S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
311
guests, and
5
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,579
Posts546,636
Members14,425
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 521 Likes: 60
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 521 Likes: 60 |
reading all of this and looking at the pictures, it is clear that I mount a gun with the butt much higher in my shoulder pocket. For hunting where I just mount and swing through and shoot it seems ok but I wonder if I am handicapping myself on clays as all the videos I watch of the top shooters, they all have the gun mounted lower.
This ain't a dress rehearsal , Don't Let the Old Man IN
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,786 Likes: 765
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,786 Likes: 765 |
Lloyd, 2 3/4” drop at heel is about all I can stand. I guess you could say I have a “window” from 2 1/2”-2 3/4” that works. Or, worked. I have never believed that a man’s stock measurements remain static throughout his life. Watching the old guys at the club leads me to believe LOP becomes more critical (and, shorter) as a guy gets older. Depending. Just me, maybe, but that gun at 2 3/4” drop would be OK for an afternoon of bird hunting, but, I’m not going to spend a bunch of time shooting at clays with it. A better choice of some sort is in the safe.
Someone could write a book about stock dimension changes that happen between age 25 and 80 for the typical Joe.
Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,150 Likes: 208
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,150 Likes: 208 |
Drop at heel is a very insignificant dimension. Your cheek is much closer to the comb. A Monte Carlo stock usually has a much lower drop at heel than a standard straight stock. The Monte Carlo puts the butt of the stock in the middle of the shoulder pocket where it belongs.
|
1 member likes this:
builder |
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,786 Likes: 765
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,786 Likes: 765 |
Drop at heel is a very insignificant dimension. Your cheek is much closer to the comb. A Monte Carlo stock usually has a much lower drop at heel than a standard straight stock. The Monte Carlo puts the butt of the stock in the middle of the shoulder pocket where it belongs. That must explain all those fine English SxS bird guns I have handled with Monte Carlo stocks..... Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,132 Likes: 94
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,132 Likes: 94 |
Stock fit changes as we get older and/or lose/gain weight. My bout with Covid two years ago resulted in my losing almost 20 lbs. nothing fit, from guns to clothes. My gunsmith told me as he fit an adjustable comb to my MX8, that for every five pounds we gain or lose comb height can change 1/16”. He does stock work mostly for trap shooters and I believe he’s right. I have gained some weight back but not in my face. Consequently, I shoot a high gun at 13/8” x 2” x 15”. Prior to this I’d get by with 11/2” at the nose.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,150 Likes: 208
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,150 Likes: 208 |
Ted's sarcastic post neglects to mention all the shooters who are in it for the money (to win) who shoot Monte Carlo stocks. None of my English bird guns have Monte Carlo stocks, but I would probably shoot them better if they did.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,786 Likes: 765
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,786 Likes: 765 |
You may shoot them better in a pigeon race, but, you wouldn’t in a Grouse woods. If Boss, Purdey, H & H, et al could have demonstrated otherwise, you would have had Monte Carlo stocks on a game gun.
They didn’t.
Best, Ted
|
1 member likes this:
SKB |
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 99
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 99 |
eightbore thinks monte carlo stocks make him a better shooter...
ted does not...
from eightbores perspective, who cares what ted thinks...
keep it simple and keep it safe...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38 |
Static shooting at incoming birds compared to walked up shooting raises interesting points. In static shooting it would seem easier to "crawl" the stock and adopt a "style". Walking, expecting to see game flush, mounting from a low gun position while visually tracking the bird interferes with remembering to apply all the shooting school finer points like head position and footwork. Maybe that explains the greater DAH dimension of older guns.
|
1 member likes this:
Ted Schefelbein |
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 460 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 460 Likes: 12 |
There was a book "Shotgun Shooting: Techniques and Technology" by John Brindle published about 40 years ago which went into some detail about the different evolutions of gunstock shape and fit for different disciplines in some detail. Perhaps rather dated now, and mainly line drawings rather than photographs, it is nevertheless quite interesting top those interested in the historical developments.
|
2 members like this:
Stanton Hillis, Ted Schefelbein |
|
|
|
|