Most comfortable stock in your opinion

[Vaino]

The English w/ their "Africa Experience" developed comfortably shooting BP rifles w/ very large calibers and big loads... they hunted very large and dangerous game that isn't present in this country. English rifles used in Africa and also elsewhere had straight combs that were parallel or nearly so w/ the bbls...can you imagine the punishment rendered w/ such big loads shot in some of the more unsuitably designed BP rifles built in America?....Fred

 

[Spikebuck]

The English Sporting Rifle and German Jaegers are strong candidates, but not really a traditional LR's.

Huh? :idunno: Weren't German Gunsmiths the basis for much of the 1700's American domestic production, who took their background and experience and built the designs they knew here. Weren't Christian Springs rifles (among others) a very direct descendent of the Jaeger?

Maybe I'm missing your point on what is 'traditional' or defined as a 'long rifle.' I'll let the far more knowledgeable historians here make the call, but it seems to me the Jaeger was the parent or grandparent of many "American" styles that developed.

 

[Dean2]

The crescent or hooked butt plates carried on well past the Muzzle loader period and showed up late into the black powder cartridge and even a short while into the early smokeless powder age, until the more powerful loads started coming out. It went on so long because stylistically it looked very good and the shooting public being all macho males would never complain that it was a piss poor design from a recoil perspective.

The English, because they shot very much larger calibers and loads both in the muzzle loaders and in the early cartridge guns never went the way of the hooked butt plates and big drops in any gun designed for hunting.

If you doubt what I am saying, take a 460 Weatherby mag, put lots of drop in the stock and add a nice crescent brass butt plate with a big hook in it. I GUARANTEE you won't pull that trigger more than once.

 

[lefty45flinter]

For me, it's this one....

the only Flint I own..... :blah:

 

[Vaino]

I've shot a Weatherby .460 offhand 4 times and refused the fifth when offered. The stock design is excellent but the 102 ft/lbs of recoil is still overwhelming when 4 consecutive shots were fired. In comparison, the .30/06 has 27 ft/lbs of recoil.

There's only a few MLer stock designs that could have handled 102 ft/lbs of recoil outside of the English rifles, eg...Lancaster, York and other straight combed, wide ,flat butt plated LRs w/o inflicting a lot of pain on the shooter. Of course I'm sure that even the English, Lancaster and York designs would punish the shooter far more than the Weatherby which has the best designed stock worldwide, bar none.

Of course, the rifles omitted in the above paragraph weren't made w/ such punishing calibers and loads, so it's a moot point...but some of the omitted rifles punish w/ comparatively lighter loads.

Throughout the evolution of "shouldered" arms", many designs were tried and many were discarded until today only the earlier sound designs were incorporated into our modern rifles.

Hopefully this post won't be deleted...only mentioned modern arms as an example of proper stock design.....Fred

 

[MFordney]

I've shot a Weatherby .460 offhand 4 times and refused the fifth when offered. The stock design is excellent but the 102 ft/lbs of recoil is still overwhelming when 4 consecutive shots were fired. In comparison, the .30/06 has 27 ft/lbs of recoil.

There's only a few MLer stock designs that could have handled 102 ft/lbs of recoil outside of the English rifles, eg...Lancaster, York and other straight combed, wide ,flat butt plated LRs w/o inflicting a lot of pain on the shooter. Of course I'm sure that even the English, Lancaster and York designs would punish the shooter far more than the Weatherby which has the best designed stock worldwide, bar none.

Of course, the rifles omitted in the above paragraph weren't made w/ such punishing calibers and loads, so it's a moot point...but some of the omitted rifles punish w/ comparatively lighter loads.

Throughout the evolution of "shouldered" arms", many designs were tried and many were discarded until today only the earlier sound designs were incorporated into our modern rifles.

Hopefully this post won't be deleted...only mentioned modern arms as an example of proper stock design.....Fred

This. :thumbsup:

 

[Loyalist Dave]

My preference is for shotgun styled buttplates.

I like mine wide and rounded on the edges, but when shooting I don't notice anything disagreeable, but afterward, at night when I take off my shirt and note the bruising and soreness of my chest adjacent to the shoulder joint where a thin buttplate with pointy toe and pointy comb have recoiled with a stout load, then I notice the preference. :grin:

Regardless of the stock type I also prefer the patched round ball, especially when I see the guys with the 100+ gain powder loads shooting 400+ grain conicals and can't raise one of their arms after a range session due to heavy impact from recoil on one of their shoulders. :haha:

LD

 

[Billnpatti]

The answer to what is the most comfortable stock design is a very subjective one. The features that are more desirable for one shooter will be a feature that will be less desirable to another shooter. There are a few basic general rules that most folks will agree upon. For instance, it is generally accepted that a stock with more drop will have a greater propensity for slapping your cheek. However, for another shooter, a greater drop will allow them to more easily get a good sight picture without having to crawl up on the stock. It is generally agreed that if the shooter will hold the rifle a bit more tightly, it will reduce cheek slap. so, the shooter who wants a greater drop to the stock and who will hold the rifle more tightly, will find the stock drop to be more comfortable than a straighter stock. Some like a cheek piece and some hate them. So, there is no one best and most comfortable stock design. The most comfortable stock is the one that best fits a shooters particular physique and personal likes and dislikes. It is very subjective.

 

[Paul_R]

The answer to what is the most comfortable stock design is a very subjective one.

I think you're absolutely right. It's just like the "Which seat is most comfortable" we always get on motorcycle forums. One man's bliss is another man's torture.

 

[Vaino]

What you said is true...but you're including and considering a minority of shooters which is anecdotal to say the least.

When a rifle or shotgun is shouldered {the shotgun is more critical}, the rifle sights or bbl sight plane should align w/ the eye and should require no further physical adjustments {craning the neck or crawling the stock, etc} . This isn't physically possible w/ upper arm mounting or rifles w/ excessive drops.

The arms manufacturers today produce rifles and shotguns that "fit" the majority of shooters and this wasn't arrived at by considering the "exceptions". If someone's physical makeup doesn't lend itself to factory guns, then a custom maker comes into play.....Fred

 

[LaBonte]

When a rifle or shotgun is shouldered {the shotgun is more critical}, the rifle sights or bbl sight plane should align w/ the eye and should require no further physical adjustments {craning the neck or crawling the stock, etc} . This isn't physically possible w/ upper arm mounting or rifles w/ excessive drops. ....Fred

Fred with all due respect but that's not true - I've been shooting muzzleloaders, BP cartridge guns, (both types with crescent plates) as well as my old '06 Springfield (with a flat plate) off my upper arm for 52 years and have not found it any less physically impossible to throw the gun to the arm and have it line up properly than when shooting off the shoulder.
As for the big bruisers like the big bores English guns - with their flat butt plates the shoulder generally works better, but like anything else it's what you get used to or learn from.
As for Weatherby stocks - you say they are the best designed but I found them to fit me terribly, where as the stocks found on classic English big game rifles with out the Monte Carlo and with a fair amount of drop (as most doubles have) fit me much better and FWIW I shot up to 600 nitro Express rifles without pain. Frankly over the years of shooting big bores I've found that people start off far too often with pre-conceived idea that the gun will hurt no matter what (yes they can hurt but....), plus the noise and/or expectation of the noise, often causes more problems for many folks and not the recoil.

 

[Vaino]

Whatever fits you is well and good...but, you're an exception to "sound shooting practices". Won't pursue this further because anecdotal instances don't make for acceptance of proper shooting technique as taught by the US Armed Forces or the NRA.....Fred

 

[Paul_R]

I'm with you LaBonte. I think we're exceptions to "sound marketing practices" based on statistical averages and ease of manufacturing.

 

[Snakebite]

I'm with you LaBonte. I think we're exceptions to "sound marketing practices" based on statistical averages and ease of manufacturing.

I too agree with Bill and LaBonte and Paul_R. Both my rifles with crescent butt plates fit me great. I can mount them on my shoulder with my eyes closed, open them and I'm right on. And oh by the way, same thing with my O/U skeet shotgun, M1 Garand, etc., all with a flat butt. So go figure.

This is a subject that seems to have come up many times and each time everyone has their own opinion, all of which are correct for that person. It seems like people say the only way to shoot a crescent butt is on your shoulder, your upper arm, your bicep and their way is the only way. Well Boys, I'm here to tell you shoot it like you like. It might not be the same way I shoot mine, but that's OK.

 

[Amikee]

The topic was:
Most comfortable stock in your opinion. "Your opinion" is critical here.

There you go.

-Weatherby- one of the best designed stock which will absorb perceived recoil and fit vast majority of shooters.
Winchester 1873, 1892, etc was made with straight stock, yet no one complained. It fitted most. It's just a general "about right".

-Obviously everyone has their own choices, likes and preferances. That's why we have listed the characteristics of different stocks to compare. I'm still fairly new although i spend every moment on here for past 6 years and topics like this help for sure.

Appreciate all the responses and experiences
until now.
Add on more if you will.
Big thanks, Glad you liked it. Michael

 

[Zonie]

Gentlemen.
This is a muzzleloading forum so the guns being discussed are limited to muzzleloaders.

Please stop referring to modern style rifles in your responses.

 

[tenngun]

I got to say a curved butt bicept hold that I use on my southeren rifle and trade rifle fit me as well as flat butt shoulder hold on my fusils.I've heard the French eat snails and the Japanies eat raw fish,I spect you like what you get used too,heck my daughter eats brocolli.Fact is once you get used to a gun it will fit you fine.Its all part of that beware of the man who owns just one gun thing.

 

[David W.]

Wider butt plates help distribute recoil. Also, heavier rifles absorb part of the felt recoil.

 

[LaBonte]

Won't pursue this further because anecdotal instances don't make for acceptance of proper shooting technique as taught by the US Armed Forces or the NRA.....Fred

Fred, again with all due respect, if you go back and look at the beginning of the 20th Century the Military and the NRA still taught shooting from the upper arm position with the elbow held high, which makes a perfect pocket for he butt. It wasn't until around the WW2 era that shooting styles changed and then changed again in the Viet Nam era with the low recoiling rifles now commonly used by the military.
FWIW - the folks I learned to shoot from were all ex-military and NRA members so I reckon my proper shooting is just old fashioned, but then so again are most of my guns......

 

[Col. Batguano]

The English Sporting Rifle and German Jaegers are strong candidates, but not really a traditional LR's.

Huh? :idunno: Weren't German Gunsmiths the basis for much of the 1700's American domestic production, who took their background and experience and built the designs they knew here. Weren't Christian Springs rifles (among others) a very direct descendent of the Jaeger?

Maybe I'm missing your point on what is 'traditional' or defined as a 'long rifle.' I'll let the far more knowledgeable historians here make the call, but it seems to me the Jaeger was the parent or grandparent of many "American" styles that developed.

Indeed you are correct. My point was that the German Jaeger design, is a GERMAN Jaeger. Traditional AMERICAN long rifles grew out of those. Since most things in this front are evolutionary rather than revolutionary, I THINK the OP was referring to guns that are by and large, ones that could be distinctly called AMERICAN long rifle designs.

My point was a very very fine one of distinction. Indeed the evolutional arms bear strong resemblance to their predecessors. After all, human anatomy hasn't changed much in the last couple of centuries.