The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Re: Serengeti ZephyrGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Re: Serengeti Zephyr | Login/Join |
| one of us |
SDH, I suggest that you try to improve the way you express yourself in the future. And to the point don't think the way you said what you did has not been noticed or is home free. | ||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Doesn't matter who he is, or says he is; he'll never see a dime of my money. With an attitude like that, I couldn't imagine trying to explain how I wanted something done on my rifle or pistol. Especially if he didn't see it the same way. NOOOOOOO THANKS, Jim | |||
|
| one of us |
Good post SDH. When you can get up to see Rod. He is so enthusiastic and such a good guy as it seems you are as well. | |||
|
one of us |
Quote: Steven is right. There is a basic geometry to the human body that defines the relationship between sighting eye, chin/cheek, and shoulder. I can't imagine how you would contort your body to fit this configuration when shooting offhand. I've seen people shoot straight stocks (comb parallel with bore) with at least a half inch of butt projecting above their shoulder. They profess that the stock fits them perfectly, but the projection almost precisely defines the drop at heel they require for a proper fit. GV | |||
|
| <mikeh416Rigby> |
I have the Merlin configuration on a recently stocked 375 Ackley Improved. I'm shooting almost maximum loads behing a 300 grain bullet, and I honestly don't mind the recoil. It actually is a little bit less than the factory stocked rifle in its original form which was a Win Model 70 Stainless Classic with the fiberglass stock. Just my $.02. | ||
|
| one of us |
The Merlin is a classic design with very little drop at the heel. The drop at the nose accomodates the long bolt throw of the M1999 magnum lenght action, and it also reduces felt recoil by moving the comb away from your "cheek-weld" when the rifle begins to accelerate rearward. This really becomes a benefit in the harder-kicking rifles. | |||
|
| one of us |
Looks super, and the price is right! - mike | |||
|
| one of us |
Well, sir, you are welcome to your opinion. This geometry was designed by Mel (Merlin) Smart, who had more experience in classic designs than most gun builders. I've personally built and tested rifles up to and including the .458 Lott on this design and , for me, can attest to the proof of the statement - reduces felt recoil. We chose the "Merlin" geometry for this low-end offering because it fits the widest range of shooters. Mel used to call this shape the "Montanan". Some folks here asked us to find a way to make one at a lower price. And so we did. | |||
|
| <mikeh416Rigby> |
Quote: I respectfully disagree with you about your comment on this stock design being poorly designed for recoil management. I have this stock design on a 375 Ackley Improved, and I'm shooting 300 grain, near maximum loads. Yesterday afternoon I took it out to the range, and shot 21 rounds from the bench in slightly over an hour. For the first time since I've been shooting 375s, I didn't use my Past recoil reducer recoil pad, and the recoil was very tolerable. All 7 groups were under 1 1/4 inches at 100 yards. If the recoil wasn't being adequately managed, I don't think I would have been able to get those size groups. The stock is fitted with a decelerator pad, and I'm sure that helps, but shooting the rifle is very comfortable. | ||
|
| one of us |
Let's take a step back here. The Merlin has drop at heel. The drop is minimal, about 3/16 of an inch. The drop at the nose of the comb is more like 9/16 of an inch. If the pictures don't reflect this, blame the photographer. There is no such thing as a "basic" anything. There is a "mean" to which there is huge variation. Comb height can be +/- a half inch from "mean" for many people. Build enough stocks and you discover that the people have different facial structures. Which is why we do a lot of semi-custom work. A drop-in needs to be close to the mean. | |||
|
| one of us |
I want on the list for a Model 70 A.S.A.P. I'll call tomorrow. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: No.......the photo reflects that, and it's the configuration that is being addressed. The drop (from bore line) at comb nose greatly exceeds the drop at heel. This places the area on the comb where the cheek rests at a lower plane than the top of the shoulder......assuming the butt of the stock is going to be correctly positioned on the shoulder. That is a very unusual shooting position......particularly off-hand. Quote: Well, actually there is a basic. And it has a lot to do with human anatomy. There are several custom stockmakers that have lent their design expertise to commercial gunmakers (Len Brownell, Duane Wiebe, etc.....). Their designs don't have a drop at nose greater than drop at heel. For good reason. I'm not making the observation to merely cheer for their designs rather than the example pictured here. Many years ago I fashioned a rather crude "try stock" from a junk semi-inlet stock. Adjustable comb and adjustable butt. I didn't come up with much new information. Basically confirmed the design principals that others had written about for years. Recoil is magnified when the butt stock is on any linear plane other than that of the bore. Stocks with more drop at heel.....including monte carlo stocks.....are easier to mount and acquire targets quickly. Aesthetics, fit, and recoil absorption are a compromise. My opinion would be this stock configuration isn't a design that satisfies any "mean" or "basic". GV | |||
|
| one of us |
Well I guess I'm out of the mean here. I just received a Merlin stock that the only change was a 14.5" LOP. I mounted a Leupold VX-III in medium rings and in the 42 years I've been hunting with just about everybrand of factory rifle I've never experienced a more comfortable stock shooting either off the bench or offhand. The felt recoil on my 358 is much better than some lesser calibers from Rem., Wind, Browning. or Ruger. Granted, this is my first semi-custom, but I've shot some socalled expensive customs owned by friends and none has impressed me as much as my Merlin. Sorry if my actually experience differs from what's stated in theory, but I can only comment on what I like, and so far I like what I have. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Absolutely, with 3 people trying the same rifles this fall, one could see the open sights perfectly, one just, and one (me) not at all. How much you are capable or are comfortable with getting down on the comb of the rifle varies a bunch more than I had ever imagined. Besides, how far you stretch your head up the rear stock varies too. I have not tried a Merlin geometry extensively, but the one I tried in no way felt unnatural in an off-hand position. - mike | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: The sight picture, or the ability to align your eye to either open sights or a scope, only deals with that portion of the comb where your cheek rests. This indeed can vary from individual to individual.....if only slightly. The configuration in question is the top of the butt in relation to that point of the comb where the cheek touches. If the heel, properly positioned on the shoulder, is at the top of the shooter's shoulder, the cheek is resting on the comb at a spot lower (in relation to the bore) than the top of the shooter's shoulder. You can conform to any position when shooting a rifle.......it's not typically a sustained position. however, the machinations of cheeking a stock of this configuration while properly positioning the butt against your shoulder, will yield some interesting shooting styles. Check it out in your mirror. It will likely cause you to "throw" your shoulder up higher, or cause a head position on the comb that forces you to look through the upper quadrant of your eye range.........closer to your eyebrow. A well fitted rifle comes to the shoulder like a shotgun. Facing a target with your eye orbit centered, the rifle mounts to the 2 points of shoulder and cheek, and the sights or scope align perfectly on your line of sight to the target. The sights or scope just come between your eye and target. If you are a "both eyes open" shooter, your off eye never leaves the target to conform to a new position on the rifle. It's a very old premise. And a very old, very sound stock configuration. As SDH stated above........there is a reason stocks have drop at the heel. In this case "drop" being defined as heel lower than comb........not heel lower than bore line. GV | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Shouldn't a well fitted rifle come to the shoulder like a, uh, rifle? I've had some pretty poor fitting shotguns. | |||
|
| <allen day> |
True, very true. I'm amazed at how many stockmakers seem to have shotgun stocks and riflestocks confused........... AD | ||
|
| <SDH> |
A shotgun stock is different that a rifle stock. The eye is the rear sight for a shotgun so correct fitting is much more critical than for a rifle which is simply a matter of aligning the eye with the rear sight. Now, making sure the eye naturally aligns with the rear sight means designing the stock with this in mind. Bolt rifles have virtually no variable for the comb height because the bolt wobble determines the maximum height of the comb nose and conventional wisdom has the comb nose as high as possible. Drop at the heel (more than at the comb) allows the rifle to be easily mounted and sights quickly aligned when shooting offhand. Hardly anybody, except a few serious hunters and a few target shooters shoots offhand anymore. DAH also allows the barrel to rise during recoil which lessens the felt recoil at the shoulder. The gunwriters (and I am one of them with gunmaking experience) can tell you that a rising muzzle is not condusive to a good second shot. Marksmen might tell you that a well placed first shot is what really counts and the bolt should be coming back with the rising muzzle and going forward as the rifle comes back on target. Too much drop at the heel is not right either, but I can't even imagine trying to shoot that Zephyr stock offhand with a ten pound .375. For those that are truly interested, Stockmaker James Tucker will have his bolt-action try stock at the Custom Gun Exhibition in Reno the last week of Jan. (check acgg.org) He gives fitting for iron sight rifle charging a meer $30 for opening folk's minds about what really works. As for DAH he says, "The eye is WAY above the shoulder. 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," he says. | ||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I agree with everything you say here. My comment on the shotgun fit was not to construe that a shotgun and rifle stock should be of the same design or configuration. However, in both cases the two "anchor" points are the butt to the shoulder and the cheek to the comb. If properly designed and fitted to the individual, these two anchor points on the respective stocks should yield a "sight picture" that allows comfortable and accurate shooting without "fidgeting" or making minor adjustments to gain the sights or scope. That certainly is more critical on a shotgun, because properly done a shotgun shooter isn't even aware of sights or bead. Your subsequent text on the rifle stock design and configuration is excellent. Quote: Absolutely true. Anatomy......and the instinctive position of the butt against the shoulder when the cheek is against the comb and eye aligned with the scope. A plethora of shooters who own straight stocks, with the intent of lessening recoil, will shoot them with an inch of butt pad extending above their shoulder. They would be better served by having a stock with a bit more drop at heel.......as Tucker goes on to explain. GV | |||
|
One of Us |
Funny the word the phrase that comes to mind when I read the negative replies is...Pompous Ass. Rod, Nice looking stock...keep up the good work. | |||
|
| one of us |
First of all when a rifle recoils and the barrel goes up the cheekpiece will hit you. This does not lessen the effect of recoil! Hold your hand on a rifle and look for your shoulder and it's about as high as your cheek even in offhand. And you don't put your eye on the stock for cripes sakes you put your cheek there. I happen to like that Serengeti stock. The comb will pull away from the cheek in recoil and one may be able to see the bullets hit depending on the load. The stock is very similar to the very straight Kimber stocks that I am using. They fit me very well but don't fit everyone. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: You can dismiss the crticism.....or critiques for a number of reasons. Either because of whom, or how the criticism is being posted.........or the fact that Rod has been a helpful and integral part of this forum. From his invovement in the initial MRC offering to his involvement and expansion of the laminated stock product he now is successfully engaged in. However, that doesn't change the fundamental issues that are being discussed in this thread. American custom stockmakers have been involved in making rifle stocks, and writing about that process for over 75 years. Their endeavors have been as much functional as stylistic. They've lent this accrual of knowledge to the gun industry in several fashions.......in some cases directly. They didn't overlook or miss a design possibility. What is being delivered now is the ultimate refinement of sound design principles. And the difference from the subject of this thread is stark. GV | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Is this really true? I would hate to think this is becoming a lost skill. This should be part of a well rounded shooting skills. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Schromf, I think you have to look at the state of our sport...and hunting ethics. First, field conditions first competition conditions are very different. Second, fewer and fewer folks shoot multi position competition events. Third, combine that with hunting ethics that say...don't pull the trigger unless you are very confident of a clean 1 shot kill Fourth, almost all rifles are scoped which are harder to shoot off hand. The above makes the number of off-hand shooting very limited. My peronal rules are the following max ranges... off hand 75 yds sitting kneeling 125 yds sticks 175 yds 200-250 yds prone 250-300 yds prone and rock solid rest. Can I hit a 9 inch plate off hand at 125 yds with good appeture sights at a range...you bet. Can I hit it 9 out a 10...nope...could I hit it at 100 yds under field conditions 7/10 probably not. For me I get sick when I have to track an animal so I just don't take that risk. So yeah...I think good off hand shooting is becoming a lost skill. | |||
|
| <mikeh416Rigby> |
I just got back from the rifle range a couple of hours ago, where I gave my Merlin 375 Ackley Improved a thorough testing. It weighs 9 3/4 pounds in Talley rings and bases with a Leupold 1.75 x 6 scope. It in no way is unpleasant to shoot. Several members had their attention grabbed when they heard the report of the Ackley, and started gathering around to check it out. No one would believe me when I told them that it absolutely didn't hammer me when I squeezed one off, so I offered a shot to anyone who cared to try it. Four men, and one lad of 15 or 16 ponied up and shot it offhand. To paraphrase their comments upon shooting it, they all said That's not too bad. I'm surprised it didn't slam me harder. The stock design works. | ||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Can't accept that premise. Who is "they"? Does it include people like Merlin Smart or Dennis Olson. They had/have a century of experience between them. It's a closed mind that won't try new things and those two certainly were/are willing. We don't directly design stock shapes. Haven't the expertise to do something like that. We collaborate on shapes, a successful shapes. Merlin is by Mel Smart, who was known to depart from the norm from time to time. He sold a number of this shape under the design name of Montanan. Our Leopard, with a very similar rise from comb to heel was designed by Dennis Olson. The Cheetah is a derivative of the Leopard, slimmer but still the same basic shape. The Lioness was based on another Mel Smart custom, one he built for me with a free hand to make it what he wanted to. It has a level comb with about 1/2" drop at heel and a more closed grip. Dual duty design for iron sights and scopework. Iron sight only gets more like 1.25 to 1.5 drop. Did one recently for one customer who sent it back saying comb was too high and could we take it down 3/4 inch. Thought that was too much so rasped off 3/8 and sent it back for trials. Perfect!, he says and now it's in for finishing. Sometimes we have to add a Monte Carlo on TOP of the Merlin shape so our customer gets the platform they want. Looks weird, I admit, but - eye of the beholder - . Point is, there is more than chocolate, vanilla & strawberry out there. Like or hate em, they are what they are. My personal Cheetah in 270 Weatherby has been a joy to shoot. It's experience this year (it's first year): One elk - sitting One bear - offhand One coyote - offhand Four antelope - all prone one mule deer - prone one mule deer - offhand It's a ten pound rifle with iron sights and a 4.5-14x LR Leupold. Comes up fast. Steady as a stone and will shoot two inch groups at 500yds. Now all that said, all of the geometries we do don't cover all of the market. We're always open to new (or old) ideas. If folks want it, we'll make it. | |||
|
| one of us |
 Whats realy going on ? ? ?  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Rod, Your class act... | |||
|
| One of Us |
That's a very nice stock for $375. | |||
|
one of us |
Quote:Quote: I shoot off hand and practice doing so on a fairly regular basis. I would never shoot offhand when a rest was available but would consider myself foolish for not knowing how. But in the world of canned hunts, 4 wheelers with gun racks and high fences who knows maybe I am to old fashioned. After all if your driving around in your 4 wheeler or sitting in a zebra stripped blazer headed to the tree stand why bother, IMHO it isnt like you are hunting anyway. | |||
|
| one of us |
A mostly intelligent discussion of rifle stock design. Differences in opinion - a good thing. It occurred to me in the shower this morning that maybe the difference in opinion here is derived from iron sights. Neither Merlin, Leopard or Cheetah work well for most folks if iron sights are primary alignment system. But then, 8 out of 10 rifles that come through our shop have none. If your rifle has iron sights and you like to use them a lot, the Zephyr (or Merlin) is probably not the stock shape for you. I can get down on my Cheetah, but it's marginal. And that's with a high blade and the rear set near the top of the adjustment. It's a backup system. And sighted for 100yds. | |||
|
| one of us |
Rod, are you going to make any Merlins in LH short Remington 700 actions? I have Mel's last LH stock built for the LH Remington long action. I used it this year to shoot the largest whitetail I have ever taken. It was more special because I was using Mel's stock. He was one of the nicest people I have ever met. He told me that some of the A.C.G.G.(I think that is right) members wanted him in the guild. That is all I need to know about his stockmaking ideas and expertise. Rod, don't let a few of the a**h***s that post here influence what you are doing. You and Larry are doing a heck of a job! By the way, can you list all of the LH actions that you are making stocks for? | |||
|
| one of us |
As an aside, American Trap shooters have some of the same recoil and gun mount considerations as rifle shooters. Somewhat akin to the current rifle hunting, American Trap shooters aren't as interested in quick mounting. The gun is deliberately set to the shoulder before calling for the bird. I used to work with some of these more serious shooters. Recoil consideration was high on their list......as they tended to shoot well in excess of 200 times per outing. however, the types of guns they shot were more condusive to solving the problem than the typical bolt action rifle. They didn't have to worry about an open bolt defining the height of the comb nose, and they could lower the barrel in relation to the comb......thus directing the recoil on a straight plane to the shoulder. The typical solution was an "Under Barrel"......or in fact an Over and Under shotgun that only had the bottom barrel. An extremely high rib was mounted on that barrel for a sight plane. One ancillary benefit to this rib was raising it above the hot barrel, and thus having less interference from a "heat shimmer" on the sighting plane. One principle that they did adhere to was the butt to cheek angle. With a stock that holds the measurement of shoulder slightly lower than cheek, the head is more erect, and the face and eyes are directed straight ahead. If the head has to tilt forward to reach a lower comb, the eyes then are looking at an angle up toward your eyebrows. A more erect position allows quicker target acquisition......which is paramount in shooting trap. I think a case can be made for this same principle in rifles as it pertains to dangerous game. Particularly in a rifle that must be mounted quickly in an off-hand shot. Another fact I forgot to mention previously. As early gunmakers were raising the comb to accommodate scopes, they also ran into the difficulty of the position of the comb nose being defined by the open bolt on a bolt action. Some of the early solutions actually created a notch or groove for the bolt to travel on and still allow a high comb. An entirely workable solution..........that likely died because it was damned ugly. GV | |||
|
one of us |
Aside from the pissing match approach SDH started this crap with it's been interesting. My only experience with Serengeti was a stock, Leopard, I bought from them. I don't have it with me as I gave it away as a gift but it is very pleasant to shoot from a standing postion. One thing I can say is Rod and Larry are very interested in pleasing their customer and if somebody has a issue that doesn't fit them I know they'll be taken care of. It would appear they may be making a bit of a dent in the custom stock market to get such a howl. SDH could have brought up his comments in a more constructive manner IMO, but then so could we all at times. I like Serengeti's product and sooner or later will buy another.  | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Nifty rifle Dempsey! Is that the Leopard stock?? - mike | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Well, as it pertains to SDH...that's doubtful. If you're familiar with Steven's work, the two entities aren't competitors. I don't think Steven does bolt actions anymore. As far as Serengeti is concerned, I hope they prosper....because they should. Their laminated wood process should find an expanding market. I'm a wood stock man, and it's easily the only laminated wood I would ever consider. Rod's presence on this forum, and the good press the product has received are certainly good signs. As to the discussion....I think it's useful for people to know why certain dimensions of a stock are laid out thusly.....and what changes, even subtle ones, will do to the shooting and handling characteristics. An earlier poster mentioned the changes in hunting and associated shooting habits.......and he's likely correct. The current accepted hunting practice is typically from a seated blind, prone, or off a rest of some sort. That, along with a penchant for recoil suppression has likely yielded a different shooting position......and stock styles more condusive to it. Jack O'Connor's preferred comb dimension was comb nose just low enough to clear the bolt, and drop at heel 1/2 inch more......from his .270 to .416. Elmer Keith, who was certainly in love with big-kickers, preferred a monte carlo comb. I daresay a good measure of our current shooters would pronounce either style unbearable to shoot. On other areas of the stock, Allen Day is an outspoken aficionado of the Biesen and Goens style stock. At times I think his posts have been lifted directly from a Phil Pilkington gun class I attended in 1983. Rifle magazine had just printed an article of the several stockmakers that were putting out work with the more open grip (Manderino, Fisher, to name a couple). Phil was almost apoplectic! "That grip is a derivative of the open double trigger shotgun grip! It's needed so you can move smoothly to reposition on the 2nd trigger!" "The rifle grip should have enough purchase for the bottom fingers of the grip to hold the stock firmly to the shoulder!" Basically according to Phil, if it wasn't of the Biesen/Goens "American Classic" style.....it wasn't shit. A few of us were a bit chagrined........we had become quite enamored with the open grip.  Hell, I still am. I've also become used to talented craftsmen being an opinionated lot.....some vocally so. However, one serendipitous affect of those outbursts.........the more they talk (or rant), the more I will likely learn. That's been my experience anyway. Stock dimensions are a compromise. Go with what fits you......and fits your hunting and shooting habits. However, I do think it helps if you know why. GV | |||
|
| one of us |
"Jack O'Connor's preferred comb dimension was comb nose just low enough to clear the bolt, and drop at heel 1/2 inch more......from his .270 to .416. Elmer Keith, who was certainly in love with big-kickers, preferred a monte carlo comb. I daresay a good measure of our current shooters would pronounce either style unbearable to shoot. " GV,probably and re-enforces my thoughts a lot of design is style over substance. I wonder what a couple MD types would come up with if instructed to design a stock shape that is most condusive to shooting in hunting situations without regard to current accepted styles. I bet it wouldn't be pretty or sell either. I am some what familiar with SDH's work based mostly on what I've seen in print. I'm not knocking his obvious talent with rilfes but rather his ability of lack of it to discuss such a issue. SOme of the cat fights amongst the pros are like watching kids fight over which cartoon is best. It was a informative as you say however. | |||
|
one of us |
Dempsy, that's exactly how the A-Square coil-check stock came about(according to ALphin)and you're right: butt-ugly and very limited market. If the few comments made by owners are representative of the majority opinion, they must work, however. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: "hunting situations" covers a lot of ground. As does the variety of cartridges currently available. Marketing to the masses is also typically a "style over substance" proposition. I personally believe the monte carlo comb is a better solution than straight combs. It didn't become unpopular because it didn't work. But I only own one, and I can build anything I desire. Commercial makers build what sells best. GV | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |