Stock Ergonomics... Buttpad height.

[BBob]

If I am reading this correctly they are putting a priority on comfortable head/neck position over minimizing muzzle rise. So I guess that's an argument to not use an elevated recoil pad?

Why would that increase muzzle rise? Not following that logic. If you raise the butt with the accompanying higher shoulder contact it should work to reduce muzzle rise over the lower in the shoulder pocket contact of a traditional stock.

FWIW I have a trainer 308 in a high power chassis (fully adjustable buttstock) and even though I never thought about it before it's setup the same way. I experimented and tweaked the buttstock for best results and it's butt high long LOP with low rings but the pic rail on it is higher than a regular stock w/pic.

You need to get a Bravo or something adjustable so you can go test for yourself and see what works and what doesn't.

 

[Sundodger]

Long LOP and squared up. I haven't tried that combination, I do have room to move my scope back to get the eyebox centered again. I'll mess with that this weekend. Thank you

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.

 

[BBob]

Long LOP and squared up. I haven't tried that combination, I do have room to move my scope back to get the eyebox centered again. I'll mess with that this weekend. Thank you

Gotcha! Curiously waiting for your results to see how it goes.

 

[Sundodger]

Why would that increase muzzle rise? Not following that logic. If you raise the butt with the accompanying higher shoulder contact it should work to reduce muzzle rise over the lower in the shoulder pocket contact of a traditional stock.

FWIW I have a trainer 308 in a high power chassis (fully adjustable buttstock) and even though I never thought about it before it's setup the same way. I experimented and tweaked the buttstock for best results and it's butt high long LOP with low rings but the pic rail on it is higher than a regular stock w/pic.

You need to get a Bravo or something adjustable so you can go test for yourself and see what works and what doesn't.

I might have gone dyslectic for a moment. You are right, a jaw weld would allow the rifles bore axis to be lower on the body assuming the rings are tall enough to still center the scope in your eye.

I have an Echo with the Bravo adjustable butt pad along with spacers, so I should have enough to mock all this up I think.

 

[grfox92]

Unless I missed it I dont see it mentioned here yet....

Im not sure simply raising the butt pad is going to reduce recoil or muzzle rize I would have to think it's the geometry of the stock that is accomplishing this.

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

 

[Brandon_SPC]

I've been pondering the same thing you have and granted I don't know alot about stock configurations but I have been looking a lot into negative comb stocks. The peak 44 Blacktooth is on my radar for my next hunting stock due to this negative comb but with the same traditional style (I need this more for the type of hunting I do in the east).

 

[wind gypsy]

Unless I missed it I dont see it mentioned here yet....

Im not sure simply raising the butt pad is going to reduce recoil or muzzle rize I would have to think it's the geometry of the stock that is accomplishing this.

Its the height of resistance on the butt pad in compared to height of bore. I.E. if you have a stock with zero drop at heel but your resistance to recoil is on the toe of the buttpad, you're going to get more muzzle rise than a stock with 3" drop at heel but your resistance to recoil at the very top of the buttpad.

less than perfect images for illustration: Resistance to recoil at the bottom of the butt pad


Contrasted with where the resistance to recoil is on the buttpad of this rifle:

 

[BBob]

Im not sure simply raising the butt pad is going to reduce recoil or muzzle rize I would have to think it's the geometry of the stock that is accomplishing this.

Explain how it would not? Higher butt with higher above bore (or higher relative to bore) contact results in more leverage over the bore would it not? It doesn’t reduce recoil but it allows you to handle it better.

 

[Sundodger]

Unless I missed it I dont see it mentioned here yet....

Im not sure simply raising the butt pad is going to reduce recoil or muzzle rize I would have to think it's the geometry of the stock that is accomplishing this.

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

That's actually what the entire thread is about...

 

[Sundodger]

I think what is confusing people is height of the recoil pad doesn't matter, what matters is where the recoil pad contacts your body. If you move that location on your body where the recoil pad meets it far enough you might have to start adjust the recoil pad location up a bit so the pad can maintain good contact with your body.

What I learned real quickly when I got my adjustable recoil pad is that moving the pad up doesn't mean you will shoulder your rifle any differently and automatically get less muzzle rise from a reduced moment. Should be common sense, but hey, call me a slow learner.

 

[Sundodger]

I've been pondering the same thing you have and granted I don't know alot about stock configurations but I have been looking a lot into negative comb stocks. The peak 44 Blacktooth is on my radar for my next hunting stock due to this negative comb but with the same traditional style (I need this more for the type of hunting I do in the east).

Negative comb is a different part of stock ergonomics than what we are discussing here.

Draw up a free body diagram with the force of gunshot horizontal though the bore axis and your shoulder the opposing force. The vertical distance between the bore axis and where the recoil pad contacts your shoulder is what creates a moment that lifts the muzzle. Reducing this distance reduces the moment, which reduces the torque, which will reduce muzzle rise.

Free body diagram - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Formidilosus]

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

Mostly because it’s people with messed up mechanics, or weird body issues. Your normal stock has an absurdly low cheekrest height- just throwing a higher recoil pad isn’t going to do anything. The higher recoil pad is in conjunction with a higher cheek position. My guess with you it’s also it entirely that your stick geometry is poor, and the rest is that it’s s combination of not great


And yes @wind gypsy we do teach a forward load of the head/face to stock contact. Not aggressively so, but much more than is currently in vogue with precision rifle shooting.

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

Yes- because their guns weigh 30lbs, have zero movement in recoil. They primary shoot from tripods and barricades and do zero dynamic shooting. It isn’t general hunting, and is a mistake not to understand where PRS is hurting techniques for people not comporting in PRS with PRS gear.

If scoring of PRS was changed to “time plus”- that is total time it took you to hit all targets: so whoever hits all targets the fastest, wins; the bolt rifles would start to look suspiciously similar to what we talk about.

 

[Formidilosus]

Also, LOP is an issue, and the short LOP that is being pushed by PRS also causes issues.

 

[rbutcher1234]

Yes- because their guns weigh 30lbs, have zero movement in recoil. They primary shoot from tripods and barricades and do zero dynamic shooting. It isn’t general hunting, and is a mistake not to understand where PRS is hurting techniques for people not comporting in PRS with PRS gear.

If scoring of PRS was changed to “time plus”- that is total time it took you to hit all targets: so whoever hits all targets the fastest, wins; the bolt rifles would start to look suspiciously similar to what we talk about.

Yes- because their guns weigh 30lbs, have zero movement in recoil. They primary shoot from tripods and barricades and do zero dynamic shooting. It isn’t general hunting, and is a mistake not to understand where PRS is hurting techniques for people not comporting in PRS with PRS gear.

If scoring of PRS was changed to “time plus”- that is total time it took you to hit all targets: so whoever hits all targets the fastest, wins; the bolt rifles would start to look suspiciously similar to what we talk about.

Bro that’s how I shoot PRS, I’m not trying to take the whole 1:30! I got shit to go do

 

[Formidilosus]

Bro that’s how I shoot PRS, I’m not trying to take the whole 1:30! I got shit to go do

I have never remotely come close to timing out on a stage in a match, and it is absurd how long is given to hit a few targets.

 

[grfox92]

That's actually what the entire thread is about...

Stock geometry has not been mentioned yet in this thread until I brought it up.

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

 

[grfox92]

Explain how it would not? Higher butt with higher above bore (or higher relative to bore) contact results in more leverage over the bore would it not? It doesn’t reduce recoil but it allows you to handle it better.

Your normal stock has an absurdly low cheekrest height- just throwing a higher recoil pad isn’t going to do anything. The higher recoil pad is in conjunction with a higher cheek position.

Someone much more versed and articulate in this matter beat me to it. Higher comb or cheek rest hight and a higher recoil pad in conjunction achieves what the OP is chasing. This is accomplished in stocks that have geometry that put the recoil pad above the bore in due to a higher comb or cheek rest height. Thats the idea of the Rokstok, McMillan Mountain Tracker LR, a KRG Bravo with the adjustable recoil pad is halfway there but not perfect.

Otherwise wouldn't everyone just start bolting higher recoil pads on their rifles and keeping them in the factory stock and achieving insane recoil managament?

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

 

[BBob]

KRG Bravo with the adjustable recoil pad is halfway there but not perfect.

Otherwise wouldn't everyone just start bolting higher recoil pads on their rifles and keeping them in the factory stock and achieving insane recoil managament?

No one including me is claiming that the higher recoil pad hack is going to work as well as a Rokstock or similar. I have a Rokstock. I have a Bravo. I have a fully adjustable high power tube gun chassis. With an adjustable buttpad and cheekpiece I can get some of the benefits of said Rokstock out of those two stocks which is kind of what this thread is about and yes it’s all about stock geometry. Dillo himself shot Bravo’s and so did many others for those benefits. How do you think they arrived at the Rockstock design? They tried stuff with existing stocks. If I could afford 5 more Rokstock’s right now that’d be great but that’s not happening.

Oh! I arrived at the high buttpad long LOP on the HP chassis way before the Rokstock was ever a thing. It just naturally worked out that way and I never gave that gun setup much thought till today.

 

[grfox92]

Maybe my initial post was poorly worded, but we seem to be both on the same page.

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk