Butt Plates

[sweed]

Howdy all Merry Christmas and Happy 2014 May all your endevors prosper!!
I'm building a rifle resembling the Mathew Gillespie on Dennis's website. Have made a pattern from a picture he graciously sent me, that I had re sized to actual size. From that I have carved out a cheep piece of pine to size LOP, drop, exct. to my body size. Every thing works fine from the pattern except the butt. I'm a pretty hefty feller in my upper body, and the butt just seems to short (vertically). When I shoulder the piece it seems that it would pinch if I were to fire a rifle with this size butt. I am wondering if I should enlarge it up, down, or both? I'd like to keep the basic lines of the rifle, but I want it to be comfortable to shoot. Any of you BIG GUYS run into this? What do you do about it?  Any suggestions before I get to the real wood?
Thanks
Sweed

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Sweed, first I'm going to work at getting through 2013 before I try to tackle 2014!  Ha!!

On many of the original rifles I've seen the butt plate is a lot smaller than many of the commercial offerings.  So to stay authentic, HC, or PC, you should go with something that is representative.  If you are designing a contemporary rifle that you think will better fit your body idiosyncrasies, then fly at it.

[KentSmith]

I would refer to Dennis but most mountain rifles in that style were meant to be shot from the upper arm rather than the shoulder.  Try mounting the try stock on your upper arm and see if it doesn't fit better.

[pake]

Sweed,

I'm responding not because I know Gillespie designs but because I'm a " big feller" too, although I think of myself as a " magnum petite". 

I happen to frequently shoot a Vincent which, as most know, has a deeply crescent bp. Whether it was designed to be shot off the upper arm I do not know, but that is how I have come to shoot it, and surprisingly through habit I suppose I find it comes into place easily and naturally, even over a heavy jacket.

Your results may vary.

pake

[whetrock]

Good on you for making a try stock before cutting real wood! That was a great plan.

Like KentSmith said, mountain rifles with tight crecent-shaped butt plates were generally designed to be shot off the arm, rather than the shoulder. This is also one of the reasons many of the antiques seem to have an unusually short LOP, and an excessive amount of drop. If shooting off your arm, drop your elbow down when you shoot, instead of cocking it up like you would if shooting a high powered rifle. You'll find that the pull shortens just a bit when you put the butt on your arm instead of your shoulder. And positioned that way, you'll find that the drop may need to be adjusted as well.

It may seem odd to put a rifle on your arm like that, but keep in mind that the antique rifles we're talking about weren't the 50-60 cal rifles of the revolution. They were more typically built originally as 32-40 cals, then maybe freshed up to around 45 or so when the rifling wore down. And the barrels were pretty heavy and long. Built that way with heavy barrels, it's not uncomfortable to shoot them off the arm.

whetrock

[Dennis Glazener]

Like KentSmith said, mountain rifles with tight crecent-shaped butt plates were generally designed to be shot off the arm, rather than the shoulder. This is also one of the reasons many of them seem to have an unusually short LOP, and an excessive amount of drop. If shooting off your arm, drop your elbow down when you shoot, instead of cocking it up like you would if shooting a high powered rifle. You'll find that the pull shortens just a bit when you put the butt on your arm instead of your shoulder. And positioned that way, you'll find that the drop may need to be adjusted as well.

Kent is correct about many of the mountain rifles being designed to be shot off the arm but I don't believe my Mathew was intended to be shot that way. One reason is its weight! I doubt many could shoot it that way due to the heavy weight of the barrel. Second is its long length of pull about 14" or more if I remember correctly. Third is the absence of the deep crescent normally used with this style of rifle.

I am 6 ft, wear 34 inch sleeves and weigh 212 and I have no problem shooting my Mathew style stocks which are almost identical to the original. I have built them in 54 cal down to 32 with no problems. They have much straighter stocks than many of the southern mountain rifles. I think the drop at heel is about 3" (maybe less) and I believe that's the reason I don't seem to get as much felt recoil in the larger calibers as I do with more drop.

One thing I changed on my Mathew G pattern is to make the butt about a .25 wider (I think it was). I didn't like the thin butt on the rifle.
Dennis

[Dphariss]

All crescents that are very deep are to be shot off the arm. Person does not HAVE to but if the rifle recoils much they will eventually figure it out, or sell the rifle.
Its just not possible to shoot them any other way. But it requires a different stance than a shotgun shooter would use or many modern rifle shooters for that matter.
Weight is not a factor, many ML schuetzen rifles with crescent or hooked buttplates weight 12-18 pounds (or even more) and are very intentionally barrel heavy.  But these are not intended to be shot by the NMLRA offhand rules either.  Dedicated Schuetzen rifles invariably have a palm rest as well.

Also a great many ML rifles with "odd" stock configurations may be found to work better than expected from a chunk or a plank rest.
Not many rifles were used exclusively for hunting after all. Many likely shot more shots in matches unless the owner was anti-social.

Dan

[Bob Roller]

I had a model 1895 Winchester and an 1886 with the crescent butt plate
and the '95 was a 30-06 and the '86 was a 50-110.They had to be shot off
the upper arm and any other way was a painful experience.
Crescent butt plates are nice looking but I much prefer the English half stocks
with the shotgun butt stocks.

Bob Roller
PS:Dan,the 50-110 was anti social when shot off  a rest with the 50-100-450 loading.
I became anti social after a few shots.

[sweed]

  Happy2013 toooo!
Thanks for reminding me not to waste a year!! Thanks to all for the replies. It always amazes me how quickly answers come on this site!  I'll have to shoulder that mock up a few times more to see what I want to do. Will keep an eye here for more.

[bgf]

I disagree with Dennis (on this one little detail), so my opinion should be suspect!

I am almost certain they are meant to be shot from somewhere outside the shoulder joint.  The deeply crescent small ones with a LOT of drop may have been shot off the bicep or even near the crook of the arm, whereas the less curved ones with a more moderate amount of drop are for somewhere up the arm to the shoulder joint, and for me the where depends more on the drop and pull length than anything else.  I only weigh 240 (when I watch my diet), but I'm a little short (5'11"), so "hefty" might be adequate description.  To actually put the buttplate in the "pocket" (inside the shoulder joint) would require about a 12.5" LOP !  [I know this for certain, because I have a modified modern contraption set up just that way -- set it up for my (much smaller) wife, but it fits me very well also].

I have a .50 caliber with moderate curve, modest drop (2.75"), 13.5" LOP, and 42"x15/16" straight barrel (I like a little weight out front).  It is based on a circa 1800 rifle, so just a bit earlier than some of the Gillespies, but not all that different in buttplate profile.  I've shot with up to 100gr. (2f) off the upper arm and never felt the recoil as anything more than feedback.  It goes on my upper arm, just past the shoulder and a little above the bicep --  I think that would be the best way to describe it.

[Dennis Glazener]

I have a .50 caliber with moderate curve, modest drop (2.75"), 13.5" LOP, and 42"x15/16" straight barrel (I like a little weight out front).  It is based on a circa 1800 rifle, so just a bit earlier than some of the Gillespies, but not all that different in buttplate profile.  I've shot with up to 100gr. (2f) off the upper arm and never felt the recoil as anything more than feedback.  It goes on my upper arm, just past the shoulder and a little above the bicep --  I think that would be the best way to describe it.

The barrel on my Mathew G. is 45 1/4 inch, 1.035" at the breech, .975" mid-point and .995" at the muzzle this coupled with a .41 cal bore makes it heavy. No fun to shoot off hand at least not by me!
Dennis

[bgf]

I have a .50 caliber with moderate curve, modest drop (2.75"), 13.5" LOP, and 42"x15/16" straight barrel (I like a little weight out front).  It is based on a circa 1800 rifle, so just a bit earlier than some of the Gillespies, but not all that different in buttplate profile.  I've shot with up to 100gr. (2f) off the upper arm and never felt the recoil as anything more than feedback.  It goes on my upper arm, just past the shoulder and a little above the bicep --  I think that would be the best way to describe it.

The barrel on my Mathew G. is 45 1/4 inch, 1.035" at the breech, .975" mid-point and .995" at the muzzle this coupled with a .41 cal bore makes it heavy. No fun to shoot off hand at least not by me!
Dennis

That sounds pretty standard for some of those originals -- way too heavy for many people these days, but I suspect we aren't using them the same way in some cases.

Have you tried it farther down your arm?  As Whetrock says above, that can effectively adjust/shorten the pull-length which (in my opinion) moves the balance point back a little.  You can also "adjust" the drop by how you hold your arm.  I suspect that Dan may be right that many of these rifles were not shot exclusively offhand, but I would be surprised if they weren't capable of doing so in relative comfort at least occasionally either.

One thing that has attracted my interest on many of these rifles is how far forward the cheekpieces can be -- I think that is perhaps a significant clue to how they were holding them.

[sweed]

update:
I shouldered the mockup a few times out on the arm close to the shoulder. It seems to work better there, but still not sure.  I'm looking for a piece of 5/8" reinforcing bar to wire down in place of the barrel, for weight/balance.  Maby I can get a better feel if the muzzle end is more to proper scale.
Thanks for the advise.
Sweed

[Mark Elliott]

I would like to suggest something that I didn't see mentioned.    Most of the original iron mounted, mountain type rifles that I have seen and handled reminded me of  target rifles.   They have the weight and look of a high precision weapon even if they are plain and sometimes crudely constructed.   After all, most of them have set triggers.  I am sure they didn't spend the extra money because it looked cool.   Based on various historical evidence in literature and paintings, I think that these rifles, and in fact many longrifles, where intended to be shot from a rest or prone and not offhand.   I have heard Wallace Gusler say many times that the  early long hunters would shoot prone whenever possible; and I have read descriptions of the riflemen at the siege of Boston shooting this way.   If you are sitting behind the gun on a rest or shooting prone, the shape of the butt pieces and seemingly extreme drop and pull measurements make more sense particularly when you consider that the sights on original rifles are generally much lower than modern rifles.    Actually most original sights aren't much higher than the top of the barrel.   You use the barrel to rough sight and fine tune with the sights.

I think that the original users of these weapons took their shooting, perhaps, a bit more seriously, than we do.   We approach it as a sport with our rules about stance and such making sense for a sport.   For the original users of the weapons it was about life and commerce.    You do things differently when your life and lively hood depend on it.   

Just some thoughts......

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Good insight, Mark.

[David Rase]

I think that the original users of these weapons took their shooting, perhaps, a bit more seriously, than we do. 

Mark,
You have obviously never shot against the Canadian's! LOL
David 

[Mark Elliott]

David,

I think the point is that they are not shooting AT you

[okieboy]

 Something that no one has mentioned about offhand shooting is that in the woods the first thing that you do for an "offhand" shot is brace your supporting hand and arm against a tree. It really tames a long heavy rifle.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

That is something that I'd have to consciously make a decision on, Okieboy.  My own first instinct is to shoot offhand.  I am much more comfortable offhand than kneeling, or leaning against a tree, or any other position for that matter.  Except for sighting in and fine tuning loads and sights, all our shooting is offhand.  Dan's plank shoot is a new concept to us.  Historically, though, you may be correct.

[David R. Pennington]

I'm not a very good shot. My eye sight was never real good and ain't improving any, but lately my offhand targets at matches have consistantly been scoring higher than any of my bench targets and I shoot a heavy 7/8" straight .50. I don't really understand it. Anyone else over the half century mark notice that?
Also on buttplate shape I hunted this fall with the same rifle and realized that the crescent buttplate and triggerpull are very comfortable in match shooting where I take a deliberate stance and mount the rifle, but when a quick shot on a deer was required with a little extra clothing, another story.
My .62 rifle with more of a fowler or musket shaped buttplate mounts up quick without any fuss. What were they thinking with those deep crescents. Was it just a style or fad?

[WadePatton]

Something that no one has mentioned about offhand shooting is that in the woods the first thing that you do for an "offhand" shot is brace your ...

absolutely.  shooting purely off the hands or one-handed pistol is for contests of marksmanship and only rarely the best way to get a shot on game. The first thing i do after spotting game, besides attempting to get closer, is to get to a rested position of any sort. 

i've crawled on my belly like a reptile to get to where i could make a prone shot rather than take the (long) shot merely swaying in the breeze.  

The Southern guys knew that it made a rifle _look_ sexy.     So much so that it was carried into the early days of repeating arms and has been resurrected by the "Cowboy" crowd.  Everything with a nearly square butt looks clubbish to me now.