Hi guys,

I’d like to discuss stock heel drop, which I’ve puzzled over for some time.  See the stock profile photos below of several currently available BPC rifles.  I’m no expert on the subject and have wondered why most, if not all, “original” BPC rifles were designed with substantial drop at the heel relative to the comb.  Was it due to utilitarian reasons or just esthetically more pleasing to the shooters at the time?  I’m assuming that the rifles available from Pedersoli, Uberti and even Shiloh Sharps are reasonably accurate representations of the original classic design.  

Being somewhat partial to the modern Browning BPCR stock design, which has the same drop at comb and heel and was designed to minimize felt recoil, I wonder why many manufacturers still offer rifles with substantial heel drop, and more importantly, why shooters continue to buy the rifles.  I for one believe that felt recoil increases as the angle from the comb to the heel is increased.  That muzzle rise is not only due to the shooters body moving back due to recoil but is also in part due to the comb angle.  So why would anyone purchase a BCPR with 2” of heel drop relative to the comb?  

I’m convinced that prone shooters benefit from a flat comb.  Could it be that offhand shooting benefits from additional heel drop?  I’m asking because I don’t know.  I’d think that anyone considering a rifle in calibers .45-90 or larger would want a stock with minimal heel drop, but many of these rifles are available in .45-110 or .45-120.  Am I missing something here?  I’d like to hear comments on the subject from you “experts”.

By the way, another reason behind my interest is I’m looking for a commercially available high-wall with a light weight barrel for deer hunting and have yet to find one with a pistol grip stock, flat comb and shotgun butt plate.  The caliber will most likely be .38-55 or .40-65.

Wayne


(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) Click on photo for larger image.

An interesting query. I think that a rifle is a tool, and that, particularly where tools are concerned, form follows function. In general the beauty and grace of a well designed tool flow from this relationship between form and function, and a tool designed on aesthetics alone will almost certainly function poorly. Now clearly this is oversimplification. The skill and artistry of the craftsman or designer play an enormous role, but form and function provide the gridwork on which this talent hangs.

On the other hand any multi function tool is going to endure compromise.  If you consider just two functions of a rifle, firing standing and firing prone, it's pretty clear to anyone who's done both that the geometry between sight line, stock and butt, conducive to doing either well is is different. Throw into the mix the question of whether you want to be able to fire rapidly with reasonable precision, or slowly with maximum precision, and you have compromises to form galore.

Take for example the tens of millions of bolt action military rifles made between 1900 and 1945. This is a huge statistical sample with the same basic design goal. A rugged rifle conducive to rapid fire with reasonable marksmanship from any position. Not surprisingly, whether you're looking at a mauser, mosin or enfield, the bacic geometry between sightline and the shape of buttstock and buttplate is pretty much the same, about 2 1/2" of drop from the sights to the heel, and a relatively smooth buttplate with a rounded heel, allowing the butt to move around the shoulder for any firing position. 

My long winded point is that I don't think that there could possibly be anything random or purely aesthetic about the established stock shapes and geometry of the BPCR period. A period of firearm design in flux, pursued by too many brilliant designers and artisans for (military contracts notwithstanding) too many shooters for whom a rifle was a necessary daily life and death tool, and also too many extrememly demanding sport shooters and competitors. 

I think the first catagory, life and death is the driving force, and the second, sport and competition, produces refinements. 

MM

I believe, key word believe (I am having a CRS moment here), that I read something about rifle stock design following what was there before. So before the BPCR rifles were the muzzle loading rifles. And most of those rifles I have seen had the large heel drop. Probably the same as the "horseless carraige" early cars were built to look like carriages as that is what people were used to seeing.

dc

Texasmac
In my own case, I believe that the extra drop at the heel allows me to shoot offhand with my head/neck more erect which is more comfortable for me and causes less strain.  (not that you could tell by my scores, however!) 
Regards, Joe