Angle vs flat fore end and stock butt

[Brad Y]

One for our resident experts Willada, DaveMc and Peter S...

Is there any merit in having an angled fore end and butt instead of parallel to assist with recoil/gun handling in a larger caliber? I admit to having parallel in my 6.5 and 7mm rifle in the past. The stock on my dasher has the fore end and butt on the same angle so it runs downwards under any recoil. Was wondering how it might go with a larger cal.

[bobeager]

For what its worth, I have a Tracker that I purchased from Bill Shehane somes years ago. It was designed for 1000 td benchrest and it has a 3 degree slope on fore end and butt. I have copied the idea on some stocks that I recently built and it seems to work fine, although I have not shot it with anything heavier than a Dasher. (Yet)

[AlanF]

I've always had a parallel fore-end, but recent stocks have a very slight downward slope on the toe of the buttstock, not really sure why . A steeper slope on the toe can be very useful with a bipod or non-joystick pedestal rest for fine elevation adjustment.

[Brad Y]

In this post viewtopic.php?f=26&t=3938 I see that Dave Mc had a Savage action with a stock that has a fairly similar angle to the one I have made for my 6 dasher. It tracks really nice in the bags and even though there is no lift or recoil from the mild dasher, it would be interesting to see if it would be of benefit for my next stock for the 284 shehane I plan to build next year. Will get a pic or two of that up over the next day or so. Its more a benchrest shape stock I believe (built it around the idea of shooting 1KBR) but for F class it seems very smooth in the bags and also recoil friendly.

[Fergus Bailey]

For what its worth, I am not sure how much difference there is in angle vs parallel on stocks. Or put another way, it strikes me as another of those "whatever you get used" to issues.

Under international benchrest rules, it is mandatory to have a pretty significant angle on the butt. Even my first long range BR rifle had some angle as the stock was a McMillan Tooly MBR. Since I have a number of rifles that meet this criteria, I have gotten pretty used to this sight picture on recoil, ie your scope is vertically off target until it gets pushed back to the rest stop after firing a shot.

When I got a few rifles stocked with Shehane tracker stocks, I noticed a significant difference in the sight picture after the shot - was actually a bit disconcerting just because it was not what I was used to. Since the rifle tracks in a straight line in the bag, you always see the target after recoil.

However aside from the sight picture after the shot, I cant say that I have noticed any difference in accuracy or gun handling due to the stock angles.

[BATattack]

I spoke with bill about the taper on his stocks and he said the idea Is so that under recoil that it breaks free from the bags easier.

Mine are parallel but he's done a lot of work so maybe there is something in it!?

[williada]

Brad, Bob has found an angle with a very good compromise, as have others for bag handling. Years ago I made an experimental stock with what I call a crocodile mouth (in reverse) in that it had a hinged bottom jaw attached to the forend which could be adjusted to accommodate the angle from the mound to the target. However, I did not make a corresponding one for the butt, perhaps I should have as I was using the old method of bag squeezing.

The angle to the target changes on a lot of ranges and from mound to mound. The purpose of the angle adjustable plate was not just to allow for a more stable position. In terms of stability, the friction was always much the same, because it had the same surface area of contact, rather than bearing on the rear portion of the front rest which altered from mound to mound. But most importantly, it gave a consistent rearward movement to the direct fulcrum point of the shoulder which is critical in maintaining consistent barrel lift for that compensation tune for which I conducted the experiments. As separate from a machine rest. This approach allowed the rifle to sit in place naturally without tension, without pressure on one part of a bag, front or rear to keep everything aligned to reduce outlier distance in the group. I duplicated a 5 degree angle on stocks I made, which performed well with the test contraption for the venues where I shot in the main. It had small benefits in compensation tuning for long range. The rifle does need to break free to slide consistently and while I had a bigger surface area in contact it had plenty of baby powder.

I did find stock balance was more important between front and rear bags than the angle of the forend, not only for bag handling but for the consistent contact of the shoulder. Perhaps other shooters could tell us how much of the total weight of their rifle is placed on their front bag and how much is placed on their rear bag and where the balance point of their rifle is? This is most important, and can alter a tad depending on your angle from the mound to the target. For instance in shooting uphill at Moe the weight of the gear tends to thrust backward into your shoulder. In shooting at Sydney the weight seems to want to leave your shoulder and you feel the need to drag the stock back to control this which is not good for consistency.

So in designing that angle whether it be 3 or 5 degrees, (or negative slope for downhill)but for slightly different reasons, you have to consider the target height of your venue above the mounds and the slope of the mounds for a suitable angle on your stock, not only for comfort but precision and there is not one stock to fit all venues. So the simple solution is to have a forward and aft tilting front bag/rest that can be locked in place but still allow for the vertical adjustment of a pedestal etc. or your front rest even if you are going to use a straight stock. It would seem best if the butt had a similar angle, although I don’t think it is as critical if you use shoulder contact rather than free recoil. There is less drag with a slight slope in the forend for most venues and less chance of the stock jagging as Bob and BatAttack indicate if the front rest is not adjustable under normal circumstances, a little different to what mine was setup for.

Although the wife shoots fullbore, on a recent stock I made for her, I deliberately made the base of the butt in the rear section 1 ½ “, wide (and it matched a 5 degree forend slope), to use on a flat rear bag when I was developing loads. This is very stable and does not move at my bench at home when everything is leveled up and it recoils beautifully.

But again it is horses for courses and what you get accustomed to using.

It would be great to hear what others do.
David.

[Brad Y]

Bob- Look forward to your thoughts on that style of stock on a heavier caliber. The idea of it as per Adams post in breaking from the bag easier to me seems sound for light recoiling rifles but I wonder if it may have a detrimental effect with bigger calibers- either more perceived recoil or could the gun possibly move too much resulting in random fliers...

[Brad Y]

David- I think Im getting what your putting down. A slight angle on the fore end could be beneficial. Interested to hear what everyone else says.

[Brad Y]

Quick session on paintbrush...

David- does this comply with what you were talking about? If so is there an opportunity to open a whole new can of worms on rifle angles from different shaped mounds causing gun handling problems? On my first picture the angle is quite steep on a short and sharp mound. Possibly a packer is needed under the rear bag to raise it up to get the rifle on target. But if you have a stock in this situation that has say a 3 degree angle then you add that onto the angle already there due to the firing mound. Possibly a flat stock is more suitable here? Then in the opposite on a nice flat mound a rifle with a little built in angle could be beneficial to help break free from the bags...

Just thinking out loud here- it might be a total waste of effort.

Also- taking a look at the Tooley MBR stock there is angle allowed in the butt- doesnt seem to be on the fore end. A few stocks are like this and their results speak for themselves. Given that most rear bags are lower than the front bags- there is usually some form of angle anyway. The butt taper could help things along here, and the straight fore end follow.

Could probably make myself crosseyed just thinking about the whole physics process on different mounds I shoot on...

[williada]

Brad, we are not called field class for nothing, and you have got the picture and for others, because we shoot at targets that are uphill and down dale and are rarely level, although a good range design from the mound to the targets rises 5 degrees and this is relatively common on a military ranges. Whereas, benchrest was predominantly shot at short range and so the targets were relatively level with the bench. In this style of shooting flat, level forends are well balanced on the front rest with full contact and shots are repeatable with the lighter calibres used with slow twist rates.

With the advent of long range benchrest, while still shooting on relatively level targets with faster twist rate barrels and heavier calibres, the rifle bucked more and the likes of Shehane have found that a 3 degree taper on the forend reduces rifle drag and bounce on the rest therefore improving bag handling under recoil which is relevant to bigger hitters and I agree with that. A lot of these guys also still go with nodal tuning which is ok up 6 or 700 yards and found there is the marginal improvement in tracking to get back on target quickly to improve scores. Because the projectile has exited the barrel in a short distance of about .10” of barrel recoil its not so much an issue of precision but one of beating the conditions should they change. Unless you want to keep reconfiguring your front rest to get back on target, this is a distraction and time waster. If you don’t have to re-configure your rest, then I don’t think a straight stock is a disadvantage.

There are two factors to consider when you factor in a compensation tune i.e. bore time and bore angle and it partly applies to OCW tuning which I combine where possible. You go to the trouble at short range to determine your finest tune. In fact you slip in a bit of OCW bias to take account of environmental factors. Off we go to the prize meeting knowing our velocity tune is great i.e. bore time.

Great results come at three hundred, then with distance because we have not taken into account while testing), a changed bore angle induced by the targets .e.g. like the uphill targets at Moe or a different mound angle and we lose a shot or our centre count falls away. Next range the mound angle is fine, groups excel but we narrowly lose the meet. What is critical, is to have the rifle match your test results, so you can reasonably predict group formation. This is another reason why I group test at 140 yards, so it is easy to raise or lower a test target to mimic the mound to target angle of the competition venue. I also like to have the rifle sit flat on the front rest to aid stability through a bit of frictional tension and also so that the drag direction on the side of the forend doesn't change angle and therefore barrel lift. I also like a bit of pressure from the leather/sand side walls of the front rest. Bedding the rifle down on the front leathers and moving it for and aft reduces the chance of variable angle drag.

Anything that does not assist a consistent recoil pattern, like the drag of the rifle in the same way as your test setup will alter the bounce and muzzle lift so critical for timing bullet exit.

You will notice, unless you set up on the mound l, using a level forward and aft, or through experience, picking the right spot, that when you line up on the target, your rifle is not sitting flat on the front rest.

So you have immediately changed the drag and recoil pattern, together with the angle the butt hits your shoulder. This changes the fulcrum point and therefore lift angle of your barrel as well. If you go for a light touch with the shoulder just to feel comfortable on the mound, you can immediately kiss goodbye to 15-30 fps of velocity. A heavy hitter requires you to lean into the butt and not caress it. In all cases, the tune changes. Kind of makes that low extreme spread of the test load redundant.

Two things.
One, you can add 3 degrees to the slope of the stock to minimise drag and accommodate a better match with the front rest and mound angles given they change, particularly in the bush. It just gives you more flexibility. Secondly, you can add a bit more to the slope of the stock forend, like a further 2 degrees if you do know the mound angles. You can actually put a magnetic level on your rifle action while lined up on the target and then recut the forend slope based on the average mound angles for future shoots.

Now to refine this process again, you could have a tilting head on your front rest that you can fix during setup, leave your rifle with a 3 degree forend slope and duplicate that slope again on the butt taper to allow the rifle to recoil freely for practical purposes to the rear. This also adds to the stability of the rifle setup by minimising pressure points you tend to impose to stay aligned on target. This will allow the stock to fit your shoulder more precisely without changing the fulcrum point. A stock with no forend slope will perform well too if it can slide easily in the same plane.

As Brad has demonstrated, aligning your bag and front rest on the mound to facilitate an even drag and comfortable position is paramount. David.

[williada]

I forgot to add. If you do not pack up your rear bag for some mounds, and you rely on sliding that bag along the butt, you can commit a fundamental flaw in shooting position if you rest your bean on the butt. Because you simply have a different weight transfer from testing. If you are moving the rear bag from shot to shot to remain comfortable and stay on target its like altering your head position and weight on the butt. This causes group change.

[Matt P]

Brad
When Dave Tooley designed that stock, it was for the bigger calibers in Light Gun, I remember reading somewhere the angle on the rear was to help the rifle recoil down away from the shooters face. Not to much science behind it just thought and some common sense.
Regards
Matt P

[ned kelly]

G'day All,
having quickly scanned the previous comments, has anyone allowed for the forward-aft angle of the front rest? That is do not adjust the front rest to be level BUT parallel to the slope of the mound.
This could easily allow for the variable mound slope, rather than having a built in angle in the stock or being parallel in the stock, in fact it may well be preferable to have a parallel butt/fore end and simply adjust the front rest so that the rear bag and rest are parallel to the mound. This should allow for any mound discrepancies from range to range or venue to venue.
This is probably a good idea to for being able to adjust the "slope angle" of the rear bag as well to compliment the angle of the front rest...
Just thought...
Cheerio Ned

[Brad Y]

All fantastic input. Thank you. Looks like designing a tilting top on the front rest would be a handy thing to be able to do!