Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Euro Stocks Are Loooong

Are all Euro stocks' pull length longer than US stocks, and if so, why?

Of the ones I've been looking at recently, the Sako's 14.25 inches, the CZ's 14.0 inches (IIRC). Compared to the Remmy's 13.375 (approximately...), the Ruger's 13.5, and the Winchester FWT M70 13.5, and the longer Winnie Classic LT at 13.75, the Euro stocks are longer.

Do European shooters' knuckles drag as they walk, or is there something else going on that I don't recognize? Maybe, they don't hunt the same way, and don't need a quick mount capability? I find the Euro stocks difficult to shoulder quickly, and correcting this length locally is pretty expensive.

Jaywalker

The Europeans have a different approach to scopes than we do. They use scopes with huge front objects (50mm+) and mount them on super high rings. This requires them to raise their shooting eye higher than we do. Maybe they use longer stocks because of the different shooting position they use ?

Conrad

Conrad
Only problem with your idea is that longer stocks LOWER the shooter's eye... The more factory stocks I see the more shooting problems I see caused by lousy fit. The idea that an average stock fit most people just does not hold water anymore...
art

The longer stocks are there for a reason.

For several hundred years European soldiers engaged in linear warfare. Rifleman were taught to stand tall, with their heads high and shoulders back. Same goes for hunting. The result is rifles with high rings, long stocks and low butts.

American shooting is a bit different. Our military came of age in a day when presenting as small a target as possible was the doctrine. Rifleman were taught to hunch over, crawl the stock and keep a low profile. Returning troops carried this technique over to hunting, resulting in low rings, high butts and slightly shorter stocks.

Since I no longer face game that shoots back, I find the European style easier on my neck and thus more comfortable. I seek out early Brno's and Mannlichers over the latter ones, for that very reason. Should I again find myself hunting in harms way, I will quickly return to the American style.

Kurt
While that is a nice romantic imagine it fails to address basic concerns like eye relief... stock crawlers need the length, not the vertical heads...
art

Yeah - Kurt may be right, but it doesn't have the "eureka" feel of the complete answer. You know, "Oh, yeah, that's right - why didn't I think of that?"

A quick check of the expensive Swar 30mm scope's eye relief shows a tad over three inches, so it's not that.

Recoil? Long stocks tend to be pulled harder into the shoulder.

Hunting from a stand? If you don't have to hurry to raise it to the shoulder, it doesn't matter as much how slow the process is.

Other?

I'm sticking with knuckles on the pavement...

Jaywalker

Jaywalker
A WAG here, but I ma thinking it is a practical issue... it is easier to cut a stock down than to cut it longer... I suspect they build them to the long side of average knowing that reducing their length is dead simple (yeah, that was a little poke <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />)

Arm length has very little to do with the LOP needed... look at the arm as a fully adjustable unit since it stands out in the air and can bend to exactly the length needed. The old LOP measurement on the forearm is close to the right length, but only by accident. Anyone out of the ordinary in arm length is way off with this measure.

I would be curious to know what the real answer is, too...
art

Jaywalker
Eureka! It is obvious as can be!!! They build them long because those Euro scopes lack eye relief and if they built the stocks short they would get sued on every one that came to America and caused a lacerated eyebrow! They are only thinking ahead and limiting liability!
art

OK...since we're in the world of WAG, here's mine:

The Golden Age" of rifle-making in Europe began when Brits, Frenchies, Belgians, Germans, Portuguese, Dutch et al were busily running about the tropics chasing gold, jewels, spices, dangerous animals and people with long, sharp spears. Light, thin clothing was commonly worn on the upper body; hence rifle stocks were made to fit. In North America, however, we tend to hunt in colder seasons and wear bulkier clothing while we're doing it; thus rifle stocks are cut shorter to compensate for thicker clothing. (All you folks who regularly eat grits, don't argue with me...this is MY theory!)

Eye Relief is relatively modern concept that does not determine stock length for European rifles. The rifle design came about long before scopes became fashionable. Instead, the scopes are mounted to accomodate the length of the stock.

If one does choose to mount a scope, the European rings are designed so that front attaches to the scope objective, not the tube. This sets the scope several inches rearward. The popular American style of mounting both rings to the tube came about as cost effective method of mass producing one size of rings.

There is an incredible difference between European and American shooting styles, developed over a long period of time in which the two cultures did not have instant methods of comparison, such as magazines or the internet. Trying to rationalize the methods using modern day concepts is misleading.

Kurt
You are making me think you have a little insight here that you are keeping a little closer to your chest... I won't say I am convinced yet, but your arguments do make sense... just wonder why my old Krieghoff drilling is on the average side of long, but that is likely because shotgun shooters need longer stocks.

Why don't we see old Euro guns with long stocks? It seems the ones I have looked at were about normal for US guns, on average.
art

I collect Brno (21 and 22) and Mannlicher-Schoenauers from the late '40s and '50s. None were set up for scopes when they left the factory, and all have an LOP over 14 inches.

I prefer straight tube 20mm scopes, so I use the period 3x Weavers and Leupolds with the foot long tubes, to bring the eye relief back to accomodate the stock. The current series of scopes are too short for these older European stocks.

If you look at the web sites for NECG, ERA and Recknagel, you will find scope mounts for European rifles with long stocks. If you can find a Frankonia catalog you will enjoy several hundred pages on European hunting rifles and clothing.

The cultural differences go beyond rifles stocks, as European hunting is steeped in tradition and ceremony. A Euro-Hunter in more likely to own just one or two deluxe rifles, and wears a wool waistcoat and necktie. An American hunter usually has a safe full of factory or slightly customized rifles, and prefers camouflage clothing. If you compare a Cabelas catalog with a Frankonia, you would swear we were from two different planets.

I am currently importing this full stock 7x64 that was made in Ferlach, Austria. Note the method of scope mounting, and how far back on the wrist the eyepiece is, too accomodate a long stock.

Uncle! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Kurt
Classy hardware, BTW!
art

One thing I have noticed with many Euro and English stocks is the long grips. Having built a couple like that I can state that a longer length of pull comes up quite naturally with that grip as your hand is further towards the butt from the start during the carry.
On shotguns straight grips as opposed to a tight pistol grip along the lines of a Model 12 (later producion) can be considerably longer for the same shooter.
English shotgunners are instructed to hold their lovely doubles out past the splinter foreend with their left hand and throw the gun out to the target and then pull back into the shoulder. While this latter is happening the right hand is moving forward while thumbing the safety and getting the right hand into position . It works and does accomodate a longer length of pull than we might normally use even with heavy clothing.
A relatively short man of my acquaintance had a pair of XXV Churchills made up.
He did the trip to England for the fitting Despite being a highly accomplished shooter with rifle, shotgun and pistol Churchill refused to make the guns to the length he specified and taught him their method of mounting a shotgun to suit a slightly longer stock. He was the finest wing shot I ever observed before he got the Churchills and was even better after he got them. Just an observation and the method may not suit us all.

In addition to Kurt's insight, I think there's something to this pistol grip issue, also. I've noticed that the angle of a pistol grip has a relation to the comfort of a given pull length, I believe due to the angle of my wrist.



For instance: a straight grip, which because of an old bone-break I can't use comfortably, allows the use of a longer pull length. The more vertical the pistol grip becomes, the shorter the pull length required. That angle difference is why the raw pull length numbers can't serve as a first-order model for "comfort."



OTOH, if Euro shooters are indeed trained to "push" a rifle out before raising it, and then to stand with head more erect as Kurt reports, we likely have our "Eureka" moment.



Maybe the question should become, "Why don't more (any?) Euro makers recognize the differences in shooting styles and provide stocks designed for the shooters to whom they're trying to peddle their wares?" There are folks who want fewer, higher quality rifles, but who don't intend to adopt a necktie for hunting, nor to change their rifle mounting style.



Jaywalker

I think Stocker got it right. here in America, we tend to lift the rifle/shotgun up into position. In Europe, the rifle/shotgun is pushed forward to the target and then brought back into the shoulder. This allows for a much longer length of pull (1/2") and is actually a very good way to get on target.
John

Jaywalker,

You are slowly getting your wish. It took several years, but folks were finally able to convince CZ to offer an "American" stock. I don't think this would have been possible even a few years ago. Modern communication, such as the internet, is making timely feedback possible.

The other problem is that European manufacturers naturaly feel that their style is the proper one, and any variation to that is just a personal opinion with no mass market appeal.
It would be like trying to convince them that the way they have been doing things for several hundred years is wrong, and that the American way is right.

It is a cultural thing. Like trying to convince the British that they are driving on the wrong side of the road. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Kurt,

Yes, but "slowly" isn't good enough. I'm an American; I want everything, and I want it now. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Oh, and I want it on credit. Delivered.

I've looked at the CZ American - they changed the stock, but they also removed the excellent open sights. Oh, well...

Jaywalker

the open grip is the key factor in the architecture of stock design, it appears to me. i much prefer an open, almost straight grip, sort of english shotgunnish. do not like a looong stock, though, despite having longish arms (6-1.5). then you got the lee-enfields with their open grips but short buttstocks. then again, the british isles ain't necessarily in europe, and the rifle was designed by an american. back to square one.