quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
Funny thing, I took my 1st deer this year at 325yds with one of those old fashion form only custom rifles. They work pretty good in the real world.

Terry

Terry,

First I want to thank you for contributions in this thread, they are highly valued.

A shot at a deer at 325 yards does not reqire mutch of a fit, you know.
The rifle does not need to "handle" at all.

Like shooting a sitting duck with a shotgun, does not need mutch of a fit either.
But a Woodcock going zigzag between trees...?
A Teal coming in with the wind on your left side...?
A charging lion?

Hell, I spent most of my younger days shooting with illfitted guns. Even my sniper-rifle in the army was too short and too low.

I just think that if it is obtainable, why settle for less?
The last 10 years my guns have all been rigged with scope only for a perfect fit.
I am building my .425 Fossdal in 2009, and it dang sure will fit with both irons and scope and it will handle like I want it too.
I'll come back to that, and you guys will be judge!

Well, I'm glad you plan on building a gun that fits you and your needs. I have several that fit me and my hunting style perfectly. While they may not meet your approval, I'm very happy with their fit, function and perfomance. You refer to them as "ill fitting" even though you've never seen or handeled them. The last thing I had in mind when I replied to this thread was to upset anyone. From your last kurt response it's obvious I have failed. It's just a simple difference of opinion.

Go build your rifle and I wish you nothing but the best.

Terry

Terry,

I am hard pressed to see how you could read out of my post that I referred to your private guns as illfitting, but as english is not my native tounge, I might have missed or expressed myself wrong - if so, I am sorry.
How you can say my responce shows I am upset, I have no clue.

I am glad you are happy with your guns, by all means.

I am at loss here...

I just wanted to focus on sights and fitting, if it could be better, but as Duane clearly expressed, there is no issue at all.

Bent,
If having scope lower suites you (as does me), have it done,thats what custom means.
EG: you could get TPS high rings,or something similar, and machine to suite claw or rotary QD bases.

some rough photoshop.

Gentlemen, I'm with Bent on this one. Crafting a stock that will give a good cheek weld with a scope and with traditional iron sights, while at the same time having an acceptable or classical appearance, is next to impossible. Most of my rifles are stocked for scope use, and I haven't even bothered to put irons on them. For one good reason - I wouldn't be able to get my head low enough to use the iron sights.

I think one has to decide whether scope or irons will be the primary sight, and the stock should be made to fit the primary need. A primarily open-sighted rifle could still be used with a scope (although the fit won't be perfect), but it doesn't always work the other way around.

Then what if the scope and iron sights are of equal importance? I don't care much for adjustable combs on hunting guns, so to get the best of both worlds, for me the only way to go is a low-mounted scope and relatively high iron sights. The problem is that a high rear sight blade partially obscures the view through the scope at low magnification. A folding blade is one solution. Another is to do away with the blade entirely, and instead put a ghost ring / aperture sight on the receiver bridge. This is the setup that I chose on my DGR in .404 Jeffery. Of course the aperture needs to come off before the scope goes on, but it takes only a couple of seconds.

Now, whether a good cheek weld is essential for good fit or handling is a different question. For me it is, but apparently it's highly individual.

Yea, the aperture/ghost ring set in the scope base is a super way to go, the only disadventage being that the sight is loose, not part of the gun.
But thanks for the input, and we would love to see picks of that sight-setup here!

Poor fit is rather easily compensated with a bolt action rifle.

Is a rifle that naturally comes to the should and becomes part of you like a custom fit shotgun does a nice thing? Of course! But it takes very little practice to overcome a poor rifle fit. The fact that most factory rifles are set for 5' 10" guys is dealt with by the 90% of us that aren't that.

As was said earlier. Fit to the primary sight, deal with poorer fit for the backup.

And don't discount looks. Most are admired way more than shot.

Trax,
yea, that is great, still a bit too low for perfect fit, but close!

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:
Poor fit is rather easily compensated with a bolt action rifle.

True, until recoil becomes substantial. I think its pretty well established that a lot of newcomers to high recoil rifles are turned off before they get a chance due to crappy stock fit. Likewise, most of the modern big bores I see posted have impractical iron sights for snap shooting. The old pre-war model 70 had a nice balance between drop at the comb for irons but back in those days, 50 and 56mm object lenses were for astronomical telecopes, not rifle scopes. The old Weaver mounts weren't pretty but they sure put the scope on the right plane.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
I actually have a couple rifles where the Irons and optics "Co-Witness" perfectly:

Absolute co-witness or lower third? Your carbines look like they are set up for absolute co-witness. If they are you should give lower third a try, you'll like it.