Stock Ergonomics... Buttpad height.

[Sundodger]

I was looking at stocks that have design attributes to handle recoil/muzzle rise better by raising the buttpad.

The math makes sense, it's a very simple freebody diagram that shows you can reduce/eliminate the moment that pivots the muzzle up if the bore axis is more inline with where the rifle stock contacts your body, so I ordered up an adjustable butt pad for one of my stocks to test out.

Unfortunately it didn't seem to really work in practice. I raised the butt pad up, but it doesn't change where the rifle contacts my body in relation to the bore axis. However much I raise the buttpad up, it's just the same amount further down on the buttpad that my body touches other wise I can't see though the scope. So there isn't a reduction in the moment that causes muzzle rise. Unless I were to put rings that are the same amount taller as the amount I raise the buttpad.

I must be doing something wrong, or are all you guys with these elevated butt pads using really tall scope rings? This rifle currently has the UM low's, but the UM highs would only raise the scope up 0.25"

 

[Sundodger]

I know there are many forum members here with stocks/chassis's with adjustable recoil pads, as well as rokstock owners.

How are you guys setting up your rifles to utilize the advantages of a recoil pad that is higher up?

 

[pathnz]

I know there are many forum members here with stocks/chassis's with adjustable recoil pads, as well as rokstock owners.

How are you guys setting up your rifles to utilize the advantages of a recoil pad that is higher up?

you've got to take a section out of the neck

 

[akhunter3]

you've got to take a section out of the neck

My neck is already stubby (head goes straight to my shoulders) not sure I can spare anymore length there

 

[Sundodger]

you've got to take a section out of the neck

My neck is already stubby (head goes straight to my shoulders) not sure I can spare anymore length there

Maybe that's my problem, too long and lanky, and these fancy new stocks are made for little people.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

When shooting the RokStock, CF Versa, and Mt Tracker I have to shrug/raise my shoulder. It happens naturally when I'm shooting prone. Upright or offhand took me a little bit to start doing it. I think it actually helps my trigger pull with a vertical grip by keeping my elbow directly inline.

 

[PredatorX]

I am going through the same thing and while I think I can make the lows work the mediums would probably be better. I did have to drop my comb down a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sundodger]

When shooting the RokStock, CF Versa, and Mt Tracker I have to shrug/raise my shoulder. It happens naturally when I'm shooting prone. Upright or offhand took me a little bit to start doing it. I think it actually helps my trigger pull with a vertical grip by keeping my elbow directly inline.

I am going through the same thing and while I think I can make the lows work the mediums would probably be better. I did have to drop my comb down a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I tried the shrugging my shoulders last night, and you are right, it does more or less of address the problem. But, being honest, it's real awkward and I am not sure I am going to be able to get used to that enough for it to be a net benefit.

With the popularity of the rokstock and other chassis on here I am surprised there aren't more threads about this.

I was looking though some pictures on here, and most people don't seem to be putting tall rings on there rifles, so is everyone learning to shrug comfortably while they shoot?

Maybe we need a "How to shoot a stock with a height over bore recoil pad" thread.

 

[wind gypsy]

I was looking at stocks that have design attributes to handle recoil/muzzle rise better by raising the buttpad.

The math makes sense, it's a very simple freebody diagram that shows you can reduce/eliminate the moment that pivots the muzzle up if the bore axis is more inline with where the rifle stock contacts your body, so I ordered up an adjustable butt pad for one of my stocks to test out.

Unfortunately it didn't seem to really work in practice. I raised the butt pad up, but it doesn't change where the rifle contacts my body in relation to the bore axis. However much I raise the buttpad up, it's just the same amount further down on the buttpad that my body touches other wise I can't see though the scope. So there isn't a reduction in the moment that causes muzzle rise. Unless I were to put rings that are the same amount taller as the amount I raise the buttpad.

I must be doing something wrong, or are all you guys with these elevated butt pads using really tall scope rings? This rifle currently has the UM low's, but the UM highs would only raise the scope up 0.25"

You make a valid point that I think tons of people ignore or are ignorant about. Having a high butt pad doesn't mean shit if the resistance to recoil is against the bottom of it. I have a shortish neck but putting your cheek weld that low in comparison to where the stock is mounted is very uncomfortable if in an upright position for me. Maybe Form and the S2H way is just with a heavy forward lean in most all positions?

Short answer to your question for myself - i use high rings and dont have a traditional orbital bone cheek weld on rokstoks. It's part of why i dislike the steepness of the negative comb.

 

[Sundodger]

You make a valid point that I think tons of people ignore or are ignorant about. Having a high butt pad doesn't mean shit if the resistance to recoil is against the bottom of it. I have a shortish neck but putting your cheek weld that low in comparison to where the stock is mounted is very uncomfortable if in an upright position for me. Maybe Form and the S2H way is just with a heavy forward lean in most all positions?

Short answer to your question for myself - i use high rings and dont have a traditional orbital bone cheek weld on rokstoks. It's part of why i dislike the steepness of the negative comb.

That's conclusion I am starting to come to. Where the recoil pad touches your body is the load path, so if that doesn't change then the moment that drives that part of muzzle rise doesn't either.

I do use an orbital weld, which on one hand means I can use lower rings, but on the other hand means I have to crank my neck further down the higher up I position the rifle stock on my shoulder.

Switching to a chin weld would make things much worse without comically high rings.

Trying to decide if putting tall rings on this is worth it to figure this out. I don't get fixated on scope height being as low as possible, but it is starting to feel like I am chasing waterfalls here...

Still kind of blow away this hasn't come up before.

 

[wind gypsy]

That's conclusion I am starting to come to. Where the recoil pad touches your body is the load path, so if that doesn't change then the moment that drives that part of muzzle rise doesn't either.

I do use an orbital weld, which on one hand means I can use lower rings, but on the other hand means I have to crank my neck further down the higher up I position the rifle stock on my shoulder.

Switching to a chin weld would make things much worse without comically high rings.

Trying to decide if putting tall rings on this is worth it to figure this out. I don't get fixated on scope height being as low as possible, but it is starting to feel like I am chasing waterfalls here...

Still kind of blow away this hasn't come up before.

I've brought it up before. The "weld" is just a factor of where the comb is in relation to scope elevation. No need to try to fit a round peg into a square hole.

The PRS guys have moved to high rings a long time ago and many do chin welds even with adjustable cheek pieces on stocks/chassis.

 

[BBob]

Maybe Form and the S2H way is just with a heavy forward lean in most all positions?

The higher I go with the buttpad and staying with low to medium rings the LOP needs to get longer. I did this very experiment on a big boomer this past fall with a Bravo. With the raised butt and low rings LOP went to I think 3/4” longer than my normal setup. I like it, comfortable and no issues in all positions. When I say big boomer we’re talking over 100gn of powder with a 300gn bullet and I was getting real close to spotting shots at 500 on 15x prone off field bags. I was still able to see and call many of those shots on the target before my spotter called them out.

 

[RancherJohn]

I am much more aggressive on the gun with a Rokstok, so my shoulder is hunched a bit with the stock in the pocket of the shoulder, and head is forward like it would be on an AR or when shooting a shotgun (wingshooting/trap). I only have about 1200 rds through Rokstok'd rifles, so not a huge sample size to draw from but it's worked well so far. I use low rings mounted to a pic rail (~1.7" sight height over bore).

 

[Sundodger]

The higher I go with the buttpad and staying with low to medium rings the LOP needs to get longer. I did this very experiment on a big boomer this past fall with a Bravo. With the raised butt and low rings LOP went to I think 3/4” longer than my normal setup. I like it, comfortable and no issues in all positions. When I say big boomer we’re talking over 100gn of powder with a 300gn bullet and I was getting real close to spotting shots at 500 on 15x prone off field bags. I was still able to see and call many of those shots on the target before my spotter called them out.

Interesting the longer LOP helped you, but I am struggling to visualize how. Before increasing LOP what part of the fitment wasn't working out with your Bravo?

My issue is how much I have to move my head/neck vertically down into an uncomfortable position and increasing LOP would make the distance my neck has to extend even further I think...

Do you shoot "bladed" like our fathers taught us, or with your shoulders perpendicular to the rifle stock what seems to be growing in popularity?

I still shoot bladed with a 14ish" LOP, because I haven't figured out a way to get my scopes far enough forward without ridiculous scope mounts to have the short LOP needed to square up to the rifle.

I am much more aggressive on the gun with a Rokstok, so my shoulder is hunched a bit with the stock in the pocket of the shoulder, and head is forward like it would be on an AR or when shooting a shotgun (wingshooting/trap). I only have about 1200 rds through Rokstok'd rifles, so not a huge sample size to draw from but it's worked well so far. I use low rings mounted to a pic rail (~1.7" sight height over bore).

Another vote for the hunch shoulder approach, maybe I do just need to get use to it.

I am not a small guy, so some of my fitment issues might be coming from that and smaller people might have an easier time with this.

 

[Sundodger]

I've brought it up before. The "weld" is just a factor of where the comb is in relation to scope elevation. No need to try to fit a round peg into a square hole.

The PRS guys have moved to high rings a long time ago and many do chin welds even with adjustable cheek pieces on stocks/chassis.

Well, I am glad I am not the only one confused by all this.

One would think PRS and other shooting sports guys would be even more focused on muzzle rise reduction than us hunters. With an orbital weld and tall rings they could move their stock up even higher than tall rings and a chin weld. There has to be something I am still missing.

Maybe I should just quantify this to see if the juice is worth the squeeze. 0.25" higher stock placement using with 0.25" taller rings, calculated out how much the moment changes from baseline. The amount I have to contort myself has me really wondering if this is the direction I should take.

 

[wind gypsy]

Well, I am glad I am not the only one confused by all this.

One would think PRS and other shooting sports guys would be even more focused on muzzle rise reduction than us hunters. With an orbital weld and tall rings they could move their stock up even higher than tall rings and a chin weld. There has to be something I am still missing.

They dont want a firm weld and they want a more neutral upright head position without having it leaning over and it tends to put less pressure on the rifle at that point of contact. With a high orbital cheek weld the whole cheek piece gets in the way of that head position.

 

[Norcal18]

Glad to see this brought up. I’ve been dealing with the same thing. I put my tikka 6.5cm in a KRG bravo and while my groups did get smaller I feel like I’m having a hard time dialing the fitment. I’m 6’5” and I always feel like my neck bound up even with medium UM rings. I’ve tried raising the butt pad and adding spacers. I did buy a tall bipod and that helped with the some of the crinking of the neck but still don’t have it perfect.

 

[wind gypsy]

I still shoot bladed with a 14ish" LOP, because I haven't figured out a way to get my scopes far enough forward without ridiculous scope mounts to have the short LOP needed to square up to the rifle.

I'm not following. Bladed should put eye position further forward than squared up.

 

[BBob]

Interesting the longer LOP helped you, but I am struggling to visualize how. Before increasing LOP what part of the fitment wasn't working out with your Bravo? Head, neck was scruntched up and down. More LOP was the obvious way and easy to add with the Bravo spacers. Added one and it was better. Kept adding until I was comfortable. I adjusted cheekpiece accordingly.

My issue is how much I have to move my head/neck vertically down into an uncomfortable position and increasing LOP would make the distance my neck has to extend even further I think... As LOP lengthened, head neck stayed relaxed in a more normal length. Yes I would say it is more laid down but not scruntched up as with a shorter LOP. I'm not sure I'd say I have a long neck but it certainly isn't short.

Do you shoot "bladed" like our fathers taught us, or with your shoulders perpendicular to the rifle stock what seems to be growing in popularity? Squared up absolutely. Very obvious it's the way especially with a monster recoiling gun. Same prone, squared up. I've been teaching squared up to newbies. The added benefit I think I see is I/we get less horizontal induced errors and more control over recoil and even more so with heavy recoil.