Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Gunsmithing Recoil Reductin through Stock Design???

Title pretty well covers it . . .

What stock attributes (shotgun and rifle) provide a perceived or real reduction of recoil felt by the shooter.

drop, angle of butt pad

There are bound to be a lot of independent/ combined considerations involved.

Roy Weatherby used it with some excellent results.

Books have been written on the subject...

tons of variables work together and many times two or more changes interact with one another to make synergistic changes "for a particular fit to a particular shooter." Those same changes can work strongly against some other fit for some other individual.

Cast is a good way to reduce felt recoil by causing the gun to move to the side a bit instead of straight back, or worse, up into the cheek.

Nothing else makes as much difference as weight in the gun. For a hunting rifle weight can be added for range work and removed for hunting. Recoil is seldom noticed when shooting at critters.

JOC often stated Americans want our shotgun stocks too short and our rifle stocks too long...

I"m not totally sure, but years ago, I started to copy Weatherby stocks and things got better.. I don't think Pitch (angle of butt pad) adds to reduction of recoil. Sitka Deer (Art) claims that cast will make hard recoil more so. I have not found that to be true, but maybe I am doing something different. It is given,he knows a heck of lot more than me about stock design. I don't like a cheek piece to angle upwards from front to back. I think those definitely hit you harder, Seems the straighter the stock, the more recoil.

If the rifle fits you, ie., it sits in the pocket of shoulder when you mount it and your eye ends up centered in the scope or iron sights or with a shotgun you are not looking down at the rib or at back of the receiver,it makes a big difference, as does the correct LOP. There are probably100+ people on here that know more than I do though.

Melvins NULA rifles with the stock design seem to work great for felt recoil reduction.

Cast in the right direction reduces felt recoil considerably. In the wrong direction it will beat you up!

Look at the original Ruger 77 stocks.
The one everyone thinks is great. It does look nice.


Don't copy it.

Hardest kicking guns I've ever shot.

Ex-B-I-L had one in 7 mag.
Would roll up a jacket as an extra pad. Still complained about the kick.
Dad had a 7mm Vanguard, I had one in a Sako. We thought he must be a pussy.
Our rifles didn't bite.
So, we tried his.

Quick found out a 7mag can hit harder than a 300.
At least for the shooter!

I had Winchester Model 70 in 7 mag, and a Weatherby in 7mg Weatherby.The Winchester would rattle my teeth, the Weatherby, not so much

A larger area on the butt helps a lot. GD

Fact...

Boat paddles? The Len Brownell designed version is a very good design.

Never fired a boat paddle.

The Len Brownell.

Love the look, hate the recoil.
Experienced it with a 270 Lightweight(?)
And a 30-06 also.
Might be build, but I can find a half dozen guys that agree.
From about 5'7 to 6'2", skinny and husky.
Never actually ever heard anyone say, mine doesn't kick as hard as a xxx should.

That's true. While I happen to be one that likes the Brownell-style M77 stock and have had good results with it, I once had an old B&C Carbelite on a 7mmRM M77 and that stock had a really fat butt with lots of surface area, as well as a decent pad. It spread out recoil really well, which is about all I can say for it.

I have one of those in the shop, there is little doubt, aesthetics meant nothing to the designer of those! I would be really bummed if I paid anything for it. They are comfortable to shoot though. GD

I've read a few books on stock design and it seems even the "experts" disagree somewhat on what is required to tame recoil. This is just my opinion and I haven't shot a ton of hard recoiling rifles like some here, but enough to know when it is uncomfortable. My experience is that stocks with lots of drop at the toe and heel and a Monte Carlo rollover type cheekpiece with the proper cast will direct recoil up and away from your cheek, which reduces the immediate impact of recoil and the up and away action rolls the recoil across a larger area of the shoulder to dissipate the felt recoil. I'm just guessing here as I'm not expert but the early Weatherby rifles had this style of stock as well as several of the present rifles I've handled with rollover cheek pieces and they seem to be a lot more comfortable to shoot to me. About the worst to shoot IME are the Model 94, Marlin 1895, and Savage 110 stocks, which all seem to have fairly straight back designs in their layout with very little cast and a cheek area that comes right up at your cheekbone when firing....

I agree strongly on the 77 wood stocks.

The big problem with stock fit is the simple fact different body shapes need different stock shapes...

At 6'4" and 230# I find many differences in my perceptions after gaining 30# over the last 30 years.

I make zero claims of being recoil tough, insensitive, or anything else. I do not enjoy shooting when it kicks the schidt out of me.

I had a 270 that kicked like a rented mule.

Stock fit is very key to reducing recoil in shotguns and rifles. The pitch on a shotgun stock will make a big difference in how high the muzzle rises (which leads to being hit in the face). There is a Youtube video of one of the guys on the Army Shotgun shooting team showing how to fix this.

Are there any internet/youtube sites with examples to include angles, measurements?

I note a pretty good drop at the heel for the rifles pictured in the post above.

Style of shooting (offhand, prone, or benchrest) and, as stated above, body type, determines stock shape and dimension as much as anything. Recoil reduction is more likely to be a side effect. Prone stocks are usually prettystraight with little drop at the heel and often, a high comb. An offhand stock will have more drop. There are other aspects of design which ar influenced by shooting style as well. Grip angle and comb height are two. GD