Comfortable Stock Fit

[54Bucks]

  Please bear with me until I get to 2 questions I'de like feedback on. I'm planning a new build for a larger caliber rifle. I have it narrowed down to 2 choices. Either an English fullstock design like the Tuvey RCA #14, or an early/transitional rifle like the Schreit RCA #18.
 Given that my stock measurements are: (from an earlier Kreps with 1 5/8" butt plate)
            Drop @ Heel 3 1/4"
            Drop @ Comb 1 1/2"
                          LOP  13 3/8"
                  Cast OFF    1/8"
leads me to 2 questions for feedback. Given that my stock measurements are a constant  (except cast-off) and both possible choices have wide/flat butts. Also assuming either choice will be fit properly using the same barrel I've decided on.......
 1. Will the English design have any advantage,comfort wise, over the early/transitional or vice versa?
 2. Will either choice need some adjustment cast-off wise. In particular a Turvey type gun without a cheek pc. ?

[Dphariss]

Few Kentucky stocks are really suitable for heavy recoil.
RCA #48 is pretty good.
It got less than 3" at the heal as far as I can tell.
The Schreit rifle #18 in RCA is pretty good. But I think it has a little too much drop.

This works very well for heavy recoil.

Its a good representation of a English Sporting rifle buttstock and is well suited to heavy recoil.

Dan

[54Bucks]

 As I mentioned in the original post, I have my own stock measurements just like a good fitting pair of shoes that match my feet. I use my measurements when approaching a custom built longrifle for myself. I was more interested in whether or not an English gun like the Turvey RCA#18 had any comfort advantage over an early gun like the Schreit RCA#14, given that they both would have my stock measurements built in and a nice wide relatively flat butt plate?  My guess is that they wouldn't differ much, possibly some difference in cast-off neded between the two. As I think comfortably matching any shooter to his gun is much more that getting the LOP correct.
I'de never pick a gun that appeals to me visually, have a bench copy made,and expect it to fit me when I shoulder it.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

If they have the same butt dimensions...ne. architecture and are the same caliber....what would be different???

[54Bucks]

If they have the same butt dimensions...ne. architecture and are the same caliber....what would be different???

 Who said the same butt dimensions or architecture?

[keweenaw]

Some stock styles will look pretty strange is you build them with that much difference between the comb and the heel.  The shorter barreled rifle is much more likely to bite you in the face shooting it in a heavy caliber that a longer barrel piece because the balance will be very different.  You've said "using the same barrel" , I'm not sure the same barrel would be appropriate for those two designs.  But Tim is correct, given one barrel, one set of lengths, drops and casts the recoil effect will be the same modified only by the fact that a heavier gun will recoil less.  As for cheekpieces and casts, how full one leaves the comb will make more difference than whether the rifle has a cheekpiece or not.  Dan is also correct if one wants to build a gun that deals well with heavy recoil one should choose a stock design that is appropriate which means considerably straighter than the dimensions you've given.  What's critical for easy sight alignment is not what the comb and heal dimensions are but what the dimension is where your cheek is located on the stock and a bit more castoff can make a big difference in this fit as well.

Tom

[54Bucks]

 

If they have the same butt dimensions...ne. architecture and are the same caliber....what would be different???

 Who said the same butt dimensions or architecture?

Some stock styles will look pretty strange is you build them with that much difference between the comb and the heel.  The shorter barreled rifle is much more likely to bite you in the face shooting it in a heavy caliber that a longer barrel piece because the balance will be very different.  You've said "using the same barrel" , I'm not sure the same barrel would be appropriate for those two designs.  But Tim is correct, given one barrel, one set of lengths, drops and casts the recoil effect will be the same modified only by the fact that a heavier gun will recoil less.  As for cheekpieces and casts, how full one leaves the comb will make more difference than whether the rifle has a cheekpiece or not.  Dan is also correct if one wants to build a gun that deals well with heavy recoil one should choose a stock design that is appropriate which means considerably straighter than the dimensions you've given.  What's critical for easy sight alignment is not what the comb and heal dimensions are but what the dimension is where your cheek is located on the stock and a bit more castoff can make a big difference in this fit as well.

Tom

 I appreciate your input Tom.  I attribute a good stock fit primarily to Drop @ Heel and Drop@ Comb. By that I mean when I shoulder a gun that feels right for me, the sights are in allignment and cheek is naturally resting at the comb. Seems to me that if the Drop @ Heel measurement isn't close, than neither are the sights or butt plate to the shoulder. Same with the Drop @comb, as well as stock thickness and cast-off,regarding where the cheek  rests naturally.Granted some styles better fit some people than others. Yet I don't think any style can be ruled out due to it's architecture or the measurements of the original. Just like I think Allen Martin can build a Lehigh that comfortably fits different shaped and sized users.

[coutios]

 If you are building a rifle with its sole purpose being comfort with heavy charges draw it out on paper prior to anything else... A late friend built a flint gun, 38" 50 cal. swamp barrel with the butt stock of Model '59 Sharps Carbine. He loved the way that rifle fit him. That thing was Butt Ugly but he sure could shoot it...  To each their own...

Best of luck
Regards
Dave

[James Rogers]

Drop at nose of comb and drop at heel do in fact only work together to put drop at face at a certain height. If the comb is longer on one gun than the other, the drop of face can be lower on the longer comb if both have the same nose height. The measurements that work for you on one gun design may not always work on another gun. The cast may differ as well depending on how wide the comb is including any cheek piece. Pitch should also be considered for recoil management and that can affect architecture. The grip rail on 18 will also create a completely different feel about the whole gun compared to the lack of one

Dan' s example pictured is of a later English style and it can be a basis for a super recoil managing machine. It can also be adapted for an earlier style like RCA 14. Not all of those fowling gun styles of that period were made with excessive drops.

[Glenn]

... have a bench copy made, and expect it to fit me when I shoulder it.

That's a good point.  I'll keep that in mind.

[54Bucks]

 Yes James I agree Dan's example can be adapted as can the two catagories I mentioned initially. Your mention of comb length also brings up a point I probably need to clarify. When I mentioned my stock measurement with the Drop @ comb being 1 1/2", I should add that this dimension is at the portion of the comb where my cheek makes natural contact. And is actually back about 1 1/2" from the end/nose of the comb of the particular gun I used as reference. Which is also,as I said a much later Kreps gun with a butt plate only 1 5/8" wide. As your input has pointed out, my reference gun with thinner proportions, would require the need to alter the comb measurement for something like a Turvey#18 or the Schreit#14. My first thoughts were that this area(comb) would be the area that needs altered. With either drop @ comb and/or additional cast-off due to the thicker butt dimensions where the face rests on the stock. It appears that given either an English style or an early gun with relatively the same wide flat shaped butt plates, will both handle a larger caliber comfortably.

[t.caster]

54, I think you told me you wanted a 14 3/8" pull, that is why I ruled out all of Keck's pre-shaped stocks, and work from a blank. The primary purpose for building a custom rifle for yourself is to get the dimensions that fit YOU...NOT building a bench copy of the original! I would have built you a gun that fit you FIRST...and looking like the original, second. It is possible. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough on that.
There is nothing at all wrong with RCA-18 for your purposes. It is a beautiful and functional rifle, what more can you ask for? Maybe a Beck?

[54Bucks]

The primary purpose for building a custom rifle for yourself is to get the dimensions that fit YOU...NOT building a bench copy of the original! I would have built you a gun that fit you FIRST...and looking like the original, second. It is possible. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough on that.
There is nothing at all wrong with RCA-18 for your purposes. It is a beautiful and functional rifle, what more can you ask for? Maybe a Beck?

 My thoughts exactly Tom! Not being an experienced builder myself who works from a blank who would have more leeway in altering the build for an individual. I'm not quite clear if the same can be said for a different gun like the Turvey #14. And also theoretically if there would be any comfort inherant differences,not visual differences, comfort wise between the two when barrel/caliber was the same. I was simply trying to narrow the choices between the two.

[t.caster]

I'm not familiar enough (or at all) with the Turvey so I cannot weigh the pros and cons for you. It may still come down to which style (looks) you like the best. As well as halfstock vs. fullstock....among other things.

[greybeard]

And as Roger stated , you should consider the PITCH.   It has quite  a bit of effect on recoil.  Make sure that the pitch of the butt  is on the positive, not negative.
Bob

[54Bucks]

 Most definately Greybeard! I followed that subject of yours closely. Just to clarify....is it standard among stock fitting to measure the pitch 30" above the breech? Oddly it always seemed intuitive to favor guns that looked to show positive pitch. I never actually measured at the 30" point, just kinda thought that snug to the shoulder(heel) and also into the pecs (toe) when the bore is level was ideal. Of course I would change it some for a chunk/bench gun.

[greybeard]

I chose the # 30 for a starting point. If on a 30-30 with a carbine length you obviously have to re think things but for our application .
On a 42 inch barrel I would think a positive pitch of  2  to 3 inchs at th 30 inch point will be a big aide in recoil management.
   Cheers and let us know how it goes O K ??
       Bob

[keweenaw]

Pitch is, of course, easy to set if you're putting on a buttplate that does not have a top forward extension but that's not the type of buttplate we typically use on longrifles where it's pretty hard to adjust on a cast buttplate.

Tom

[Dphariss]

If building a rifle for heavy recoil simply buy the original Purdey Rifle plans from Track of the Wolf.
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/partDetail.aspx?catId=4&subId=38&styleId=141&partNum=PLAN-PURDEY
Purdey was a Manton Apprentice. But the stock design is good back to F&I period at least.
DeWitt Bailey's British Miltary Flintlock Rifles has a number of good photos of 1800-1815 era "Tatham Indian Trade rifles" in full an 1/2 stock that show the proper patchbox and other features of a rifle of this era. The only real difference in my rifle and the Tathams is the forend cap and entry pipe which I like better.
Use the Purdey buttstock with a Manton shotgun plate, its about 2" x 5". English scroll guard.
Use 1/4" cast off, or not, near zero pitch. Extend the forend to 2 keys rather than one for a 1790-1820s. Or make it full stock using one of L&Rs #1700 (Manton/Bailes) or #1100 (Egg) and you have a 1780 English rifle. Or use an earlier round faced lock that is not too large for 1740-1760s etc. The FS is probably easier for most people to reproduce than the English 1/2 stock due to how the ribs are made.
People with the skills can order a recessed breech Manton casting set from The Rifle Shoppe and build a full out late English flint rifle.

There are many options.

This plan will give you a recoil proof stock design. As I have stated before there are very few "American" ML rifle designs I would want too shoot in a caliber larger than 62.
This is why


But it works well




Dan

[54Bucks]

 Thanks for the suggestions Dan. Today I'm leanin more towards the Schreit. Even the original or at least the dimesions given in RCA  lists it at 2 3/16" X 5". Appears to have a tad of positive pitch too. I won't be going over .62 cal. or be using especially heavy loads. Don't know why my sayin "a larger caliber" had some think that. Matter of fact which ever way I go( English or Early) it will be built around a 42 "Rice .58 cal. Va. profile thats between D+C. The Dwt. is listed 6lb. and the Cwt. at 4lb.15oz.  I estimate about 5lb. 6oz. of barrel and would like it to finish around 9lbs.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Here's another option, though Dan's English rifle fits the bill perfectly. 

These are pictures of my .60 cal jaeger.  It's built around a Getz 31" .60 calibre swamped barrel.  The rifle weighs 8 pounds 5 ounces.  It has a drop at the comb of 1 13/16", drop at the heel 2 17/32", and a LOP of 13 13/16"  It has an ample butt plate.  this rifle is routinely shot with 120 grains of FFg GOEX and a .595" pure lead ball.  It is superbly accurate and has never given me a bruise either on the shoulder or the cheek...a most pleasant rifle to shoot.  I think that the Schreit rifle and mine have very similar architecture, or at least close enough to be a good recoil soaker-upper.  In the case of the Jaeger below, notice that the comb line is almost parallel to the bore, as is the case with a good English design. 

[Long Ears]

Taylor you really shouldn't shoot something that beautiful let alone drag it through the brush. Fantastic work. I'm getting better but I don't think I will ever get there! Thanks for sharing, Bob

[54Bucks]

 Ahhh Taylor, a .60 that shoots comfortably as good as it looks. Your stock measurements are not too different than my own. Knowing you have built slimmer later rifles, your Verner comes to mind. Have any of your stock measurements varied sustantially on this Jaeger, compared to a later gun with a buttstock not as thick?
 I'm commited to a 42" barrel......so a Jaeger will probably give way to something like the Schreit. But they sure do have similar architecture.

[Dphariss]

A rifle like the one in Taylor's post was also on my mind.
The comb line, drop etc is very similar between some German rifles and the English ones. They are all made for humans afterall
I have a barrel inlet in a #48 style rifle right now just have to finish sawing out and finish machining and inlet the breechplug.
But recoil won't be a factor since the barrel weighs +- 13 1/2 pounds. It will be a match rifle.
I have a light 50 cal swamp to put in another stock that will likely be a #48 too since its already laid out but need a power feed for the mill before inletting another long barrel. The term "I am too old for this s##t  keeps popping it to my head when I turn the handles for very long....

Dan

[Ed Wenger]

If you take a close look at Taylor's beautiful rifle, you'll notice that the comb line is almost parallel to the line of the bore.  There's a reason modern center fire rifles look that way as well.  I think sometimes we have a tendency to over emphasise drop at comb and heel and cast off, etc...  I agree, this becomes more important if you're only shooting the rifle offhand, in the same position each and every time.  But, as soon as you alter the position from which the piece is fired, all those measurements change.  That's why all the modern, competitive shooters have stocks that adjust for comb height, LOP, etc.   I'd be willing to bet that the architecture of the rifles you mentioned would support a heavier caliber well, and not lock you into concrete measurements, per say.  Just my thoughts...

            Ed