Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Express Rifles and Big Bores Only High cheekpiece or lower for recoil mitigation.

So some of the large calibers have the high comb. Was this done for recoil mitigation or just what was commonplace at the time. Others have a lower "bump" and some have no comb/cheekpiece at all. For you large bore shooters, what stock style is best for recoil control and target recovery. Thanks

I don't shoot the big 'uns well. However, I did have stocks that fit me and my LOP.

I always find that the straight comb works better for the bigger bores.And that is with or without a cheekpiece.

Thanks so far

I find the straight combs are better to shoot also.

I had a CZ hogback in 416 and 375 that were no fun.
I had a 404 Jeffery with a high comb that I could shoot about 30 rounds per session before having enough.

My current 375 has an Echols legend stock and I can shoot it all day with full power 300gr loads.

My big bore experience is limited to about 3,000 rounds of 470 and 450-400 Nitro, .458 Win and Lott, 450 Dakota and 375 H&H.

My $0.02, you want a comb height that allows you to get a firm cheek weld while achieving alignment with whatever sight/scope you are shooting through.

High vs low...it is all relative to how high your sights/scope is and how fat your face and long your neck is.

Edited to add: I will shoot about 30 450 Dakota tomorrow (AHR) in prep for my August buffalo hunt. I had to add about a quarter inch pad to the top of the comb to allow for a good cheek weld. I will not shoot 550gr bullets at 2,200 without having my face planted on the stock! No flying starts!


Tim

Look at photos of old English rifles and doubles. You'll find your answer. The high-comb is for scoped rifles.

The English rifles also took the recoil up and away from the shooter.

For myself a nearly straight comb seems best. But I always use a scope. On my CZ550 in .458 Win Mag that was loaded "long", and easily matched Lott loads, recoil was quite manageable from bench-rest style. My smith added some weight to the forearm which brought hunting weight (with scope, sling and ammo) to just over 11 lbs. That was in using 500s at 2250 to 2285 fps from 81 grs powder.

Your 450 will be more, of course, depending on load. But my #1 Ruger in .45-70 with a long throat (LT), was equal to a .458 Win Mag shooting a 500 at 2200 fps. It weighed a mere 8.3 lbs and recoil would be up there with your 450 at about 75 ft-lbs. It too had a near straight stock. That was replaced last year with a #1 Ruger in .458 Win, and I've been developing loads for it since at Lott levels, since it has no magazine and a very long leade. But recoil is less than my former #1 in .45-70 LT. That was the point due to five stents last year and cataract surgery a few weeks ago. I wanted the same ballistics with less recoil. This Ruger Tropical also has Mag-na-porting. At midway between 83 and 84, I'm also now using a Lead Sled at the range for testing purposes.

But the point is, from my experience, that rifle weight is more critical than the comb being slightly higher or lower. But I prefer straight, or nearly so. (Edit: the #1 Ruger in .458 is also 2 lbs heavier than my former #1 in .45-70 LT)

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

Thanks to all for your input!

When I lay out a big bore stock I give it an automatic 1/2" drop at the heel. Comb is at 1/16 below the cocking piece of the bolt to get your head up as high as it can to keep your face on the gun when you look through your scope. More drop diverts energy down and back so the front of the gun comes up as you rock off that back foot. Although a gun with drop does suck off the bench, they are often more pleasant shoot when standing off hand as one would do off tall sticks in Africa.

Andrew

10X Interesting, I thought the straighter the better but you make a good point for the drop and all the British rifles have it. I thought this was for iron sights but recoil attenuation makes sense.