Excessive Heel Drop....

[Ray B]

From a historical perspective: Stocks on flintlocks and such were designed so that the shooter could shoulder the gun, keep his head erect and look down the sights which were immediately above the barrel. With the advent of lever actions the stock was aligned more to the bore but this was a function of raising it to allow for the lever to close. With the acceptance of the turnbolt by the military the stock was raised more in keeping with modern marksmanship training to allow the shooter to get tied into the gun. In response to increased recoil and the desire to reduce muzzle lift, the stock was raised as near the line of the bore as possible while still allowing the cycling of the bolt. With the acceptance of the M16 style operating systems where the bolt cycles into the stock, the stock was raised above the line of the bore. Now the shooter could no longer see the sights if they were immediately above the barrel, so the problem was solve by raising the sights a few inches, which puts the stock comb-sights relationship back were it was several years ago.

There are reasons, advantages, disadvantages for each amount of drop from line of bore. which design you prefer indicates which advantages you prefer and which disadvantages you avoid. there really isn't a one-size-fits-all dimension.

 

[Red Leg]

From a historical perspective: Stocks on flintlocks and such were designed so that the shooter could shoulder the gun, keep his head erect and look down the sights which were immediately above the barrel. With the advent of lever actions the stock was aligned more to the bore but this was a function of raising it to allow for the lever to close. With the acceptance of the turnbolt by the military the stock was raised more in keeping with modern marksmanship training to allow the shooter to get tied into the gun. In response to increased recoil and the desire to reduce muzzle lift, the stock was raised as near the line of the bore as possible while still allowing the cycling of the bolt. With the acceptance of the M16 style operating systems where the bolt cycles into the stock, the stock was raised above the line of the bore. Now the shooter could no longer see the sights if they were immediately above the barrel, so the problem was solve by raising the sights a few inches, which puts the stock comb-sights relationship back were it was several years ago.

There are reasons, advantages, disadvantages for each amount of drop from line of bore. which design you prefer indicates which advantages you prefer and which disadvantages you avoid. there really isn't a one-size-fits-all dimension.

The acutely bent stock to allow head erect shooting is a common belief that I do not think is accurate. It is true that many American forge-made flintlocks had significant drop - particularly those coming from the middle Atlantic region. But they make up a very, very small sampling of 18th century arms. Such design is not the case of either their continental or military cousins. I own a mid 18th century Italian fowler with miquet lock (so, an earlier style than most flintlocks) and it has absolutely modern dimensions to include LOP and drop at heel. I think all British rifles and muskets of the period are similarly stocked. Probably the most famous rifle of the day way the British Baker used during the Napoleonic Wars, and it is a rifle which the rifleman can absolutely get "tied into." Both my model 1777 French musket and musketoon, a short land pattern Brown Bess, and Harpers Ferry Model 1817 all have dimensions far closer to a model '03 Springfield than their period stablemate Pennsylvania long rifle with its 3 1/2 drop. It is an odd regional style, because most historians seem to agree that the Pennsylvania gun-makers borrowed heavily from German Jaeger designs. I have three Jaegers, again with very modern dimensions - though somewhat short LOP. I really believe the mid-Atlantic guys simply thought they looked elegant - which they do.

But your fundamental thesis is, I believe, correct. Design is always a set of compromises between use, mechanics, and sighting systems. It is also heavily influenced by acceptable regional styles of both rifle and shooting form. In the case of the early to mid-century English rifles they were stocked for open sights. A compromise drop was not considered necessary until after WWII. Even now, I would argue it is far easier to lift ones cheek weld slightly to accommodate to a scope than try to use open sights with too tall a stock. And on a DG rifle which may be used with the scope detached in a follow-up, the last thing one would want is a stock which prevents natural, instinctive open sight alignment. If the comb is too high, the bullet will go too high which could be unfortunate with something large, hairy, hostile, and in-bound.

 

[spike.t]

Spike, speaking of .400 H&H. Are they popular in your part of the world? Dakota makes them over here, but I have never known anyone to buy one!

hi, nope never heard of anyone with one or the 465 rimless version, and have only seen one on the holland booth at sci......

 

[spike.t]

here really isn't a one-size-fits-all dimension.

agree with this, as i like a fairly straight/high stock for use with irons and for some mine are too high to comfortably use with the irons. quite a few of the older classic english big game and smaller cal rifles i have looked at have too much drop, and i dont even see the sights but end up looking at the back of the bolt in varying degrees.....must be my superb facial bone structure

 

[rookhawk]

I acknowledge that the gents on this thread know a tremendous amount more than I do about the history of the rifle stock and its development.

That being said, I had assumed that the British rifle stock as we now know it did not evolve from rifle heritage, but from shotgun and double rifle geometry. Here's why: When you examine the british double rifle its geometry is built for the running shot, instinctive shooting and all the lessons learned over 200 years of the british shotgun. The drop at heel and drop at comb, prince of wales or grip cap design and even the pitch on the pad are very, very close to those of the shotgun. I then look at the relationship from DAH to DAC of the british shotgun and note that as you elevate the barrels to vertical when shouldered, the enlarging bicep/tricep and the relationship of the gun at face results in the your eye remaining on the bead at any angle from 90 degrees to 0 degrees. A marvel of gunmaking calculations proven over time.

Fast forward to the british stalking rifle and those that copy that geometry: Hartmann and Weis, dakota, most custom builders, rigby, watson, powell, gibbs et. al and when I've held their single shot and magazine rifles over a double rifle or shotgun of British make, the stock geometry is nearly identical.

My conclusion for wrong or right: The british low comb design was inspired by the rapid target acquisition and instinctive shooting developed for the shotgun and adapted to the double rifle. The slight adjustments (shadow line cheek rest) are to afford a hybrid stance between what we call proper shotgun ready position (Grouse hunter stance) and the exaggerated military rifleman stance. Essentially, that the british gun is designed to come up instinctively and to adjust beautifully at differing angles of barrel elevation to keep the eye parallel with the sights. It is my belief that this understanding in the British trade is why the sublime scope mounting systems were devised by the host of characters (claws, side mounts) to provide optical sights so low to the barrel as to reproduce that rapid target acquisition and instinctive shooting that was possible with iron sights.

Which brings up an ancillary conclusion: I don't believe browning, weatherby and Olin's winchester were thinking about shooting instinctively at running game, rapid acquisition of dangerous game, nor were they thinking of low scope arrangements to reproduce iron sight styles when they built "the modern american rifle stock". I believe they built stocks to accommodate high rings to accommodate big glass to accommodate long shots to accommodate off-the-shelf components while accommodating monte carlo stocks to keep the long distance prone shooter on his glass regardless of how much clothing at that moment is effecting length of pull issues.

In short, I do not see the design attributes of the british rifle and its purpose sharing a modern common ancestor with "american rifle" stocks. I could be wrong, I just don't see it.

 

[sierraone]

Your theory makes perfect sense and I tend to agree with you...but. After reading this thread a couple of days ago, I looked up many pre-64 Winchester Mod 70s. It appeared to me that most of the pre- 64s had substantial drops at the heal. Does this contradict your theory or am I missing something. I am pretty sure that the older pre-64s shown with mounted scopes were the smaller scopes mounted very low on the action. If my understanding is correct, this would confirm your thoughts for the most part on the previous post.

 

[rookhawk]

@sierraone two data points.

One: I just did up my kid's 1956 Model 70 .243 featherweight. We had to cut off a LOT of comb to get it to match the template gun, a small bore rigby. Naturally we thinned the wrist dramatically, thinned the girth of the comb, creating a prince of wales grip to get rid of the hideous palm swell, etc. On standard grades off the shelf it appears there was a LOT of "comb americano".

Two: Griffin & Howe, arguably the best custom gun maker ever to grace 20th century America used the model 70 as their platform of choice for the vast majority of custom rifles they made for their discriminating clientele. While your bespoke choices made a lot of variation, the common thread was that all of the model 70 stocks were discarded and a new low comb stock to dimensions much closer to British were put on the gun instead. G&H along with Jaeger had the only two systems in mid-century America for getting a scope installed to "iron sight height" dimensions which explains why they were willing to emulate the british design. If you can't install a scope very low, you have to make an accommodation in the stock ala Roy Weatherby and John Olin.

I'm not sure that this topic has really been explored properly anywhere. I'm looking at the seminal book "gunfitting" by the esteemed Michael Yardley and even his work doesn't give great emphasis to this discussion as it focuses more on the shotgun. What we truly need here is a 95 year old British gentlemen that worked as a young man in the Birmingham gun trade of the 1950s-1960s that can parrot back the intent and philosophies that he learned from the pre-war masters. Its very difficult to determine what their state of mind was but clearly the british rifle stock considered rapid target acquisition and the american stock did not. Further, the Europeans believed you were not fit for the field until you could ethically take a shot on a moving target, the Americans believed you were never ethical if you attempted a shot at a moving target. (still stated as unethical ALWAYS in the US hunters education curriculum) This vast difference alone is going to create divergence in how a stock should be crafted.

 

[Red Leg]

@sierraone two data points.

One: I just did up my kid's 1956 Model 70 .243 featherweight. We had to cut off a LOT of comb to get it to match the template gun, a small bore rigby. Naturally we thinned the wrist dramatically, thinned the girth of the comb, creating a prince of wales grip to get rid of the hideous palm swell, etc. On standard grades off the shelf it appears there was a LOT of "comb americano".

Two: Griffin & Howe, arguably the best custom gun maker ever to grace 20th century America used the model 70 as their platform of choice for the vast majority of custom rifles they made for their discriminating clientele. While your bespoke choices made a lot of variation, the common thread was that all of the model 70 stocks were discarded and a new low comb stock to dimensions much closer to British were put on the gun instead. G&H along with Jaeger had the only two systems in mid-century America for getting a scope installed to "iron sight height" dimensions which explains why they were willing to emulate the british design. If you can't install a scope very low, you have to make an accommodation in the stock ala Roy Weatherby and John Olin.

I'm not sure that this topic has really been explored properly anywhere. I'm looking at the seminal book "gunfitting" by the esteemed Michael Yardley and even his work doesn't give great emphasis to this discussion as it focuses more on the shotgun. What we truly need here is a 95 year old British gentlemen that worked as a young man in the Birmingham gun trade of the 1950s-1960s that can parrot back the intent and philosophies that he learned from the pre-war masters. Its very difficult to determine what their state of mind was but clearly the british rifle stock considered rapid target acquisition and the american stock did not. Further, the Europeans believed you were not fit for the field until you could ethically take a shot on a moving target, the Americans believed you were never ethical if you attempted a shot at a moving target. (still stated as unethical ALWAYS in the US hunters education curriculum) This vast difference alone is going to create divergence in how a stock should be crafted.

I think you are correct with respect to the dynamics and sighting arrangements of a double rifles and combination guns. The former, in heavy calibers, was expected to deal with moving, wounded and/or angry dangerous game. Lighter doubles, paradoxes and combination guns were/are used on driven game - particularly boar. But with the exception of the French Battue design, I think our English, and especially our continental cousins were also all about aimed accuracy with bolt and single action rifles - particularly scoped bolt actions. Germans and Austrians tend, to this day, to mount their optics significantly higher than the American optimum and shoot with a bit more erect head. Of couse, running boar targets are shot all over continental Europe. And I will admit, the last competitions I formally competed in there were the Austrian National Hunting Matches of '78 and '79, but back then I never saw a purpose built running boar rifle used for that part of the course. Always, it was the primary hunting rifle so used, with its fairly high mounted scope in place. In studying for my German Jagdshein (hunting license) during that same period enormous emphasis was placed on the initial shot and the unethical choices surrounding firing at moving game - with the huge exception of the drive hunt.

It would also be interesting to see how popular writers evolved those respective traditions. We had a half dozen expert riflemen who strongly advocated the low-mounted scope in the three decades surrounding WWII. I think that created a bow-wave of interest which continues among us on this forum to this day. At the same time in Europe, most people were still figuring out how to survive and traditional rifle fitting seems to have skipped those decades when Germans and Austrians finally returned to the game fields. It would indeed be an interesting subject to pursue in some depth.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

What I know about gun history in comparison to others here would fit on the head of a pin and leave room to spare. Having said that, I do know a few things about physics. Specifically in regards to torque / leverage, this applies to the stock design and muzzle rise.

Torque (Leverage) = F x d
F = force applied perpendicular to a specific point
d = perpindicular distance to that point from where the force is applied

If one pushes on an open door close to the hinges it will move more slowly and overall require more effort to close the door than if that same amount of push is applied at the door handle. Or in other words you get more torque the further away from the hinge point you apply the force.

In regards to shooting a rifle and the drop of the heel, the same principle applies. The heel of the stock is your hinge point. The force that is being applied is a result of discharging the round and it's equal and opposite reaction. That force is in the direction of the barrel line and is towards the shooter. If you can imagine in your head that line extending rearward to the shooter from the barrel, the perpendicular distance to the hinge point, is the vertical distance between the butt pad and this extended barrel line.

Thus if the heel is dropped further from the line of the barrel, this perpendicular distance increases and with that the torque that causes muzzle rise also increases. During the firing of the rifle, as it rises, the lower portion of the butt pad is being pulled away from the shooter which causes more of this recoil force to be concentrated in a smaller spot, thus increasing the pounds of force per square inch........ i.e. the ouch factor increases.

This is just one part of the whole shooting system, not the whole system. But it should not be ignored, especially in the bigger bores. I can understand the concept of why a lower heel versus higher heel has its advantages with shooting posture and getting on the sights quicker, but it comes at the cost of increased muzzle rise all other things held equal.

 

[rookhawk]

A non-sequitor I thought was too good to pass up mentioning: a gun fitter in New England of good skills, Mr. Lars Jacob has a great term I think he invented. "Drop at face". As we talk about heel and comb drops we are literally talking about the ancillary points that matter less and actually get really complicated. What we care about is a measurement that doesn't exist except with Lars: what is the drop required at the point your face touches the stock. He uses the term a lot and it really brings it back to the goal and away from the tactics to achieve it. It's really relevant when we use my daughter's 11.25" LOP and my 15.5" LOP as outlier examples. Drops at heel and comb are not as relevant as it gets a bit crazy. I might have 2-3/4" DAH but it may only be 2-1/8" if we were to measure at 14-1/4" back. No point other than it's all about drop at face and that Lars is a smart man.

Since this discussion has become brilliantly philosophical thanks to the esteemed contributors may I ask a related question?

What is the technical purpose and function of a Germanic boar back / ridge back stock? What were they seeking to accomplish and did they do so?

 

[rookhawk]

In regards to shooting a rifle and the drop of the heel, the same principle applies. The heel of the stock is your hinge point. The force that is being applied is a result of discharging the round and it's equal and opposite reaction. That force is in the direction of the barrel line and is towards the shooter. If you can imagine in your head that line extending rearward to the shooter from the barrel, the perpendicular distance to the hinge point, is the vertical distance between the butt pad and this extended barrel line.

@PHOENIX PHIL your knowledge is passing mine but isn't the counter to this issue why pitch on pad was designed? I always thought that drop was far less worrisome for recoil than cast. As a guy that has 5/8" of cast and a shaved comb I can tell you that the fatter I get, the more cast I need, the more I ouch from recoil.

 

[Ray B]

Rookhawk- Your comments are in line with the marksmanship training I received in the USMC fifty years ago. the M14 stock had a position of face that was set horizontally and vertically. Since all of the stocks had the same dimensions it was the job of the private to fit his face to the stock so that he had a proper sight picture then memorize the "spot weld" of how his face touched the stock and generally the knuckle of his thumb. The rest of shooting was to get a body alignment so that the rifle would stay on target/return to the target after recoil without needing to use muscles.
A properly fit stock as you describe would allow the shooter to accomplish the above sight picture and body alignment by having the gun fit to him rather than having the shooter fit himself to the rifle.

 

[Red Leg]

A non-sequitor I thought was too good to pass up mentioning: a gun fitter in New England of good skills, Mr. Lars Jacob has a great term I think he invented. "Drop at face". As we talk about heel and comb drops we are literally talking about the ancillary points that matter less and actually get really complicated. What we care about is a measurement that doesn't exist except with Lars: what is the drop required at the point your face touches the stock. He uses the term a lot and it really brings it back to the goal and away from the tactics to achieve it. It's really relevant when we use my daughter's 11.25" LOP and my 15.5" LOP as outlier examples. Drops at heel and comb are not as relevant as it gets a bit crazy. I might have 2-3/4" DAH but it may only be 2-1/8" if we were to measure at 14-1/4" back. No point other than it's all about drop at face and that Lars is a smart man.

Since this discussion has become brilliantly philosophical thanks to the esteemed contributors may I ask a related question?

What is the technical purpose and function of a Germanic boar back / ridge back stock? What were they seeking to accomplish and did they do so?

To help achieve proper drop at face.

 

[rookhawk]

Would @PHOENIX PHIL , @Ray B and @Red Leg , @Von Gruff @sierraone @spike.t along with the rest of the posters please get in the same room for 12 hours to discuss further? I'll pay for bourbon and cigars if I can hear what you guys have to say.

Not to make @Red Leg feel old, but he was shooting driven boar when I was in diapers. I fear for a world where everything in gunstocks is made from glass resin and no one is left that understands what you guys learned through much consideration.

 

[rookhawk]

To help achieve proper drop at face.

Epic design fail?

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

@PHOENIX PHIL your knowledge is passing mine but isn't the counter to this issue why pitch on pad was designed? I always thought that drop was far less worrisome for recoil than cast. As a guy that has 5/8" of cast and a shaved comb I can tell you that the fatter I get, the more cast I need, the more I ouch from recoil.

Physics is physics and from my own experience, I find muzzle rise is a significant add to felt recoil. Lifting that lower part of the butt pad off your upper chest for me can make a big difference. It's one reason I'm very concious of my posture when shooting at the range. And it's also why I watch my boys and my wife's posture. I make sure they're as squared up to that butt pad as possible. Get a little leaned over at the bench and you start to pull yourself away from the pad concentrating that force into a smaller area. Muzzle rise causes the same effect.

But as mentioned, one must look at the whole system. My analysis was only on one part of that system, I'm sure there are other contributors to felt recoil that are also significant.

 

[sierraone]

Would @PHOENIX PHIL , @Ray B and @Red Leg , @Von Gruff @sierraone @spike.t along with the rest of the posters please get in the same room for 12 hours to discuss further? I'll pay for bourbon and cigars if I can hear what you guys have to say.

Not to make @Red Leg feel old, but he was shooting driven boar when I was in diapers. I fear for a world where everything in gunstocks is made from glass resin and no one is left that understands what you guys learned through much consideration.

I would need about two weeks notice if driving distance, 3-4 if flying distance. I would show up just to listen, would have very little to contribute. But we need an example of each design, not just a powerpoint presentation! RH, Redleg and I are about the same age, but when he was hunting boar in Germany, I was hunting deer, rabbits and doves in Arkansas. I think all of us will agree that walnut and bluing will be mostly gone within a couple of generations because all the young people I know that shoot want black plastic...and most of them don't hunt. I have no doubt that your daughter will know the difference though!

 

[nztimb]

Something I have done when looking to fit a rifle stock is to take a piece of one inch dowel and hold it up under the cheekbone to replicate a rapid cheek weld (as in jump shooting) and then measure the height to the center of the eye. I will mark the distance on a pattern board below the line of sights (depending on the type of sights that are going to be primary for the rifle) I will mark that distance in above barrel Centre. The measurement from the dowel to the center of the eye is then plotted onto the pattern 3 inches back from the point of the comb. This gives me an aproximate DAC so I will make the DAH just less than twice that distance. EG - for open sights it might indicate a one inch DAC so the DAH would be about 1 3/4 with build of the shooter and style of shooting helping to make the final dimensions. The shooting posture comes into the picture and I continue to believe that this is something similar to the between the wars English style which I continue to try and bring to my rifle stocks.

 

[rookhawk]

Attached are some pictures for an example specimen of this discussion. The rifle is an as-new custom rifle built by H&H Zehner during German reconstruction circa 1957.

Sidebar story: The Zehner brothers were probably the most competent German gunsmiths of the mid-century and they were in cahoots with the Americans at the time. Total gun control existed at that time (prevent nazi resurgence) but the American officers shielded the Zehner brothers from the consequences of the law so they could build beautiful guns for commissioned officers. The story I got when I bought the gun was that a Major stationed in Frankfurt bought a standard Winchester Model 70 in 300H&H from the PX in 1956 (along with a Steyr in .243). The Zehner brothers took on two commissions, the 300H&H (Affectionately called "The Sheep") that is photographed here, and the .243W (Affectionately called "the pronghorn") . Ironically, the .243 has come to market in recent years but I cannot buy it as I'm selling excess guns in small calibers, not buying. Anyway, I digress.

Back to the point of this thread: Take a look at this custom stock as it appears to be a hybrid compromise between what we would call Germanic (which I'd say is a higher comb cousin of the English) and late 1950s American "Roy Weatherby" styling. I believe this is an example of the transition from the British/German design to the mid-century American design. It's flourishes are decidedly germanic but dialed back quite a bit from earlier eras. The gun is totally "designed in Germany for American tastes of 1957" as the stock and engraving are all melding of forms. The claw mounts elevate the scope to that Austro-German heigh orientation that @Red Leg mentioned earlier although with the scope removed its still lower, longer and thinner than an American Model 70 stock ever was. The measurements are roughly:

1-3/8" DAC
1-5/8" DAH
14-5/8" LOP

I just did a compare against a "proper British stocked" London Cogswell & Harrison Certus 450/400 I have sitting around. It was never intended for use with optics nor whereas "the sheep" was. The latter below was also designed for fast acquisition of dangerous game whereas the above was not. It's dimensions from circa 1906 are compared as:

1-3/8 DAC
2-1/8 DAH
14-1/4" LOP

Incidentally: Both are for sale if someone wants either for a few hundred dollars more than Cabelas offered me for them wholesale last month.

 

[enysse]

Stunningly beautiful gun rookhawk! I never cared for those recoil pads but lovely gun!!!