Dan.....with the amount of drop in the stock of the gun pictured, I would think it would jump up into your face. The Isaac Haines stock in question has better architecture than this one.......Don
Hi Don
The drop is typical Kentucky more than some less than others. Raising the sights a little cured the problem.
Note that the lock on this rifle is a SMALL Siler and this may help put the drop into perspective.
This photo was taken at the same time but from a better perspective, lens about centered with the mid point, and I think gives a more accurate look at the rifle. Drop the the heel from line of sights, as best I can measure from printing it is about 80% of the lock plate length.
I do agree the stock design was not perfect or it would not have needed the sights raised .050-.060 (IIRC, pic was taken in winter 1985/86). I sold this rifle in 86/87 its one of "those" mistakes one never forgives oneself for.
When looking at some original rifles I don't see how they could have comfortably shot the stock design with calibers much over 45. Others, especially some early guns are stocked to be more recoil tolerant. Could be the stock designs are closer to the larger bore Jaeger if we assume the American rifle grew from this source this could easily be the case. I am thinking Marshal rifle and similar.
The rifle below can make all the recoil most people can tolerate off the bench for more than 1-5 shots but its not a Kentucky and it does not impact the face in the slightest. A Kentucky would not look right built as this rifle is. Styled like most English rifles its stocked like an English shotgun and uses the same buttplate.
With 150 gr of FFG and a .662 ball it is less likely to "mark" me with the buttplate when held right than my 54 "Hawken" with 90 gr of FFFG and the rifles each weight about 10 pounds and the Hawken has a shop made buttplate that is larger and somewhat flatter across the face than the castings on the market. The Hawken is stock nearly identical to this rifle, I copied the stock. Neither rifle is a cheek biter. But both have higher sights than the typical Kentucky as many Hawkens did. Perhaps there was a reason for this aside from mirage?
American stock design was often predicated on how the rifle held offhand and recoil was secondary it would seem. Some rifles were built to a specific look, Allentown, Bedford etc.
A Kentucky MUST have the proper look and lines. I am sure the Haines repro that started this discussion looks just as it should and this is very important since this is what makes it what it is. But it again points out that the original stock design was perhaps not intended to shoot heavy charges in calibers over 45-50.
But a Golden Age Kentucky must LOOK like a Kentucky.
Drop at the heel, drop at the comb, pitch, cast off aaarrggghh.
Dan
