I was reading some comments about the ill fit of stocks with optics. In the
Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns by Jack O'Conner, he wrote about how the straight stock, that is one with the same drop at the heel as at the comb, that we see on most modern hunting rifles, solves the "scope problem" better than a Monte Carlo stock.
In a book
The Modern Rifle, I read , "In truth, a Monte Carlo is not at all needed to get the eye up to scope height. The same results are achieved by simply elevating the nose of the comb and raising the drop at heel." I don't see how a raised heel can possibly fit properly unless the drop at the comb is even less, possibly even above the bore which could prevent the bolt coming back.
"A typical factory-issue Monte Carlo rifle stock will have a drop of around 1/2" at the nose of the comb, 1/2" at the crest of the Monte Carlo, and 1 1/2" at heel (measuring from the centerline of the bore). A well-designed
non-Monte Carlo stock, on the other hand, will have about 1/2" drop at comb
and at heel! This high, straight stock line gives the same eye/scope alignment advantage of a Monte Carlo but without the ugly humpbacked profile." I found this statement to be entirely true, but again it neglects the fact that the drop at the heel is insufficient for offhand shooting.
It seems the reason for little to no drop at the heel being fashionable is because it results in a straighter recoil impulse. "In other words, to justify a Monte Carlo comb on a
hunting rifle it is necessary to have more drop at heel than desirable. This, in turn, causes more recoil punishment than necessary and cancels the much-touted 'recoils away from the face' feature of a Monte Carlo. Remember, the greater the drop at heel the greater the tendency to raise or buck upward into the shooter's face as it recoils. A non-Monte Carlo stock with about 1/2" drop at heel recoils more nearly straight to the rear and is less punishing. So, as it turns out, the Monte Carlo comb is only a stylistic venture which adds nothing to a hunting rifle in the way of shootability."
I wonder if shotgunners would agree that no more than 1/2" drop at the heel is the best for shootability.
I will say that in surveying modern guns with Monte Carlo styled stocks, I found only the kind that have no less drop at the comb than non-Monte Carlo stocks. It seems the only factory-offered Monte Carlo stocks that remain are the very kind that Jack O'Conner rightfully derided. That is ones with a purposeless ramp behind the ear and which have the same drop at the heel as the straight stocks. What I did not find are any stocks with a high comb and good drop at the heel. It seems that overwhelmingly, the convention has followed the reasoning of O'Conner's comments. Still, one writer lamented the dearth of stocks that fit optics and blames traditional aesthetics as the cause.
https://www.rifleshootermagazine.co...it-important-to-get-rifle-fit-right-1-4778864 I am persuaded that the Monte Carlo is rejected because of its aesthetics that many besides O'Conner have ridiculed, but that the straight stocks that have become favored are not any more traditional, nor do they seem to be functional as they don't work well off-hand and neither do they fit optics as well as some promised they would.