoil superbly and is of the American Classic school - my personal favorite of them all.

I'll also nominate Pachmayr's red Decelerator as the ideal pad.........

AD

Great thread! I hope we get quite a few posts here as this is very informative to guys like me who are used to "off-the-shelf" rifles/stocks.

Along with your favorite patterns, listing your height/weight along with what dimensions you find most useful/comfortable really helps newbies like me get an idea of the dimensions we might want to try.

I much prefer stocks that have the sort of distance between the centre of the butt and the barrel about like a Wby.

I find stocks like the HS Precision kick hard and if I shoulder the rifle quickly the bottom of the butt hits my shoulder.

There must be two distinct type of people as far as stocks are concerned. In Australia we an expensive fibre glass stock and the maker makes both a Wby style and American Classic. He recommends the Wby style for the big bangers.

Mike

Allen,

I agree with you on the American Classic pattern. I like it the best...actually I wouldn't use any other design.
The high straight comb just feels good to me. My major concern is that I get these stocks to fit me properly taking
into consideration both my physical measurments as well as the recoil that I will experience.

Duane,

That was quite a response! "More than I wanted to hear?" Not even close!!! I am sure I am not alone in saying "Thank You!" for taking the time to give us your experience and opinions in this area. Not one to let a topic of great interest to me die prematurely....

- I have heard that a good rule of thumb for the front sling eye was 14 inches from the receiver face...all things considered. It was intersting to hear your ideas on sling eye placement with regard to being able to maneuver the rifle
through obstacles while having it slung over the shoulder either muzzle up or down.

- Balance point. This is a topic that I would imagine has great impact on how comfortable the rifle is to carry all day.
If it is balanced poorly I would think the user would have to continually adjust the carry and it would mount and swing poorly. Generally, my guess is that balance could make you love or hate the rifle. Concepts that I have learned from this forum in relation to balance are as follows.....

1)Half the weight of the gun is between your hands. How *that* weight is distributed determines how the gun swings. Shift to the rear for fast and toward the front for smooth.

2)The hands should be as close to the "center-line" of the rifle as possible. Draw a curved line from the center of the butt to the center of the wrist and to the center of the muzzle. That's the "handling center line". It's the linear center of gravity. A scope raises the line drastically.....heavier, higher scopes makes it handle like a post hole digger.

- Pitch. I am glad you brought it up. I was unaware of its importance with respect instinctive shooting. Can you extrapolate? It seems to work in conjunction with the rifle cast during instictive shooting...??? Pitch for vertical allignment and cast for horizontal?


Regards,
Dave

David C,

As a user and a builder, I do like the type of stock shape that Duane described, although I like a higher comb. The pitfall in a high comb stock can be in the way the person mounts their gun. If they position the stock high so that not all of the pad is in contact on their shoulder then you are creating a monster in regards to muzzle slap. Pistol grip shapes come under a lot of criticism with some people but it it best to get what you feel comfortable with, whether it be a heavy hitter or a light weight gun. And you should get a stockmaker or find a stock that will supply you with what you want. It can be the hardest part of a stock to build and so many people will not budge from their "perfect" grip shape, which is a BS way of saying they do not want to do the work to give you what you want. Find what you want and let your wishes dictate what you end up with, not the product or the builder. Try a number of them and don't get hide bound in other's opinions.

To reply to your original question, I would make the width of the butt no less than 1 5/8" and the height no less than 5 1/4". When it comes to drop, I go against the convention, expecially with a heavy rifle. I like more than normal because the rifles are largly meant to be shot offhand and more drop makes it easier to mount and handle. I won't give you a drop meaurement because it depends on where you are measuring from.
Galazan's Silvers style pad is a nice combination of red and semi-soft.
And mount that iron sight about 25" from the butt.

Good to hear from you Duane!

Duane:

I, like DavidC, and interested in fit and recoil management. While I have never been officially fitted for a stock, I find that I need upwards of a 1.5"ish DAH in order to keep the entire pad on my shoulder (I must have a long neck?). The straight comb stocks with little or no DAH (like the 700 mt. rifle or the Kimber 84m, for example) I find very uncomfortable. Anyway, I am wondering how you balance the comb height for a heavy rifle that will likely be used with both a scope and open sights. More comb makes it easier to use the scope, but too much comb results in "smooshing" my face onto the comb when using the open sights, which makes firing the rifle rather uncomfortable, especially, it seems, given the largeish DAH, which (I guess?) results in more muzzle (and hence comb) rise during firing. Do you try to find a happy medium in this regard, or do you build it for the open sights and then just "cheek up" a bit for scope use? Please pardon any mis-used terms in my attempt at a question. Thanks.

That is exactly the problem every gunmaker faces when dealing with a rifle that is meant to be shot with both iron sights and a scope. It is either one or the other, for perfect comb alinement.

Chuck, it sounds like D'Arcy is well worth his cost in that case! Not having dealt with custom rifles of this caliber, I must say that my (mere mortal) experience has been more in line with what SDH has experienced. A stock is either built for scope or open sight useage, but not for both. Here in Europe open sights are a tradition, and most rifles are delivered with them - the theory being that you can remove your scope and use the open sights for running game or some such thing. I have yet to experience a stock that would sensibly let me use both open and optical sights though. Mind you, when I refer to using open sights, I don't mean screwing my chin so far down the stock that I can have half a guess at where the front sight should align up with the rear sight, or where I'm sure my cheekbone will get whacked well and truely if I touched off the rifle in that position. But then again, according to your description, this was not what D'Arcy had achieved either. The only way I have ever imagined this could be done would be to use significantly higher open sights than what is standard. Here is to the craftsman making this possible!
- mike

The trouble is, lots of guys are slow to give up ancient gunmaking ideas, and I could swear that some are more concerned with building period pieces than modern hunting rifles. As Chuck indicated concerning his experience with my .375, a stock that is design primarily for scope use CAN work just fine with open sights if the sights are properly engineered in the first place.

Some riflestocks are engineered for 1920s-era open sights, and then a scope gets added almost as a afterthought. I've handled some modern specimens of this genre that would require the shooter to have a head shaped like that of a Hartmann's zebra in order to properly use the scope. It's just not necessary to build 'em that way. In fact, it's a liability to the shooter to do so. Back in the 1930s, when scopes were a new technology and stock design wasn't as highly evolved as today and was geared toward the open sights of that era, well, that's understandable. There's no reason to accept or embrace that design philosophy today.

AD

"Balance"...life is always a balance, isn't it? Trying to get the prefect fit for both scope and iron sights on the same rifle is likely impossible. If you use a little more drop at heel than comb nose, I would tend to try and make the comb high enough for scope use (try to get scope as low as possible)..a little shifting to the rear will drop your face just enough to use the iron sights comfortably(again try to make the iron sights "high") the idea is to try and minimize the difference. In theory, a straight stock will tend to climb less than one with considerable bend, but I emphasize "considerable" bend is necessary to actually feel the increased climb. Again, pitch and cast are both important in keeping the buttplate (pad) in the shoulder pocket. seeya

Chuck, Duane is absolutely correct on this one, it is a compromise. In order to have your cheek in exactly the same place the line of sight for each would have to be the same. This would put the iron sight smack dab in the middle of the scope.
I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said "perfectly".

I'm currently stocking a High Wall that is set up for both iron and scope sights. This is one of the more difficult to accomplish because the tangs are so long and steep in the angle off the action. Thanks to Ralf Martini's excellent metalsmithing, the scope is about as low as possible, nearly interfering with the hammer.

I've reached a decent "balance" but that's as good as it gets.

I will go with the English style stock very much in line with D. Weibbes takedown...If the gun fits, the thin comb will not bother you nor will a skinny stock and I think the American classic has about two pounds too much wood on it...I use my guns and most are big bores and I have found a stright stock drives the gun stright back into the shoulder..The English gun takes some back and some up, splits the difference...I can use iron sights very comfortably with an English gun and all mine are built for iron sight shooting, then I put a scope on them, it is not a big deal and I will shoot with anyone anytime...I guess since I grew up shooting irons on a M-70 and later put a 2.5 Weaver on it, I made the adjustment and never knew it was a no-no..something for which I am forever grateful, as it simplifies my life. Also I like the short 8.5" forend and barrel band hardware. I don't use a sling much and if I do it is for carry only and that lowers the gun on my shoulder.

I will never own another American classic because I can't get down on the irons unless they are built up about 3 inches and thats plumb ugly and it interferes with the scope most of the time...I won't own a gun without iron sights...

Thats my call on design, it works for me and if it ain't broke then why fix it...I have no objection to anyones design or their preferences, even the Wby stly stock has some good features I suppose so if you like them then by all means use them...

I don't like the kick eze pads for one thing you can knock big chunks out of them on rocks etc. and I have done that. the other being a soft recoil gives a big bore a running start at your shoulder