Perceived Recoil and Stock Design

The thread below on the .450 BP Express conversion on an NEF Handi-Rifle got me thinking. I did a little bit of reading, and a little bit of looking around at the classic rifles in heavy-recoiling calibers.

I read (and it makes sense to me) that part of perceived recoil isn't so much how hard it punches your shoulder, but how hard it punches you in the face. With your cheekbone down against the buttstock, any upward motion of the butt is delivered directly to your skull.

In comparing rifle stocks, I looked at a Weatherby rifle in .460 Weatherby:

[image]

If you look at the comb of the stock, you will see it slopes downward from the butt toward the pistol grip... meaning that as the rifle moves backward under recoil the stock will tend to fall away from your face, and will even compensate for some muzzle rise in the process.

By comparison, the Handi-Rifle's comb is straight and level, and almost inline with the bore:

[image]

Interestingly, the Alexander Henry rifles I saw went in exactly the opposite direction:

[image]

Note that, in the rifle shown, the comb slopes upward from buttplate to grip. I can only conclude that, in the rifle shown, the shooter's cheek was not expected to be welded to the butt... the shooter's eye had to be up higher to use the peep sight. Also, I figure the A. Henry rifle used weight to compensate for recoil. It doesn't matter as much when you have your gunbearers in the field with you. ;-)

-AaronB

Post reply

105 views

With my 500bpe, I have to push down with my cheek to line up the sights and it beats up my face after a time. Needs more drop for me.

You see a lot of Winchester 52s with the front of the comb filed down which gives them an uphill taper to the butt.

Interesting topic to consider...

My first Krag sporter had a modern stock, which made it impossible for me to use a Lyman 48. A spoke shave fixed it!

[image]

Post reply

96 views

First one that comes to mind is the 1903 Springfield. Shooting that one a lot from prone is just nasty to me.

Post reply

94 views

I am wondering whether the degree to which people perceive recoil as "punishing" depends on how fully in-contact with the stock they are. If your body is more or less welded to the rifle butt, forcing your torso to move with the rifle as it comes back under recoil, I am thinking that this reduces the "impact" of recoil to a degree... but only to a degree.

As velocity and energy levels rise, so do the third- and fourth- and higher derivatives of the position equation. There's not just acceleration, but also "jerk," and whatever the first derivative of "jerk" is. Consider standing and holding an empty rifle stock in firing position while someone takes a roundhouse swing on the tip of the fore-end with a baseball bat... it doesn't matter how welded to the stock you are, you're going to be taking a blow.

I suppose that's where a good cushiony butt pad comes in. It dampens all those derivatives down to just acceleration, which can then be bearable.

A longer length of pull may better enable a shooter to keep the butt solidly planted on their shoulder, which would help.

-AaronB (musing)

Post reply

62 views

Mounted to a P-14 action which is chambered in .458WM. There is a definite slope rear-to-front and that one plain beats me up. Yes, it's a 458 but, even with mild loads, it beats on my cheek. Not so much anymore but I used to be a regular recoil glutton. Dad once built a .458 on a '98 Mauser with the express goal of "making it as light as possible". I seem to recall he got it down in the 7-1/2# vicinity. Upon touching it off, my first words were, "Can I do it again?" As an aside, I wonder what happened to that one...

Not sure what to do with mine at the moment. I am tempted to try it with a straight comb to see what that does but there are many, many other projects ahead of that.

Post reply

71 views

It would be worth having someone film you taking a shot with it, then playing it back in slow-mo. You would see just how the rifle is moving. It might be that even more slope is indicated.

Or it might be something else entirely.

I wonder if it needs two pounds of lead shot in the buttstock.

-AaronB

Post reply

63 views

The film idea is worthwhile but it would be spring at best.

Not sure how to add more slope with the existing stock. I do have a 'sporter' military stock that a feller could Bondo up but, due to other design facets, may only make things worse. Have to dig it out and think on it...

Post reply

50 views

The theory of the slope is the rifle travels rearward and the stock drops away from your face. But I'm guessing with that much recoil the rifle's coming up a lot and whacking you, so all the slope is doing is giving it a running start?

Or maybe the cast is just no good for you. I bought a couple PD trade in Benelli M2's a few years ago and the beat my face badly. I'd owned others that didn't, so I was puzzled. Turned out the PD's armorer had them set up for left handed shooters. Probably didn't have any idea what they were doing with the shims.

Post reply

44 views

with enough slack that you could slide a wedge of wood under it. and experiment with the height and angle. Blue tape and closed cell foam is a simpler more red neck way to figure this out.

--
Of the Troops & For the Troops

Post reply

41 views

I will keep that in mind when I get back to shooting that one.

Post reply

28 views

We were shooting Greg Buchel's Model 89s last week. The 460 and heavy Buffalo Bore 454s had less felt recoil, than my Marlin in 45-70 with standard loads...
The 89s have a forward slope stock like a Weatherby. It helps on both! [image]

--
Of the Troops & For the Troops

Post reply

54 views

RSS Feed of thread

The Frontier Sixshooter Community Message Board

A lot of that drop is due to irons vs scopes.

Not all of the old stocks work well for me.

Recoil and length of pull

I have a synthetic stock, Bell & Carlson maybe?

I wonder if more slope would help...?

Unknown.

Slope

adding some slope: I could make a cuff to lace on

Thanks Rob!

The downwards slope really helps with reducing the face