Author Topic: Question on stock geometry  (Read 24236 times)

Black Jaque Janaviac

  • Guest
Question on stock geometry
« on: January 28, 2010, 02:17:14 AM »
I'm considering building a longrifle.

I want to know more about what various stock geometries do as far as aiming and recoil.  I'm ignorant of how stock geometry works, but if it's like anything else in life, I'm going to guess that what makes a gun "point" real well will also make it recoil real bad.

So.  What do the following do?

Drop at comb
Drop at heel
Cast off
And whatever you call that angle of the butt.  Some guns have the toe ahead of the heel (French Fusils), some have the toe behind the heel (Lyman Great Plains), others have the toe directly below the heel. 

Did I miss anything?

Offline Jerry V Lape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2010, 03:22:50 AM »
I will give this a start and then there will be multiple answers and opinions from which to choose. 

Pointablility is not counter to good recoil control.  Drop at the comb by itself is not a factor, it is where your cheek makes contact with the stock that counts, but in concert with the drop at heel can affect whether you can see your sights and how much of a turning motion upward the stock exerts into your cheek.  Too much drop can make it recoil pretty uncomfortable and may make it difficult to maintain cheek to wood while seeing your sights.  Cast off (or neutral or cast on)  for a right hander is intended to help you get your eye directly behind the sights giving a more natural point. It has to be factored in with the cheekpiece and thickness of the stock to make it relevant.  Pitch, the angle at the rear of the stock,  has a useful range, outside of which you produce difficulty with keeping the gun properly on your shoulder or in producing upward recoil into the face.  You didn't mention length of pull.   Again it helps to position your face in a workable site behind the sights without having your thumb in your nose (too short) and too long, difficult to mount the gun quickly and comfortably.  Good place to start with all those dimensions is to find a modern firearm which feels good to you when shooting and use those as a starting point for your flintlock.   These are issues long discussed among shooters but I don't believe I have offended any of the general opinions herein. .   

ronward

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2010, 03:39:09 AM »
 blackjack,
    i'm fairly new here, but i do have a decent understanding of stock geoketry as i have been around guns and built several centerfire guns.
     first you have to understand that these guns were built when the general style of aiming was more or less "heads up" with the your chest aligned more or less parallel with the length of the but, thus all the drop in comb and butt....1-1/2 inches at the comb and 3-1/2 or slightly more at the butt was common.  that in itself increases barrel jump and felt or percieved recoil, but it is somewhat offset by the fact that the guns had long, heavy barrels and that reduced jump and felt recoil because the guns were somewhat front heavy, which isn't necessarily bad if it's not excessive.....a slightly front heavy gun will hold better off-hand.
    the deply curved buttplates had a function as well. they were made to be mounted on the forearm, just off the shoulder. the deep curve was there so that the butt actually hooked around and under the forearm some, so that it could be used as a "socket" on your forearm as an achor to help hold up the heavy front end.  the butts were made thin, 1-1/4 inches thick was common and done that way for a reason as well. the thinner but was not so criticle to arm position and when you raised a gun to your shoulder with your trigger arm's forearm more or less straight out( level) from your shoulder, small corrections to the sight picture could be made by raising and lowering your elbow, which gave more leverage to fine tuning the sight picture than lifting or lowering the front of the gun with your "off-hand" on the forestock without imparting a canting force to the gun. it was common to hold the forestock up by placing the offhand elbow in tight to your ribcage to brace the hold and the reason they were held with your chest parallel to the forestock's length, because it put the ribcage in better position to brace the "off-hand". thus the reason the forestocks were so short, your off-hand was placed pretty close to the lock....a long forestock wasn't needed.  you then made the small corrections to the sight picture by raising or lowering your other arm's elbow, as mentioned previously, letting the gun pivot up or down on your braced off-hand.
    the castoff was done to bring the sights in better alignment with your eye,still keeping your heads-up posture. the consequences to that is too much cast-off also caused the cheek pad to jump up and in towards your cheekbone. a 1/4 to 3/8 cast-off was common, more can get painfull as caliber and recoil go up.
    as mentioned above, pitch, the angle of buttplate to sightline is somewhat obscure with this style of shhoting as it is determined conventially, because of all the hook in the buttplates, pitch doesn't always follow any rules as conventially known. some of the earlier kentuckies and eastern penn. guns had what looks like more conventional pitch because they were shouldered in a more conventional manner. generally pitch is a balance between the stock wanting to slip off your shoulder, as in too much pitch and the stock wanting to recoil up. as in too little pitch. the right amount tames percieved muzzle jump by making the stock push straight back into your shoulder by keeping the stock on your shoukder as the muzzle jumps up at recoil. again, too much pitch and the butt wants to slide down off your shoulder making muzzle jump feel greater than it is and too little pitch drives the butt hard into the shoulder, making recoil fell stronger.
    i tried to explain things as clearly as i could. some of it is pretty intertwined... i hope this helps!.

Black Jaque Janaviac

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2010, 06:58:43 PM »
OK Ron your description helped a lot.  Mainly because it highlighted that shooting style/position figures into stock geometry.  So while one gun might point real well by holding it across your chest it might not do so well holding it perpendicular to your chest. 

"Pitch" I'm not sure what is a lot of pitch and what is a little.  Use the French Fusil as an example.  Those guns seem to have a pretty drastic cant to the butt.  The line from heel to toe slopes downward and towards the muzzle.  Is this approaching "too much" pitch or "too little" pitch?

I'm probably going to go for something without the crescent butt.


northmn

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2010, 08:46:01 PM »
Asking how to make a stock fit is about like asking how big is a rock.  I have used 1/4 inch cast off and about a 14 inch length of pull with a 3.5 inch drop at the butt.  I am about 5-9 and of very normal build.  My brother in law is a little shorter than I am but broad shoulders and long armed (no comment about simian similarities) and likes a longer pull.  Another point is that rifles I built for summer shirt sleeve shooting do not work in the fall when I am bundled up for deer hunting in below freezing weather.  Pitch is a trap shooters concern more than for a rifle as the toe is both angled slightly and in or out depending on the concern.  I am now going down to a 13.5 inch pull as I can handle too short a rifle better than too long.  As stated, drop at the cheek is the most important. Also the comb and cheek piece needs to be shaped to kick away from the cheek.  Cast off tend to kick to the face but is easily alleviated by shaping.  I am now installing a buttplate on sort of an English styled rifle and decided to try one with no cast off, even with its 2" wide buttplate.  I highly recommend that for larger calibers like 54 on up, that you look at either early designs, or the English sporting rifle design.  Some of the later "Golden Age" rifles are not well designed for eliminating recoil or fit.  Many modern rifles are now designed for scope use and do not work for iron sights, but some of the older ones do.  If you have access to an old bolt action military rifle you can attach pads and lengthen it to kind of get an idea of fit for iron sights.  They never fit anybody.

DP

Black Jaque Janaviac

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2010, 09:58:53 PM »
Quote
Asking how to make a stock fit is about like asking how big is a rock.

Well I was kind of hoping for a little discussion on what each element of stock geometry did in terms of fit and recoil.  For example:

Quote
first you have to understand that these guns were built when the general style of aiming was more or less "heads up" with the your chest aligned more or less parallel with the length of the but, thus all the drop in comb and butt....1-1/2 inches at the comb and 3-1/2 or slightly more at the butt was common.  that in itself increases barrel jump and felt or percieved recoil

I'm not asking how to fit a gun to me.  Just what one can expect as a result of playing with the various dimensions.  Now that this was mentioned I can appreciate how the drop at comb, while allowing for a quicker sight picture, would make the muzzle jump. 

Quote
Also the comb and cheek piece needs to be shaped to kick away from the cheek.  Cast off tend to kick to the face but is easily alleviated by shaping.

This is interesting, can you explain it a little more?

Offline James Rogers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3164
  • James Rogers
    • Fowling Piece
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2010, 10:25:09 PM »

I would suggest in purchasing guide about gunfitting by my friend Rollin Oswald.
http://www.stockfitting.com/
Some of your questions may even be found in his online excerpts at the website. I did not check them.

This information is set up mainly for clay target shooters but the wealth of information found in it is just as useful for any type of shooting.
It is well written and most of the best stockfitters were consulted.

I recommend this book for anyone shooting or building guns. Rifles as well.

Mike Yardley has a very good book on stock fit and Orvis has a basic guide that is helpful as well.

ronward

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2010, 12:24:28 AM »
i caution about reading too much pertaining to "modern stock fit" when wanting to learn about how these guns were designed. good to learn as a comparison to realize the difference between then and now, but todays theories don't apply very well to what was considered "proper" then. closest to today's thought would probably be the english fowler, as the english pretty well set the standard for stock fit about the time that percussion was in it's heyday and some of what was theorised and developed earlier made it through to apply to today's status quoe.
   allot of what we see on earlier guns such as the fusils you refer to were simply what was at the time, the most popular builders' ideas of what should be with no more scientific substantiality other than that's what he felt like doing  or that's what looked right to him. from there, it dictated style just by who it was that did it first. whether the fusil's stock has too much pitch or not, i couldn't tell you..... i've never shouldered one..... it certainly looks excessive. they seem to be a fairly popular build, possibly because of thier very early lineage,.... maybe someone with more knowledge of thier history will chime in about these issues.

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2010, 12:47:01 AM »
Here's my humble take on this whole subject.  I think, for a change, few words will do.  PA cartel, please assist.

1.) Classic period gunsmiths long ago came to their unique yet similar answers to perfection.  We gunsmiths call these our patterns.  One each for each school.

2.) We tweak cast off, pull length and other details to the customer.  Or, for show inventory, we shoot for the mean...golden or not. 

Yo, Scott, Allan, Professors Hujsa and Correll.  Should I commit myself before this healthcare package changes? Wayne

Offline smshea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • www.scottshearifles.com
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2010, 02:02:19 AM »
I'm with ya 100% on #1 and #2  also I don't think you are there yet but Phillhaven Hospital is just down the hill from my house so if you decide to check yourself in....I'll visit! Promise! ;)

Offline James Rogers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3164
  • James Rogers
    • Fowling Piece
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2010, 04:16:56 AM »
i caution about reading too much pertaining to "modern stock fit" when wanting to learn about how these guns were designed. good to learn as a comparison to realize the difference between then and now, but todays theories don't apply very well to what was considered "proper" then. closest to today's thought would probably be the english fowler, as the english pretty well set the standard for stock fit about the time that percussion was in it's heyday and some of what was theorised and developed earlier made it through to apply to today's status quoe.
   allot of what we see on earlier guns such as the fusils you refer to were simply what was at the time, the most popular builders' ideas of what should be with no more scientific substantiality other than that's what he felt like doing  or that's what looked right to him. from there, it dictated style just by who it was that did it first. whether the fusil's stock has too much pitch or not, i couldn't tell you..... i've never shouldered one..... it certainly looks excessive. they seem to be a fairly popular build, possibly because of thier very early lineage,.... maybe someone with more knowledge of thier history will chime in about these issues.

I agree with you that most stock design was about architecture and little was known of fit but the realities of of a stock's design and it's impact on recoil and fit are found in physics.
 The OP was inquiring about the recoil effects and fit effects of stock geometry and not fit itself. The effect facts found in reading about "modern stock fit" are one in the same with all shoulder guns. The effects of adding pitch for example have not changed since man has been shooting shoulder arms although our knowledge of has increased with time.

As far as gun fit goes.....
If we are to hang a gun on the wall for pure art appreciation then fit should not be questioned. Today people who would pay for a custom gun and want to shoot it would want a gun that fits them if they actually knew the difference. Sadly, few do not and their gunmaker may not either. As gunmakers, stockers, etc, we should all be aware of what a stock design does when the shot goes off.
I know it is harder to do on cookie cutter type schools but I believe the true artist should attempt fit and architecture compliance.
I contend that a better gunmaker will be had by adding to his knowledge banks the facts found in "modern stock fit".

Just my two pence   ;D

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2010, 06:04:15 AM »
You forced me to start measuring reality.  Took the Kentucky rifles I have here and measured pull length as a start.  Kentuckies here averaged out and compared to M1 Garand, 1903 Springfield, Russian Mosin Nagant sniper, and G33-40 Mauser mountain carbine.  While there is more variance in the Kentuckies, the mean is nearly identical, around 13."  All this while average height of a man has increased.  Never thought about arm lengths; need an evolutionary biologist who is a Kentuck guy to help us here. 


jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2010, 06:11:31 AM »
Philhaven, nice place.  Last time I was there, botanical gardens inside.  Run by Mennonites, so they didn't whip you.  Time with ladies and cigarettes each evening for good behavior during the day.  Latter probably forbidden today, while former is much more dangerous.  First 28 days not nearly as costly as a cruise, after insurance.  ;D

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2010, 08:49:01 AM »
What some may find unusual is that 18Th century guns SHOULD fit modern people better than 19Th century guns.  By the time of the American Revolution, the male colonists averaged 5'8" to almost 5'9".  The average height actually went down for most of the 19Th century until it began rising in the latter part.  Today the average male height is 5'9.1".  Colonial women were an average of 5'3" to 5'3 1/2" and today the average height is 5'4". 

I've always been in awe of those who could truly and precisely fit a person for a gun stock, especially from watching a person shoot a gun.  One of the volunteers who worked the trap range for the 1980 International Muzzleloading Championships at Quintic had recently purchased a "previously owned"  Holland and Holland shotgun.  He said it was the best fitting shotgun he ever had and it made hitting the birds almost too easy.  We were surprised when a couple of people from Holland and Holland came to the shoot.  When the owner found out about it, he got with them and asked them if they could make stocks for other guns that fit him that well.  They watched him as he shot and told him the stock didn't really fit him that well.  He was dumbfounded.  They took some notes and he sent the gun to the UK.  They adjusted the stock and sent it back.  Afterwards he said he could not dream it could fit better and it did not look like they had done hardly anything to the stock.  However, it was noticeably better after he shot it.  I just can't imagine that most longrifle  gunsmiths knew nearly that much about stock fit.

I've seen two original "try stocks" that went back to the early 19Th century, though probably not quite into the 18Th century.  The adjustment for fit was more length of pull and some small length of drop adjustment.  I do not know how common such "try stocks" were. 

Ultra Fine adjustments of stock pitch often require you shoot the gun from one position and for a certain range.  Trap and Skeet shooters, shooting from regular known distances can take better advantage of that than rifle shooters who would have to fire from different positions (from standing down to prone) and at different ranges.  So you have to use a more generic pitch on a rifle.


jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2010, 09:19:31 AM »
Artificer, I think you hit upon it.  "Adjustment more length of pull fit."  That's why I went there first with my ruler. 

Jim Correll can testify to this story.  On my first gun, I was so proud of my butt plate fit.  Spent the better part of a whole frustrating week in the evenings after work doing the fitting job.  Took it to Jacobsburg and showed it to Jim.  In less than a New York second, he looked at me and said, "The butt stock is too long, pull unacceptable." I was dazed and confused (more than normal) and he said, "Shoulder that rifle." I did and the buttplate whacked me in the armpit.  He continued, "Now add your hunting coat; that deer just got away."
As usual, Jim was correct.  Went back that week, stubborn as a mule, finally admitted it, and took an inch off the butt, rendering a 13 1/2 inch pull.  Now it is right for me.  That's how we learn this stuff.  Books are good, but an expert can help the obtuse understand what they've read.  JWH

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2010, 06:36:15 PM »
JW,

Couldn't agree more about needing a shorter length of pull for hunting coats.  Though I have no documented evidence of this, that's why I think the length of pulls on some to many 18th century rifles are "so short."  For many of us, the few times we get to handle and shoulder those rifles are when we are inside a building and just have a shirt on.   When you can only afford one rifle, it HAS to fit you all year long and no matter how much clothing you have on.  Better to have a rifle that is a bit too short for summer than a rifle you can't shoot in winter. 

Besides the rifles with buttplates that were meant to be put on the arm, it seems we also find some rifles that have a good deal of drop in the stock.  My guess is those were designed for someone who only did off hand shooting.  If you got down on your belly with one of those rifles, the only game that would have to be worried is an earthworm about three feet from the muzzle.  Grin.

Gus

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2010, 07:24:20 PM »
Shotguns and rifles may be two different ducks.  I measured four of my shotguns and they had a pull of 14 inches.  My Binelli auto also had a very slight cast off.  Since I am of average build these factory stocks "fit" OK.  However, after over 40 years of shooting I have adapted to factory stocks.  When I say it is individual, it is individual.  Some companies have "try" stocks that are adjustable for the shooter.  Trap shooters can buy all kinds of gizmo's that adjust comb and buttplate position.  But here goes.  You can best try fit up with a stock that is too short and build up the LOP with slip on recoil pads which can be filled in with spacers to see what fits.  Your position on the comb tells you that as too short means the thumb too close to the face (the old model 03 military syndrome).  I added a soft pad on a rifle for a cheek piece for my daughter as she shoots very "heads up"  She got 5 deer with it.  The best stocks for easy fit are the Lancaster, Tennessee or Bucks county schools.  The curved Allentown and later Golden Age schools make it more difficult.  When you shoulder the weapon the sights should come up with a minimum of adjustment.  You should not have to push down against the cheek piece with your cheek or over crook your neck to see the sights but have your head in a comfortable position.  Longer necked people will want more drop than bull necked people, longer armed people will want a longer LOP Thant  a shorter armed people.  About the only way to get a very good fit is through experience and trying other guns that others may own and get the dimensions.  When I stated that you can get a gun to kick away from the face, you angle the cheekpiece and the comb such that as it kicks the wood looses contact with the face.  Some cheek pieces are made at a fairly straight  line toward the breech.  I never finish a heavy recoiling weapon without shooting it before finishing to make sure I can remove any wood that may hit me in the face.  My last gun was a 12 bore single shot fowler that weighs maybe 7 pounds at most.  It is a very pleasant gun to shoot.  the stock from the rear looks a little cockeyed, but it is pleasant to shoot.

DP

ronward

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2010, 07:44:54 PM »
there's no doubt that, ultimately, length of pull is probably the most "affective" and the most "effective" stock fit measurement there is as far as the average person's gun and that when relatively correct, other aspects can be considerably of and go unnoticed, but there's a vast difference between what was considered normal architecture and shooting style compared to what we today have accepted as normal, even as late as the turn of the century.
        the OP asked how these aspects play into the recoil and fit in relation to the gun he was working on, namely, a 17th or 18th century arm. my reply was to help him realize that what is..." thought of".... today has little relation to the way things were back then and how they related to the then accepted shooting style. if he wants to build a reletively accurate piece, he might want to know how things were done then. knowing what is currently the trend does little good beyond having an understanding of the differences and how they related to the changing trend in design and fit. we all realize physics hasn't changed, but as the general knowledge of physics was better distributed, so did the accepted standards of stock design.
     i was trying to stay within the perameters of this great forum. to consider today's status quoe applied to the same arm, you might as well go buy an in-line with a plastic handle! ;D

Offline James Rogers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3164
  • James Rogers
    • Fowling Piece
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2010, 09:59:17 PM »
there's no doubt that, ultimately, length of pull is probably the most "affective" and the most "effective" stock fit measurement there is as far as the average person's gun and that when relatively correct, other aspects can be considerably of and go unnoticed, but there's a vast difference between what was considered normal architecture and shooting style compared to what we today have accepted as normal, even as late as the turn of the century.
        the OP asked how these aspects play into the recoil and fit in relation to the gun he was working on, namely, a 17th or 18th century arm. my reply was to help him realize that what is..." thought of".... today has little relation to the way things were back then and how they related to the then accepted shooting style. if he wants to build a reletively accurate piece, he might want to know how things were done then. knowing what is currently the trend does little good beyond having an understanding of the differences and how they related to the changing trend in design and fit. we all realize physics hasn't changed, but as the general knowledge of physics was better distributed, so did the accepted standards of stock design.
     i was trying to stay within the perameters of this great forum. to consider today's status quoe applied to the same arm, you might as well go buy an in-line with a plastic handle! ;D

We were within parameters until someone brought up the  *@-line word.  ;D

What exactly is the "the then accepted shooting style"? ??? (I must confess that when talking original guns I think much earlier than later crescent butted, heavy dropped guns and that can sometimes be a communication roadblock for me)


What I am talking about in current gun fit knowledge has nothing to do with a "trend". Trends come and go but information on what one can expect from one of those Frenchie cow hoof guns for example can be found there.
I am trying to say that books and instruction on modern gun fitting contain the FACTS he is looking for that we probably could have made a good dent in by now. Those facts being information like, what effect does increasing the angle between drop at comb and at drop at heel have on felt recoil? Modern information will tell him how felt recoil will be distributed back into the face  more so than a gun with less angle drop.  Modern information will give one the knowledge that if LOP is increased on an otherwise decent fitting gun, comb height must be raised or the need to peek over the barrel with a loose mount.

I really think we are close to saying the same thing. I just don't think negating the education found in modern material is helpful because there are still way too many otherwise competent individuals building some super guns but still trying to find out how much reach the end user has between his elbow and the crook of his trigger finger.

Call me a radical but I think fit knowledge is a useful tool. I ain't giving up my modern bandsaw either.  ;D

regards,
James
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 10:16:46 PM by James Rogers »

ronward

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2010, 01:49:19 AM »
  i sat for a few seconds and thought about whether i should type that word or not, to be honest!....
        i agree that we are just about saying the same thing from two different points of view. i'm going at it comparing the older stocks to the newer ones and your comparing today's stocks to the older ones, or something like that...
        by " then accepted style" i'm refering to the heads up, gun across chest hold. a type of hold that i would assume was born out of holding up heavy guns with big fat long barrels. 
     

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2010, 02:28:23 AM »
In-line vs. traditional issue reminds me of old hometown playground.  Some wanted to play checkers, some jacks, some basketball and some baseball.  There was room for all of us, so we learned to share the playground, and all were eventually happy. Come on, you gonna' bust on somebody cause their toy is slightly different than yours?  Other than my carry gun, which is indispensable, all guns are as necessary as a piece of jewelery.  They are bling-bling.

Now, before you jump on me for not including a flinter and a Model 70 for hunting purposes, allow me to explain realities in Pennsylvania.  Last records I saw from PA game commission indicated average distance of a deer kill at 85 feet (sic., not yards).  So, my hunting gun is my 2" S&W Chief's Special, which I have been licensed to carry since age 18 here in paradise.  That and a foot warmer are a real man needs.  Yes, and Paul Bunyan and Baby Blue Ox are my next door neighbors.  Time for my medication, my neck is beginning to twitch. ;D

ronward

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2010, 08:31:36 PM »
 that last bit about the inline as meant as a humerous rib!.........
      far be it from me to berate someone for not liking the same same thing i do. we all hunt and shoot deer with the guns we like,....that's the bottom line. if we take the bottom line away we loose a imprtant part of being americans.
     it reminds me of the feuds that went on in my archery club about compounds vrs. traditional shooters........same song......don't need to go any further.  some guys just don't/won't open thier eyes.

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2010, 06:17:28 AM »
I've read a couple posts three or four times and don't understand how there was difference in the across the chest hold on rifles 200 years ago vs today.  I realize rifles with the crescent buttplates were meant to be put out on the arm, but don't they still use the "across the chest hold?"

Maybe I'm just missing something here.

Gus

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2010, 06:32:12 AM »
Agreed.  I would submit that any proposed differences are purely speculative and likely overestimated. 

ronward

  • Guest
Re: Question on stock geometry
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2010, 06:28:40 PM »
 i gues they are about the same!...
     it's just that you don't see it used very much today unless you are involved in silloette or target shooting. for average joe. it's off the shoulder with the body at roughly 90 degrees to the stock....you know, the normal off-hand deer hunting shot.
   that, compared to generally, most guns  were commonly designed to be shot "across the cest"  and it was common for the average hunter to use this stance.
    it may be speculative to some degree on my part, i'll admit, i'm no historian and all i can do is generalize,  but the numerous examples of original guns with deep crescent plates and comparatively short pulls does suggest and support that it was much more commonly used 100 to 200 yrs.ago. i doubt that the architecture of the stocks made then were based soley on the tastes of any particular school, some of what we see was done for a  reason. we can only speculate what that reason was, but simple knowledge of shooting styles and gun handling will arrive at the conclusion that the guns were made to be shot that way.
    that's my story and i'm stick'n to it ;D