Please pass on to the rifle manufactures that steel crescent buttplates detract from the value of all new rifles. They have no value whatsoever and they hurt. Stop making them!

Oh Kay.

I think the proper response is, "Otay Buckwheat!"

I agree! They should be made of brass, it's softer.

I tink you're right.

Okay, I'll bite. Tell us your sad story.

Hmmm. I just got done making a stock for a retro-custom Savage 1899 and I purposely installed a crescent butt plate...

They look good on old Winchesters....

There should be a law providing the Campfire with unlimited powers over firearms manufacturers.

JB for President 2016!!!!

LMAO........

And nothing would ever be built.
Can anyone see a time when this bunch would ever be in agreement?

Had a Marlin 45/70 in such a configuration. I've shot a 458 and two 338's that didn't come near hurting me as much as that Marlin did....just awful to shoot with heavy bullets.

No response from the OP. He must have succumbed to his injuries.

Another needless steel crescent buttplate death! Will they never learn.

"How many shoulders must a man separate, before they call him a man?"

I think most guys have forgotten, if they even ever knew, how a crescent butt plate should be used. We "moderns" automatically place it on our shoulders like we would anything else (where it will bite if used on a gun bigger than a .25-35) when in actuality it should be moved outboard a bit- more toward the upper arm past the knobby shoulder joint where recoil won't make it pinch you. Try it, you'll see what I mean. I read that in a couple of old books and for the life of me I can't remember where. It's the method I use when shooting beasts of that nature and it does indeed work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't crescent style buttplates all confined to vintage and reproduction style lever actions and single shots? I've not seen any new rifles sporting a crescent buttplate that wasn't a reproduction or copy of an old, classic design from the latter 1800's/early 1900's. In that context, wouldn't the gun in question actually be worth considerably LESS if it wasn't appointed with "period" furniture typical of its design vintage?

There have been many advancements in firearms design since the 1851 Sharps rifle was built, but people buy today's reproductions from Shiloh Sharps exactly BECAUSE they are true to the classic design, do they not?

The snottiest rifle I have ever shot was Ruger #3, with "modern rifle" hand loads in 45-70.
Crescent butt plate killed shoulder, lever tore up my hand, stock slapped face, just nothing to recommend that rifle.

In short, I'd just as soon stand in front of that rifle as behind it.

AS the man said the crescent butt plate goes between the shoulder and the chest (there is a pocket there. They were
to be used for offhand shooting, not from a bench. The old
timers stood up to shoot.

[/quote]

The snottiest rifle I have ever shot was Ruger #3, with "modern rifle" hand loads in 45-70.
Crescent butt plate killed shoulder, lever tore up my hand, stock slapped face, just nothing to recommend that rifle. [/quote]

I'll second that comment. I had a .375 Winchester in Ruger #3. It was quite accurate but it was at a maximum load. Consequently it kicked like a SOB.

The crescent butt plate was rolled and inlet into the top of the stock. I wanted to add a good recoil pad but it would have required either filler pieces or else would have resulted in a very short stock. I still have several hundred cast bullets I made up for that rifle.

Jim

This.

Also, those old rifles were meant to be shot with open sights. Put a scope on a rifle with a low comb and hold your head higher to let it get a running start at your cheek and the comb will karate chop you in the chops every time.

I've been shooting an older .30-06 1895 Winchester with the steel crescent buttplate and was skeered to death it was going to hurt when I first shot it. All that angst for nothing. From off hand or kneeling with the peep sight on it, it isn't bad at all. I mean really, not "'not too bad!', he said as he wiped his bleeding nose", but truly nothing a modern .270 wouldn't dish out. Certainly nothing like a scoped Marlin .444 that brutalized my poor face. Now take that same 1895 and fire 30 or 40 rounds from benchrest working up a load and the resulting big purple bruise will last a week.

I've no doubt the #3 and 1885 falling block rifles with crescent buttplates cited, in the chamberings cited, were pretty punishing from the bench. But again, those are either modern iterations of a vintage design (1885) or inspired by vintage designs (Ruger #3), where a crescent buttplate would look "at home."

The point in my earlier post being: there isn't exactly a trend among rifle manufacturers to equip current rifles with crescent buttplates per the OP's implication. Not only would they look totally out of place on modern rifle stock designs and be very impractical on a typical scoped hunting rifle, but they're more expensive to install and would drive up the price unnecessarily.

mcmurph. Ya 500 gr. Hornady's and book max loads of I-4198 turned mine into a 26" 220 Swift REAL fast!-Muddy

, got a crescent butt '86 in 50-110 wcf that's kindly spry when you touch it off, mine shoots best kinda out on the ball of my shoulder a bit, wont fit in the 'standard butt' shoulder pocket.

I've come to realize that hot rodding a 45-70 is a great way to induce punishment with any rifle. A 400+ grain slug at about 1,250 fps will still go through 18 to 20 1-gallon water jugs with ease. I hopped up some rounds for a Marlin Guide Gun, and I'd be happy if someone would come through and shoot them up for me. It was certainly a mistake to load up 100 rds.

My dad has one of the Savage 1895 commemorative editions(.308) they made in 1970...took it out with Dad, my brother and my nephew after he got it(last fall). None of us found it unpleasant to shoot.