Now, pragmatically, the best fit is long enough that you don't bash your nose. Why? Obviously that will accomdate the easiest gun mount and the greatest range of clothing. And more importantly it will bring the center of mass close to the rotational axis of your body and you will be able to turn faster. (don't bother, Rocketman, you know I think your MOI is crap for years now ;)). But short stocks look kinda funny tho, don't they? So cut it or leave it alone or whatever. It really doesn't make any difference in anything but how the gun mount feels. Of course that presumes that the gun fit is otherwise correct and that begs a lot since most shooters have NO clue how that works either.
Wonk, I think maybe you need more help with your English than you do your gun mount, if you think the above somehow shows a preference for short stocks over long ones. 17" is long enough that I won't bash my nose, but I'd never be able to shoot a 17" stock starting low gun. If you'd said "just long enough that you don't bash your nose", that will work pretty well shooting low gun. "But short stocks look funny." I think you and John Kerry have a lot in common: You both have a tendency of being for something before you're against it.
And to straighten out your most recent muddying of my opinion on stock length . . I certainly believe that a stock that's too long can be a definite hindrance to shooting low gun. And with the possible exception of Doc Holliday at the OK Corral, most folks I know don't pull the trigger until the gun's mounted. The problem is getting it mounted with the least amount of difficulty and having it end up so it shoots where you look. If you're shooting premounted, you have more of an opportunity to scrunch yourself around so that a too long LOP can be made to work.
Last edited by L. Brown; 01/27/09 07:47 PM.
