Drop and Recoil

[David R. Pennington]

Reading Peter Alexander's article in Muzzleloader Magazine and he asserts that most all pre 1800 original rifles had no more than around 2-2 1/2" drop and he alledges that 3" or more was a later (post 1800) developement. I don't have access to a lot of originals to measure, but examining rifles in RCA there seem to be quite a few attributed to early makers that exibit 3 or more inches of drop if you take the triggger pull length given and scale to that on the photos. He also relates more than 3" of drop with heavy recoil, relating shooting a .45 cal. with 3 1/2" drop as having painful recoil with 50 grain load.
There must be more to this story because I have a .62 rifle with a generous 3 1/2" drop that I can shoot in a match all day with 80 to 90 grain loads with no discomfort (and I am a little guy, barely 5' 7").
Any thoughts?

[greybeard]

If your big bore gun is not uncomfortable then the gun must be built with a positive pitch that  a lot to do with felt recoil. I would guess that peters gun has negative pitch hence ouch!
      Bob
 

[Stophel]

Wow!  Something I can agree with Peter Alexander on!   

I don't know how anyone can even see the sights on a gun with 3 1/2" of drop.     Boggles my mind.

[jerrywh]

 More drop causes  more of the recoil to go up as apposed to straight back. Cast off kicks to the left or into your cheek. This is not an opinion. It is physics.

[little joe]

Wow!  Something I can agree with Peter Alexander on!   

I don't know how anyone can even see the sights on a gun with 3 1/2" of drop.     Boggles my mind.

Sthopel, something you are forgeting is nature made every one of us different.three and a half in. of drop and thirteen and a half in of pull fits me perfect and recoil in my 54 is not excessive.

[WadePatton]

Wow!  Something I can agree with Peter Alexander on!  

I don't know how anyone can even see the sights on a gun with 3 1/2" of drop.    Boggles my mind.

My 54 has 4" of drop, and shoots great for me, and others who shoot it.  Crescent plate too. 

The only time recoil really got my attention was the time I double charged it.

[retired fella]

Wade, I bet that got your attention.
 

[Joe S.]

Are you not kinda locked into these specs depending upon the style your building?Might be a little wiggle room for adjustment but the original builders set the standards.I have not been able to handle many originals are there big differences in drops from rifle to rifle?from the same builder,does not appear to be from pictures of different rifles built by the same folks.

[Mark Elliott]

I would like to point out that drop and pull have to do with the size of the shooter and geometry.    To a large extent, the pull will set the drop.   A lot of original guns had a longer pull than I would find comfortable and therefore had more drop than I would find comfortable.  I couldn't begin to duplicate many original guns exactly for myself or other modern shooters.    Either tall guys were carrying these old guns or they were shooting differently than we do today.   Also,   I have seen little difference in the measurements of  pre-1800 guns and post 1800 guns.   More of them seem to have been made for giants than not.   You get the right pull and and drop for your shooter and then adjust the two proportionally depending on the type of gun you are making.    

Personally,   a 13.5" pull with about 3" of drop and a 1/4" of cast off fits me about right and I am a 5' 9" tall.   I used to be an inch taller.    That is for offhand shooting.   My chunk gun was made with 13.25" pull and 2.75" drop and that seem to be Ok for prone.    Actually,  it could maybe have had a little less drop for prone shooting.   If you were shooting from a rest,  you might want more drop as I seem to have to scrunch down when I do that.   Obviously,  how you shoot will also dictate the measurements, and we don't know exactly how the original rifles were shot.   We can only guess based on the measurements and assumptions about how tall the original owners were.    

As to recoil,  I have found that not enough cast-off and too little weight have more to do with felt recoil than anything.   

[Joe S.]

interesting Mark,perhaps we over think things more than in those good 'ol days.I don't believe folks where bigger then than now probably a little smaller but not by much.In my opinion looking at some of the strange stock shapes like Roman,club foot,extreme cresent butts ect. and some of those goofy looking things from the middle East comfort was not high on the list by the builders of the day.Like everything thing else evolution weeds out stuff that doesn't work.

[Dan Fruth]

I believe the comb angle-to-wrist has as much to do with painful recoil as anything. RCA 17 or 48 would be easy on recoil to the cheek, but#76 looks like it would bruise the cheek. As far as shoulder recoil, isn't that a given anyway. Just my thoughts.   Dan

[David R. Pennington]

Bob, I think you have something with the pitch angle and you are right about my rifle having positive pitch. I built a try stock out of flat boards and worked with it till I got a lay out that would put the sights in my line of vision when I shouldered the rifle. It is a little awkward on the bench but very knice off hand. Since I built it primarily for hunting I wanted it to shoulder quickly and it does.

[Joe S]

A quick perusal of the net showed that in colonial times, average male height was 5’8” – 5’ 9”.  Average American male height today is 5’ 9” – 5’ 10”.  So, they were shorter back in the day, but not very much. 

Interestingly, it seems that the English Royal Marines averaged 3” less than the Americans.  The paper I read attributed the difference in height to diet.

[WadePatton]

Wade, I bet that got your attention.
 

Was hard on the patch too.