Brands and length of pull?

[Barnfixer]

I made a road trip and stopped at a couple gun shops to see what’s new. I’m kinda tossing around the idea of a synthetic stock lightweight rifle. I currently hunt with a Ruger Hawkeye standard and have a 96 Mauser that has been sporterized. Those two rifles and others I’ve had in the past have a lop of 13 1/2 to 13 3/4. On this trip I shouldered a Kimber Hunter and a Christensen Mesa. Both gun felt very compact, like a Daisy Redrider but are listed to have the same 13 1/2 lop. My Ruger fits perfectly but the Kimber and Christensen feel to small with the same stated lop. What’s up with that?

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

Grip and trigger ergonomics and what you happen to be wearing at the time are two potential variables.

Bill Ruger was once quoted that he wanted the grips on his original M77 rifle stock to be as stout as a "Polish girl's ankle" (not the most PC comment, and evidently Ruger hadn't met any Polish ballerinas!) Anyway, the point was that he insisted that Ruger stocks to be thicker at the grip. That design philosophy may have carried over to some of their synthetics.

I happen to have this on my mind right now because I'm shaping a laminated Richard's stock and have been a bit torn between making the grip svelte or leaving it fairly thick.

 

[jmr40]

Clothes matter. It's August. You probably have on a very thin shirt right now. Once wearing heavier winter clothing you may find those fit much better.

 

[Barnfixer]

Grip and trigger ergonomics and what you happen to be wearing at the time are two potential variables.

Bill Ruger was once quoted that he wanted the grips on his original M77 rifle stock to be as stout as a "Polish girl's ankle" (not the most PC comment, and evidently Ruger hadn't met any Polish ballerinas!) Anyway, the point was that he insisted that Ruger stocks to be thicker at the grip. That design philosophy may have carried over to some of their synthetics.

I happen to have this on my mind right now because I'm shaping a laminated Richard's stock and have been a bit torn between making the grip svelte or leaving it fairly thick.

My Hawkeye is more trim than my older M77 I had years back. It seem my face is much closer to the bolt on the Kimber & Christensen. As far as clothing, I did just have on a t-shirt but when I got home I shouldered the Ruger and it did seem longer. Next time I’m bringing a ruler or compare brands in the shop. Still would like one of those light ones in 6.5 CM or 7mm-08.

 

[LoonWulf]

One of the reasosn i actually sold my Hawkeye because the stock was too thin for my liking.

Ill check my Christensens when i get home, they dont feel "short" to me, but i dont know how long they are.

 

[trackskippy]

My biggest complaint with the current production rifles is, the LOP is always too long (and with most, the comb is too high, but thats another issue. ). Most of that I attribute to the recoil pad they all seem to come with these days.

I grew up shooting military-type rifles and old-school commercial rifles set up for iron sights. Most of those rifles have a LOP of around 12.5-13". I much prefer them to what we get these days from the major makers. The shorter LOP guns shoulder more easily and naturally and are much easier to deal with when winter clothing comes around. Its much easier to adapt to a shorter stock, than it is a longer one too.

The new guns seem to be set up for scopes and bench/rest type shooting, and I guess the new age shooter is very recoil shy, as they seem to put them on just about anything/everything.

If you take the recoil pads off, the LOP usually gets to be pretty close to where it should be, and a butt plate is usually easily fitted, but youll have to get it from Brownells or someplace similar and do the fitting yourself. The makers cant seem to be bothered and don't seem to want to sell you one.

 

[LoonWulf]

The new guns seem to be set up for scopes and bench/rest type shooting, and I guess the new age shooter is very recoil shy, as they seem to put them on just about anything/everything

Fewer and fewer people use open sights, and the few guns that do come with them arnt generally stocked to use them anyway. Recoil pads beat butt plate in most circumstances (Looks not withstanding).
You end up with a proliferation of stocks set up specifically to deal with scoping issues, and that will work on everything from your hard kicking magnums to your 223s.... No need for more than one stock designed for an entire line rifles.
While it does make economic sense I suppose, It really limits the options for people who don't want that specific feature set.

 

[trackskippy]

Most open sighted rifles these days have a stock set up for a scope, and they just raise the irons to deal with it. I understand why, and it is what it is. If you dont mind spending the money, aftermarket stocks can usually solve the problem, but, it is just throwing more money at the gun too. I still dont get the recoil pads though.

Recoil pads only might seem to beat a butt plate, simply because people havent learned to shoot a rifle without one. For a decade or so, on a weekly basis, I shot 100 rounds of 30-06 or 308 in an afternoon in practice for shoots, wearing nothing more than a tee or oxford type shirt in the summers, shooting rifles with checkered steel butt plates, and never had as much as a bruise or sore shoulder. Theres certainly no need for a recoil pad on most rifles, especially something like a 223.

One other complaint I have with the recoil pads is, they tend to be "sticky" (as well as making the stock too long), and often grab your clothing as you shoulder, interfering in shouldering the gun and you dont get the stock in the right place as you shoot. I find this to be especially annoying with shotguns, and fit them with a butt plate too, and for the same reasons.

If youre going to only be shooting off a bench or rest of some sort, only shoot with a scope, then you probably wont be too bothered by what they offer from the factory these days. If you shoot from field positions and/or reactively with the gun, then you really want a stock with a short LOP and no recoil pad.

And as far as scoped guns go, I prefer the lower comb, short LOP stocks and a lower mounted scope with the few rifles Ive had with one mounted. Everything shoulders the same, irons or scopes, and you get the same or very similar cheek weld.

 

[LoonWulf]

Most open sighted rifles these days have a stock set up for a scope, and they just raise the irons to deal with it. I understand why, and it is what it is. If you dont mind spending the money, aftermarket stocks can usually solve the problem, but, it is just throwing more money at the gun too. I still dont get the recoil pads though.

Recoil pads only might seem to beat a butt plate, simply because people havent learned to shoot a rifle without one. For a decade or so, on a weekly basis, I shot 100 rounds of 30-06 or 308 in an afternoon in practice for shoots, wearing nothing more than a tee or oxford type shirt in the summers, shooting rifles with checkered steel butt plates, and never had as much as a bruise or sore shoulder. Theres certainly no need for a recoil pad on most rifles, especially something like a 223.

One other complaint I have with the recoil pads is, they tend to be "sticky" (as well as making the stock too long), and often grab your clothing as you shoulder, interfering in shouldering the gun and you dont get the stock in the right place as you shoot. I find this to be especially annoying with shotguns, and fit them with a butt plate too, and for the same reasons.

If youre going to only be shooting off a bench or rest of some sort, only shoot with a scope, then you probably wont be too bothered by what they offer from the factory these days. If you shoot from field positions and/or reactively with the gun, then you really want a stock with a short LOP and no recoil pad.

And as far as scoped guns go, I prefer the lower comb, short LOP stocks and a lower mounted scope with the few rifles Ive had with one mounted. Everything shoulders the same, irons or scopes, and you get the same or very similar cheek weld.

Even with a slightly taller sights that they we're putting on the factory open sided rifles I still generally found the stock combs in a poor position to line up my eye.
I didn't use them all THAT often but the guns I borrowed from friends would often have open sights, and I much prefer the older guns with the low opens and lower stocks.

My point about butt pads was simply about production economy, one stock for an entire line of guns as opposed to specific stocks for specific guns.

Personally butt pad or butt plate want Is dictated by the cartridge and weight of the gun being fired.
8.5lb 30-06 shooting 180s at 2800, with a reasonably sized and shaped butt, and I don't find a recoil pad necessary, though I prefer not to have hard plastic as I also find them slippery.
8.25lb .375 Ruger running 270s at 2850 on the other hand demands something more forgiving.
Equally fast recoiling rifles like light 300s are getting into the needing of recoil pad territory.
I also prefer longer lops than most factory stock guns come, running 13.75 to 14"

Thus the current trend in stocks fits my needs fairly well except for the fact that they're a little short in most cases. Tho again living in Hawaii I don't have to deal bulky winter clothes, which might change my preference for recoil pads and stock length. Not a lot to get snagged on when all you're wearing is a t-shirt or most jacket.

 

[Dr T]

My CZ 452FS is the only rifle I own that is really set up for iron sights. Note the drop at heel and the rear sight.

 

[Barnfixer]

A while back I wanted a Remington pump .22 but everyone had a Monte Carlo stock that made iron sights pointless for me. Great for a scope but that wasn’t what I was after. Then I found one with a straight stock, and I’ll never sell it. Perfect fit for iron sights. I do like the little longer fit of the Hawkeye, must have long monkey arms or something.

 

[LoonWulf]

Measured my Christensens Mesa, Ridgeline, and Ranger are all 13.75, tho I extened the ranger with spacers to 14.
The Mesa long range was....shorter....i forgot how long ill go measure it agian.....

Edit: Its about 13.5 I think, I added spacer on that one too.

 

[TSchwab25]

I've always liked the feel of a longer lop when its shouldered, but getting the gun shouldered with a long stock is tough, especially when hunting, my trap gun is a bit long but my rifle for deer hunting is a bit short. I don't have endless time hunting, but can take an extra half a second to adjust the gun if it gets caught in my clothes shooting trap.

 

[Slamfire]

I went around and measured the trigger pull lengths on my older rifles and came to the conclusion that most commercial rifles I own, based their trigger pull lengths on WW1 era measurements.

The straight grip 03 was 12.5 inches



Ever shoot a straight grip M1903? The things hurt, you rest your face on your thumb, which is in line with the stock, not draped over like I shoot a Garand, my lips got bruised and it is hard not to have that cocking piece bash the lens of my shooting glasses.

A pre WW1 Mauser, was 13 and another 13.5.

The Swedes had to be big men for 1900 because those stocks were about 14.0 inches. I also have a WW1 Swedish sword, and from the blade length, they were big men.



I looked at my Smallbore Prone stocks, which I have to use irons and scopes, and found that I adjusted the buttplates to 14 to 14.25 inch trigger pull distances. This 1950's rifle had a 13.5 inch trigger pull, I added a 1/2" thick piece of pallet wood, and new pad, to make it 14.25"



I made this stock a 14" trigger pull, and I like it much better as there is more clearance between my eyes and the scope, and the bolt stops just in front of my nose. The wood also came from a pallet and the dark spot is a nail hole.



All I had to do with this, was pull the buttplate out, and then put a stack of washers around the post.



I found, no matter how tight you turn the resistance screws, they will loosen, the buttplate will move in, and you don't notice this when in a slung position. What I did notice was my zero's changing as I fired, I had to constantly change elevation, and once out of position, figured out it was due to the stock shortening. That is when I put a stack of washers around that post.

You can see the washers better on this stock



When I had Richards Microfit build this stock, I specified a 14 inch trigger pull



I have always had issues with modern rifle stocks being too short and having the scope eyepiece too close to my eyes. I think they are building the things for the 5' 7" people, not the shooters who are over six feet tall.

 

[illinoisburt]

My biggest complaint with the current production rifles is, the LOP is always too long (and with most, the comb is too high, but thats another issue. ). Most of that I attribute to the recoil pad they all seem to come with these days

I have always had issues with modern rifle stocks being too short and having the scope eyepiece too close to my eyes. I think they are building the things for the 5' 7" people, not the shooters who are over six feet tall.

I agree most rifles and shotguns I've owned have way-short LOP for me but I think shooting form/style has a lot more influence on fit than simply your height or reach (I'm 6'3 with 37" sleeves). I do not enjoy whacking myself in the nose with my thumb shooting a short stock, so I tend to keep a much more upright and squared stance similar to what we teach soldiers now with optics and armor. Not full on isosceles, but probably equivalent to weaver rather than the traditional bladed stance where the body is turned from the target. For this I've found the high combs on most generic stocks fit fairly well for line of sight with optics while in upright shooting positions. They don't work well for prone or some bench set ups, however I rarely use benches except for sight-ins and I'm confident the last time shot prone was a couple decades ago.

 

[trackskippy]

We were always taught to shoot head down and forward on the stock with a solid cheek weld and the butt pulled in tight into the "pocket" of your shoulder. Thumb along the side if you didnt want a fat lip.

I shoot my AR's the same way, head down and forward, "nose to the charging handle". Fixed stocks on the AR's are "M16/M16A1" length, the sliders are set to about 12"-12.5".

Listening to people complain about the AK's being short stocked (same LOP as an M16), and watching how a lot of people try to shoulder them, it becomes clear as to why. I cant begin to tell you how many people Ive seen try and get a cheek weld on the comb of the stock, instead of the "wrist". If you try and shoot them that way, its not going to be comfortable, pleasant, or effective. Like the AR's, you want your head down, and your nose at or alongside the top cover, cheek weld on the wrist. Shoulder the gun that way, and youll find its very comfortable and natural to shoot them. The sights line right up without thought too.

Nothing more than a personal observation on my part here, but I think that ever since the military went to the M16 and the 5.56, there has been a definite change in thinking as far as how rifles are shot and what recoil is, which is understandable I guess. We now have generations of people who think the .308, 30-06, 8mm, .303, etc, are "heavy kickers" and hurt to shoot.

 

[Barnfixer]

I took the ruler to a few rifles and I found 13 1/2” was common on the Mauser with a Boyds stock, Ruger Hawkeye Standard, Ruger M77 VT, Weatherby Vanguard Classic. The old Remington 742 was 13 1/4” and felt less compact than the Kimber and Christensen.