I wish to ask a question or two and begin a discussion about stock pitch. I have a nice old Husky 146 in 9.3x57 at home. Undrilled/tapped and all. Beautiful bright bore. The stock was obviously made with open sight shooting in mind. When I look at it in profile I note the pitch of the buttstock is not 90 degrees perpendicular to the bore like say an American Classic stock. Rather, it appears less than 90 degrees perpendicular to the bore. Not taking into account the toe out of the stock as it's for a RH shooter and I am a LH shooter the entire buttstock is in contact with my shoulder and basically follows the line of the pectoral muscle downward. However, an American Classic with what appears to be a buttstock perpendicular to the bore axis contacts my lower pectoral muscle but not my upper essentially leaving the top inch or so of the buttstock not in contact with my body.

The Husky appears to be a more naturally fit stock. Anyone else have thoughts or insights?

A pitch of 90 degrees to the bore would be considered neutral/zero pitch. Typically most people like around 2-3 degrees of pitch, and each gun and or person is different. Not all American classic have zero pitch, so you can’t apply it so.

but you get what I am trying to say?

It should not be 90 degrees to the bore, but 90 degrees to the comb line. Look at the old Mauser spotters; they have more drop at the heel, for iron sights, but the pitch is not 90 degrees to the bore. The modern straight line stock you reference was developed for bench shooting, not an optimal hunting stock, to me. Theoretically to introduce straight line recoil, but that is unnecessary, in my opinion. I like the European classics with more drop at the heel, butt 90 degrees to the comb, or so. Those are better in the field, even with scopes.

what is the solution tom if there is not good cheek contact with the comb then?

90 degrees to the comb line is a method that CAN be used, as can measurement at the muzzle. Either of these will give inconsistent measurements.

Bore C/L is the only accurate way to replicate and in my experience is pretty universal.

The guy that wants a perfect cheek weld with most bolt guns is in for a disappolintment....Oh...we've all seen cocking piece slots in the comb, outrageous monte carlo's and even heels higher than the comb nose.

No easy answers.

I would find it instructive for one of the gunsmiths to offer how they measure for such things.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
It should not be 90 degrees to the bore, but 90 degrees to the comb line. Look at the old Mauser spotters; they have more drop at the heel, for iron sights, but the pitch is not 90 degrees to the bore. The modern straight line stock you reference was developed for bench shooting, not an optimal hunting stock, to me. Theoretically to introduce straight line recoil, but that is unnecessary, in my opinion. I like the European classics with more drop at the heel, butt 90 degrees to the comb, or so. Those are better in the field, even with scopes.

Disagree. Going off the comb line is an inaccurate way of doing so since not every comb line is the same. You can have guns with DAC and DAH being the same(called parallel comb), so 90 degrees from that would be perpendicular to the bore. Likewise if you have a DAH 1” lower than DAC and you go 90 degrees from that you’ll have more pitch. Using your method both guns would have a 90 degree angle as measured from the comb, even though the angles would be roughly 2 degrees different.

Measuring pitch relative to bore line is the only way to produce a universal result.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
I would find it instructive for one of the gunsmiths to offer how they measure for such things.

Measuring the stock is easy. Measuring you takes a try gun, some physical measurements and a good amount of experience in gun fitting.

Of course all comb lines aren't the same.
I fit stocks to the guys, watching and measuring, how they like to hold the rifle. I fit each stock to the guy who will be shooting it. Doing it on line is very difficult.
But unless you like the Monte Carlo stocks of the 1960s, modern shooters sometimes don't like the classic stocks with scopes. They expect too much cheek weld.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
I would find it instructive for one of the gunsmiths to offer how they measure for such things.

Measuring the stock is easy. Measuring you takes a try gun, some physical measurements and a good amount of experience in gun fitting.

Or...maybe submit the question on the back of a $100.00 bill!

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
I would find it instructive for one of the gunsmiths to offer how they measure for such things.

Measuring the stock is easy. Measuring you takes a try gun, some physical measurements and a good amount of experience in gun fitting.

Or...maybe submit the question on the back of a $100.00 bill!

$100 for a D. Wiebe or comparable qualified fitting would seem cheap compared to commissioning an entire stock.

bluefish: Good luck learning how they do it. Doing is one thing, teaching someone how to do it a whole different ballgame. Don't they call that an advanced Stockmaking class? Hah! Have fun with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):



Or...maybe submit the question on the back of a $100.00 bill!

Pretty much.

This runs along the same lines as "how do I run a lathe?"

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
what is the solution tom if there is not good cheek contact with the comb then?

Off hand shooting. Use Iron sights
Prone or bench or off of sticks? get use to not having cheek weld at all. you float your head just off the stock.

the real problem here is you want to put a scope on a rifle that is not set up to accept a scope. your rifle was designed for irons. and there is not much you can do other that getting one of those ugly strap on cheek risers unless you replace the stock with one that has the geometry for a scope.


That said you did ask for gun fitting advice.

Orvis has a book "guide to gunfitting"

and Gunfitting by Michael Yardley

These books will not tell you how to fit a gun but they will tell you why. How takes years, decades of experience and you need a good eye to judge build and body shape.

Now do you see why Duane said write your question on the back of a $100 bill?

If I may, a question about the rifle itself.
In a local store a Husky Rifle caught my eye. Its in the same caliber as yours, or so it says on the barrel. But virtually no markings whatsoever on the Mauser 98 style action.

Is yours this way as well? Does your have iron sights?

....I cannot envision a situation where having the toe trail behind the heel would be beneficial. All it does is make the stock slide under one's arm on recoiling, or stab one in the chest.

Lindy; Husqvarnas of the period usually have markings only on the barrel, whether they use the FN or 96 type actions. If yours is a 98, then it is not made by Husqvarna; they never made a 98 action. The 98 receivers usually do not have serial numbers, except for the ones put on the bottom by FN. .
As for the toe being a positive angle, I would never do that. In fact, I just installed a pad 15 minutes ago; I sawed it off at 87 degrees, from the comb angle, which was parallel with the bore. I now measure them with my cell phone, which is a fast and accurate way to measure angles.

Bluefish you hit an important issue that is rarely discussed.
Personally, the reason for the butt and pitch , is to offer the shooter an opportunity to rest the rifle on the body thereby making it easy to hold and balance.
Also where and how the butt sits on the stock geometrically, is important for fit and consistent application " repeatability", net result, better accuracy.
If the butt has 10 square inches of area. All of it , better sit on the shoulder evenly. If you have to squeeze it in to bury the butt in the shoulder. You'll have areas buried deeper than others which will cause pain. if less than full contact, then the recoil is absorbed in a smaller area, again more penetrating pain, bruising.
Many of us have seen rifles mounted that have half the butt sticking in mid air and or angles biting into the body. Depending on body built and pain tolerance, explains why some have no problems and some detest the experience.
If I was building rifles for a living, and want my clients to appreciate the attention to detail.
I would build a small manipulating jig to attach to the butt end of any stock and custom fit. It has to be able to yaw left or right, in or out and not as a one piece, to make allowance for toe angles etc... Not rocket science. Not one set angle for all. None of us are built the same, nor do we hold the rifle the same.

Afterwards, copy the measurements exactly to the finished product. Only then do you have full even contact and comfort. Why put up with the punishment and not expect perfection.
The bottom line is, some European makers build tuxedos and we buy at Walmart. If it has has some bling, we call it custom.

That contraption is called a try stock; and building a stock totally from scratch like that costs so much that my clients won't pay for that. Best I can do is their LOP and pitch.
However, much of the phenomenon of having the stock not touching the shoulder all the way is from using a straight line stock for field shooting. We modern shooters seem to have ignored the lessons of 100 years ago and think that any heel drop is a bad thing. We like to design bench stocks for field use. Don't work all that well.
I actually think that much of that was designed to use smaller pieces of wood. If you study it, it is actually very hard to put your shoulder, a low sight plane, your neck,and your eyes, all in the same line. We need some drop at the butt. Look at instinct shooting devices, like shotguns; and double rifles; ask why bolt rifles are not made like that. Because they are made to shoot from the bench.

dpcd I totally agree with you. I won't touch a straight stock. The only place feasable is for Bench rest shooting with stocks similar to the Lee six BR stocks.
I don't want to make myself fit the stock. The stock should fit me. The heel of the stock sits at the top of the shoulder, then you have the length of the neck and height of the face to center of the eye. I cannot crane my neck enough to get behind a scope's center on a straight stock and why should I.
Gun writers pushed the straight stock idea, the manufacturers and everybody followed it like sheeple. The idea of straight back recoil is fine but when our physical confirmation doesn't mesh, the idea is bunk.
Most won't challenge it and follow the masses.

The most hideous guns are the custom rifles of some of the most respected long time gunmakers. Especially European, who change their stocks to match the fad. They should know better.

Instead of having as low as possible sight centers in relation to center axis of the bore. You end up with higher and higher rings/bases to semi fit. If you add the traditional open sights, you have to have extra tall unsightly sights to be able to use them. Most rifles open sights are set at traditional heights, meaning the bases of the scope rings are higher than the open sights. The only way to utilize them is by totally moving the bases. Not well thought of or practical.
Everything is connected and changes will affect others.

My intention with the jig is not a complete try gun but a simple attachment that clamps at the heel of the given gun with minute adjustments strictly for pitch. With a light aluminum rod that fits on top and extends towards the center of bore. Nothing fancy.

I meant to say the aluminum rod should extend to the center of the aiming point, not the bore. We don't shoot looking down the center of the bore.
That's why they make sights that adjust for the difference in height.
It is a good idea to figure out what optics, size and type of height attachments will be and lastly make the stock accordingly.

The center of the aiming point, optics and open sights should align together, whether flip sights or ingenuity in design should be the top focusing point and everything else should follow it and fit like a glove.

All good points. Thanks. I had picked up a while ago a Chas Daly LH 3006 from a forum member. The stock has a MC feature on the stock and toe out as well. It's rather blocky but comfortable for scope useage. Not sure how one could shoot irons with that stock though.

Irons have to be the same plane as the scope; look at the early post 64 Model 70s with the Monte Carlos; they have very high iron sights.
Your specific problem is not the toe in or out or any angle; it is that your stocks are too straight for the shooter, and the sight/scope plane. No matter how much of an angle you put on them, you will always have too little toe/and consequently, heel, drop and the butt pad will not have full contact on the shoulder. As described above. We are trying to make straight stocks do things they are not good at. Under the misguided guise of reducing recoil or some other theory. Look at a 1949 Model 70 stock, or a 1930 Masuer stock, for design perfection. Do not look at a modern stock with a cheek piece that is parallel with the bore, or sight plane. Except for bench shooting.
Now, do people make them work by craning their necks to fit? Yes, all the time.
Now, those straight stocks work only with high sight/scope planes. How does the straight M16 stock work? Look at the sight plane; lots of examples.
My theory for the day. Others might disagree.

I think the idea of the "straight" stock was the brain child of jack O'Connor. Just shows how the human body can accomodate, because Jack himself had a pretty long neck.

Even sillier is making the heel higher than the comb nose.. I call that the "Quasi Moto" stock design.

like this one?

https://www.google.com/search?...mgrc=5WmHUDkXuKfiiM:

Tom, our local LL Bean has a m70 in 06 with that sort of stock. total contact with the shoulder. quite comfortable.

No, I don't care for that Serengeti type; it is still a straight stock, only they reduced the comb height quite a bit.
Look at a 1949 Model 70 stock.

I was responding to Duane's mention of a stock that drops away from the shooter.

For the sake of discussion does anyone have pictures of various rifles with different pitch to the stock?

I found these:

https://www.google.com/search?...mgrc=48YkfngH8ttMZM:

https://www.google.com/search?...mgrc=8NZM92WhMBromM:

https://www.google.com/search?...mgrc=VXRA0-V6I3_SoM:

https://www.google.com/search?...mgrc=ENsRP3JecgIAuM:

PM sent to you and I may be able to help you

Bingo Duane, spot on! The human body with just a little time and practice can shoot about any gun..Stock makers just hate to hear this!

I grew up shooting low comb mod. 70 and 94 Win. and older guns that went against everything that today is holey. I was blessed not poisoned by BS. Learned to shoot irons and scope with the same rifle early on.

My guns are low comb stocks, with enough drop so that I can mount it to my shoulder with iron sights and Im dead on at my 50 yard beer can when I open my eyes or eye.

I can shoot anyone of these guns with a low mounted scope or even with med. height scopes by lifting my head a fraction..The cheek weld is a,myth and a mental must..All I need to do is put the cross hair on fur and pull the trigger..I have dyed in the wool experts say boy this gun has a great feel, points like a shotgun..I usually say that's good and let it go at that..A high comb can no way work with irons and building a rear iron sight up two inches is just a crap solution on a fine rifle. I want to keep everything low, and not an ounce of un-needed wood..

A couple of years back, I started shooting metallic silhouette. Since this is all off-hand shooting, stocks evolved to accomodate this position and allow the shooter to be as comfortable as possible. The stocks typically have a comb which is right at the centerline of the bore and have considerable drop at the heel.
A good cheek weld DOES enable one to hold better but other aspects of the stock design should be varied to accomodate the shooter's position.
It is interesting to watch different people on the line. Some will fit this stock perfectly. The butt will make full contact with the shoulder and the head will be as upright as possible and still maintain contact. Other shooters seem to like to have their head down and extended forward. These guys will locate the comb to accomodate their preferred head position and may end up with half the butt below their armpit. These guy would be well served by using a stock with much less drop at the heel. Others will shoot with their head more upright and may end up with a good portion of the butt above their shoulder. They could use a higher comb, more drop at the heel, or both.
In MS, form definitely follows function and stock designs reflect this. I find the making of a stock for my silhouette rifle to be kind of relaxing since it is kind of a free-style approach.
Trying to incorporate the dimensional requirements into a stock which looks reasonably good is a bit more of a challenge and, if making a stock for a sporting rifle, some compromises are necessary to get a stock that (a) looks good. and (b) is usable in other positions.
Grip angle also plays an important part in the way that it may influence or be influenced by, a shooter's style of shooting. In general, a more vertical grip will better fit a shooter who shoots with his shooting elbow down. A more open grip will favor an elbow-up stance.
There is no doubt that stock design does affect performance. The best shooters will shooter well with any stock but will shoot considerably better with one that fits; and they do shoot well.
The best master class shooters are probably capable of scoring consistently in the high 90's on the NRA 100 yard smallbore target, with a high x-count. All will shoot better with stocks designed to fit them and their style.
One thing a good-fitting stock does is that it takes the shooter's mind off how the stock is fitting and he will be free to concentrate on the shooting so stock fit becomes a bit of a psychological aid as well as a physical one. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
If I may, a question about the rifle itself.
In a local store a Husky Rifle caught my eye. Its in the same caliber as yours, or so it says on the barrel. But virtually no markings whatsoever on the Mauser 98 style action.

Is yours this way as well? Does your have iron sights?

Did you happen to pick this up? If you did I can help you figure out which FN military contract it came from.

quote:

what is the solution tom if there is not good cheek contact with the comb then?

Cut the upper half of the stock and glue in a big piece od wood to reshape it as a higher stock.