Marlin 1895 prefit recoil pad fit

Status
Not open for further replies.

ilmonster

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
646
Location
Wisconsin
I just purchased a new Marlin 1895 with the 22" barrel last week (see "Marlin quality improved" thread for pics), and want to replace the solid rubber recoil pad with either a Pachmayer Decelerator or Limbsaver recoil pad. Does anyone have experience with one of those "prefit" recoil pads on an 1895, more specifically, how closely they fit to the stock? Do most folks still need to grind some material away?
 
I just bought one for a customer's 336, as he figured it would be a good cost saver. It was so far off, I sent it back and am putting a grind to fit on. Do it once, do it right, and don't look back. Cheap mistakes end up costing more in the long run anyway.
 
I had a Decelerator installed on my 1895 without having the stock cut down. It made the LOP too long for me and I'm going to have to have it re-done
 
I have never been a big fan of those butt stock pads. Some time back, I went the other direction and bought one of those caldwell shoulder pads that I can use for all of my rifles. It doesn't look cool and it does take some getting used to but it works better than anything I have ever tried and the change in grip etc is consistent across all of my rifles.
 
MistWolf, although your LOP was too long, did the pad fit well around the circumference of the stock? LOP isn't an issue for me.
 
I did not use a pre-fit. My point was that even if the pre-fit matched the stock contour, it will lengthen LOP because the stock won't be shortened. If you need a good recoil pad, lengthening the LOP does matter. An LOP that's too long makes the rifle feel like it kicks harder
 
MistWolf, I know what you're saying. If anything, I could use a longer length of pull on the 1895, so adding a thick pad will only make the rifle fit better (I'm a pretty lanky guy). I am familiar with how a gun should fit from my shotgun fitting on a Citori XT for skeet and sporties. Fitter needed to add a spacer between stock and recoil pad to get the correct LOP.

So if one of these pad fit well (no overhang), the increased LOP would be an improvement for me.
 
Last edited:
MistWolf, I know what you're saying. If anything, I could use a longer length of pull on the 1895, so adding a thick pad will only make the rifle fit better (I'm a pretty lanky guy). I am familiar with how a gun should fit from my shotgun fitting on a Citori XT for skeet and sporties. Fitter needed to add a spacer between stock and recoil pad to get the correct LOP.

So if one of these pad fit well (no overhang), the increased LOP would be an improvement for me.

Gotcha
 
If you need a good recoil pad, lengthening the LOP does matter. An LOP that's too long makes the rifle feel like it kicks harder
This has always been my problem, and one reason I hate recoil pads. I removed the recoil pad from my 1895G, and fitted a butt plate to it. The LOP is correct, with the butt plate, and the rifle is fine to shoot. If they fit properly, theres generally no need for a recoil pad.
 
This has always been my problem, and one reason I hate recoil pads. I removed the recoil pad from my 1895G, and fitted a butt plate to it. The LOP is correct, with the butt plate, and the rifle is fine to shoot. If they fit properly, theres generally no need for a recoil pad.

I'm gonna disagree with the last part. My 45-70 fits just fine with a butt plate but definitely needs a recoil pad. I'm going to have the stock shortened and a new pad fitted
 
The normal practice when installing a butt pad would be to remove the same thickness from the stock so the LOP remains the same. This is assuming the stock fits the shooter before the modification is done.
 
LOP wouldn't affect me, the Pach I received for the 1895 is way too undersized to use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top