The Shotgun Stock Fit Thread

Rob!

Rob!

CGN frequent flyer
Super GunNutz
Rating - 100%
33   0   0
Location
South Central Alberta
I saw a post this morning (that I don't want to hi-jack) - from a member asking for stock fitter recommendations. It got me thinking that a half dozen competent stock fitters working independently with the same gun and shooter, would be likely to come up with quite a range of suggested measurements. It might be fun to discuss the concepts and maybe highlight that theories abound and advice varies widely. If it clicks, maybe this could even be a sticky.

To get us started, Don Currie - chief instructor for the NSCA - recently suggested that Length of Pull, is arguably the most important of all stock dimensions. I wouldn't argue that for a minute, but here's a couple of pictures of shooters who might suggest that the conventional wisdom of about 1 1/2 inches from nose to base of thumb, may be a good starting point, but may not suit everyone.

20190511_060755.jpg

kim.jpg

For those who may not recognize the shooters, google Anthony Matarese and Kim Rhode.

This thread could go anywhere - hopefully respectfully. :)
 

Attachments

  • 20190511_060755.jpg
    20190511_060755.jpg
    44.8 KB · Views: 475
  • kim.jpg
    kim.jpg
    20.2 KB · Views: 469
Stock fitting by an “expert” is sorta like bore sighting a rifle, it gets you on paper.


Most who ask about it haven’t shot enough to know either way what works for them and what doesn’t.
 
I think length of pull is the least important. Drop at comb and heel, and cast are what put your eye in the proper relationship to the rib. Those dimensions are hard to adjust on an existing stock, while l.o.p. is relatively easy to change, so people fixate on that.

In the two photos, the length of pull is drastically different in relation to the two shooters body sizes. If the upper gun were mine, I would say it was much too short, while the lower looks too long for her. I don't recognize the names, but I assume they are both successful competitive shooters, which illustrates my point that you can adapt to a wide range of stock lengths.

Shooting style definitely influences stock fit. A lot of English shooters grip the barrels as far out as they can reach, which dictates a shorter pull than for someone who places their forehand closer to the action. It's a bit of a chicken/egg problem, in that it's easier to fit a gun to someone who knows how to shoot and has good form, but it's hard to develop good form without a gun that fits. Under English doctrine, even barrel length and gun type ( O/U or SxS ) influence stock dimensions.
 
I would also say that of the two shooters pictures, one length of pull is too short and the other is too long but it's difficult to argue with the successes of these two particular individuals.

There's lots of misconceptions about stock fit out there that you hear often. One is that you hold the gun by the pistol grip and put the butt into the crook of your elbow to determine stock length, all this does is tell you how long your arm is! Another is that you need to see three fingers between your nose and thumb knuckle when the gun is mounted. Neither of these measurement techniques are very helpful at determining proper stock length and there is more factors to consider such as gun balance, weight and where the shooter places their front hand.
 
I've bought my share of used (lower end) shotguns and LOP on them was all over the map. And when you took off the Butt plate, or pad, it was easy to detect that LOP had been adjusted by the last owner.

And I agree with the above statement, most shooters are not in the know. Early on i got into 870 pumps, and when shooting some would snot my nose, some were impossible to hit with. I happened upon one that worked for me. I assumed it was the fit, after all when you take off the wood, an 870 is pretty much like any other 870.

The biggest difference was the cast off. 870's are stocked from the factory fairly neutral, so left handed shooters can shoot them equally as poorly as right handed shooters can. 870's are pretty easy to fine tune, so I set the cast off on another 870 to match, and it worked for me. But it still snot'd my nose. I noticed that on the one that didn't that the start of the comb had been set back and the thumb cutout on the comb favored right hand shooters. So I got out the rasp and matched it to the "good" one and it worked. Now that the "fit" was better, my shooting skills improved.

It's like any other sport, the equipment has to fit.

t2W2owy.jpg


It may be a bit hard to see, but the top stock has had the top of the wrist straightened, the comb pushed back and the relief for the thumb exaggerated a bit. The bottom stock is an unmolested Express.

If the use or sport changes, so does the equipment. when I took up Cowboy Action, I found that I needed a slightly shorter LOP, and I changed my stance to better suit the game. I settled on a Weaver like stance, with a Winchester 1897. I can engage a left or right target without binding any muscles, and I can load shells into the chamber and remount the shotgun with a smooth motion. I'm a fairly big guy and our ammunition is target or less power, so recoil is not a factor.

I also discovered the Prince of Wales rounded knob butt stock shape, and that feels very comfortable for me.

t0U7o70.jpg


The bottom shotgun is my main gun, it is a Winchester 1897 and the stock is unmolested save for a bit of LOP and pitch adjustment.

My point, before having a stock fitted to you, learning the terms and parts of the stock would be a good idea. Pitch down, cast off or cast on, drop at comb, drop at heel, length of pull are the technical ones, the preferred diameter at the wrist and hand position in relation to the trigger are somewhat personal preferences.

I do know, when it fits right it's magic, the mystery of hitting targets is no longer a mystery. And when you learn your shot sizes, shot weight, and choke requirements, clean kills come easy.

Nitro.
 
One thing is for certain, without a consistent gun mount then all the fitting in the world is much less effective. Obviously the gun has to fit somewhat close at the beginning but until a shooter develops a consistent mount, custom fitting is a waste of effort.
 
Coincidentally, I decided last year that I must be using the wrong LOP. What lead me to this decision was that most all Euro guns start at 14 1/4 and many longer. Most discussions on the topic suggested that many if not the majority were shooting even longer sporting guns. I had been shooting 13 7/8 very well since I was 12 or 13 years old. I obviously have grown and in fact have fairly long arms. I need to buy XL shirts or tall in spite of being a med to large build.

Anyhow, I fitted a couple of shotguns with temporary pads of varying thicknesses and started shooting clays. Something in the back of my mind always wanted me to be more normal so I was determined to make 14 1/4 work, and sure enough I did. Not being the sharpest tool in the shed I failed to noticed that I needed a couple of warm up clays and several mounting practice runs before starting my round, after that I would smash them as consistently as ever.

As you probably guessed, the opening of the hunting season was an absolute disaster. I would miss an easy flush, my confidence would go, I would then start aiming which amplified the issue, back to the clays, reset and repeat the idiotic exercise.

I now agree that LOP, for me, is indeed more important that any other spec. It has a butterfly effect beyond what I could have imagined. I also noticed from shooting with others that it affects different people in much different ways, many to a lesser degree than the catastrophic effect it has on my shooting.

If my shooting partner mounts a shotgun that is too long for him, his head is back further and he can only see the back of the receiver. The longer the gun the worse it gets. A longer gun for me mounts lower on my shoulder and the longer the gun the more barrel I see. And it get's worse. I instinctively and subconsciously tilt my head to the right looking for a proper cheek weld I presume. This screws up the cast as well as my eye is now right of the barrel. I experimented with some cheek pads but finally came to the conclusion I was trying to fix something that was never broken. The next step, obviously, would be an adjustable comb that would no doubt allow me to shoot the "appropriate" LOP. I have lots of shotguns I like to shoot however and I am not about to go butchering them when a thinner pad or minor trim accomplishes the same result.

So yeah, I probably look a lot like the first guy there. I am no expert but I can break 25 in a row out of the Wheely Bird from different angles and I seldom miss an open flush. I don't know if it's old dog new tricks or what but anything much over 14" LOP and I am basically making a fool of myself, especially on the first shot.

I was convinced that Beretta 686 had too much cast for me and actually sold one that I was particularly fond of because of it's outstanding wood. I later shot the same gun with the thinnest Micro Recoil Pad that Beretta offers and it came up perfectly. I picked up another in spite of the awkward feel at purchase. It is now fitted with a thin Walnut butt plate and fits like a glove.

I was raised shooting SKBs, a couple of Remingtons, and a Mossberg or two that all were at or slightly under 14" LOP. That number is now a constant for me and I will not be engaging in anymore exercises of frustrating in spite of what some experts say about nose to thumb measurements and other fun stuff.
 
Well, this is a very interesting and complex subject, full of misconceptions and misinformation. In the photos in the original post, most shooters would say the first one is using a stock which is obviously too short and the young ladie's stock is much too long. The fact that both of them can probably clean the clock of any of us reading this just proves that there are no hard and fast rules. Many very accomplished shooters have evolved their own shooting style including preferred gun fit which is now grooved permanently into their shooting system and if they try to "correct" something their system and their success falls apart immediately. There are however some definite guidelines to shorten the learning curve and promote success. What works well for you may not be the best for me because at this point in my life my system has become natural to me, as yours has to you. Beginners that start with proper stance and hold, have a gun that at least approximately fits and have good eyes and decent hand/eye coordination progress rapidly. Those that stray away from the basics struggle. I have a number of books on gunfitting including those by Lancaster and Churchill, they all offer good points but by far the best in my library is "Gunfitting" by Michael Yardley which covers stock design, eye dominance, ladle's stock requirements and many other subjects as well as the basics of gun fit. I find myself re reading this book every few years, it is a gold mine of information.
 
So, is length of pull, a combination of two more important metrics? Reach is the distance from grip to trigger. The metric of grip to butt would seem to better describe the way we hold the shotgun. (If there's a name for that, I don't know it.) It would be difficult to decide where to measure it from, especially given the variation in grip configuration from tight radius pistol all the way through to straight grip. (Oooh! The straight grip opens up a can of LOP worms doesn't it!) ;)
 
Fundamental flaws that I see on the two shooters shown, aside from length of pull...
The first shooter (man) does not have a firm cheek weld under his cheek bone, he is holding his head slightly high to acquire his sight picture. Obviously he can do this consistently, I couldn't. The gun would also probably pound me under the cheek bone.
The second shooter (woman) is stretched out with her head too far back on the stock, trying to get her eye down low enough to get her sight picture. This severely compromises the swing, which she has adapted for trap but it would be a real handicap in skeet, sporting clays or field shooting.
However, after years of mental picture and muscle memory conditioning any attempt to change their systems would result in poorer scores, so it doesn't make sense for them to try to change. A new shooter or one with limited experience however will progress quicker and achieve more if they work with, not against proven principles such as fit.
Fitting can be quite different for different types of shooting as the pictures show. The classic English fit was for overhead shooting at primarily incoming targets, completely different from trap or skeet shooting. And then again there is the suit jacket with waistcoat and necktie....
 
I believe that LOP is measured from the trigger because of the different pistol grip styles or there lack of. I also think that LOP is related to where the shooter likes to position the front hand. You can see in the pics that Kim Rhode likes to have her hand way back almost touching the receiver and Anthony Matarese likes to have his hand far forward.
I'm 6 feet tall and 215 lbs and in most cases I'm in between wearing large and extra large shirts. Most of my guns have a 14.75 inch length of pull and my forward hand goes right out to the front of the fore stock on most presentations. This isn't written in stone for me and if I'm shooting a target that is moving really fast I'll shift my front grip back a bit to increase the swing speed. Sometimes I'll have my hand ahead for the first target then move it back for the next target or vica versa.
 
Rob! said:
So, is length of pull, a combination of two more important metrics? Reach is the distance from grip to trigger. The metric of grip to butt would seem to better describe the way we hold the shotgun. (If there's a name for that, I don't know it.) It would be difficult to decide where to measure it from, especially given the variation in grip configuration from tight radius pistol all the way through to straight grip. (Oooh! The straight grip opens up a can of LOP worms doesn't it!) ;)
Click to expand...

I don't believe it affects POI as much as left hand position, for a right handed shooter. I shot double triggers for years and slide my right hand back and forth when changing triggers, often during the mount. I was having some issues getting a consistent mount with my 28 gauge SxS straight English stock. I experimented with different right hand position thinking as you that this would be an extreme factor. Turns out it was the small short fore stock that was manipulating my mount. Once I put my left hand forward, almost off the fore stock, the gun comes up perfectly. This is where my left hand would normally be on most guns and encourages a more bayonet style mount. This is better for me as it gets me more fluently on target and with a consistent mount.
 
Falconflyer, she would obviously need a different hold for skeet, she probably does this with a different gun with different dimensions as well.
MK2750, your observations on the role of the forend on mount and fit are valid, especially on a light well balanced straight gripped side by side. North Americans tend to look at the forend as a fore grip thanks to Jack O'connor, Charles Askins and a few other influential American writers who convinced their followers that they needed massive ugly beavertail type forends for good control. British and European shooters regard the forend as a necessary part to hold the gun together and do not grip it on a side by side, cradling it in their palm as they grip the barrels , sometimes near the end of or forward of the forend. If the gun gets too hot they use a glove or a handguard. Even on an over/under which is bulkier at the forend than a side by side they favour a slim graceful forend and seldom use the bulky type of forend we typically see on many target oriented guns from Browning, Perazzi, etc, although this seems to be starting to change as as some makers such as Beretta, Blaser, Zoli and others now have target guns with 'field' type forends.
 
Last edited:
Falconflyer said:
I believe that LOP is measured from the trigger because of the different pistol grip styles or there lack of. I also think that LOP is related to where the shooter likes to position the front hand. You can see in the pics that Kim Rhode likes to have her hand way back almost touching the receiver and Anthony Matarese likes to have his hand far forward.
I'm 6 feet tall and 215 lbs and in most cases I'm in between wearing large and extra large shirts. Most of my guns have a 14.75 inch length of pull and my forward hand goes right out to the front of the fore stock on most presentations. This isn't written in stone for me and if I'm shooting a target that is moving really fast I'll shift my front grip back a bit to increase the swing speed. Sometimes I'll have my hand ahead for the first target then move it back for the next target or vica versa.
Click to expand...

You and I are built similar. I had never considered front hand position and swing speed. I have an SKB 100 SXS that has a smaller fore stock and is lightening fast. I always thought it was because of the shorter barrels and weight. What you say makes more sense as I most certainly hold that gun with my forward hand back on the wood. It is deadly on bush Ruffies but I have missed some real gimmies on open field crossing birds. The back peddling often suggests a pattern ahead of the bird.
 
JIMMY 808 said:
That isn’t Anthony Matarese BTW
Click to expand...

No it isn’t but he crawls the stock at at least as much as pictured, maybe worse. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that there is no one proper way to mount a shotgun because even the best shooters are all over the place on mount style. I guess you just go with what works for you.
 
Falconflyer said:
Ashcroft, I agree with your analysis of Kim Rhode's mount of the gun based on that picture but oddly enough, she appears to change it entirely to what I would call a more normal looking hold when shooting skeet.
Click to expand...

Nope, watch her on YouTube. The video I just watched shows the same mount.
 
Ashcroft said:
Falconflyer, she would obviously need a different hold for skeet, she probably does this with a different gun with different dimensions as well.
MK2750, your observations on the role of the forend on mount and fit are valid, especially on a light well balanced straight gripped side by side. North Americans tend to look at the forend as a fore grip thanks to Jack O'connor, Charles Askins and a few other influential American writers who convinced their followers that they needed massive ugly beavertail type forends for good control. British and European shooters regard the forend as a necessary part to hold the gun together and do not grip it on a side by side, cradling it in their palm as they grip the barrels , sometimes near the end of or forward of the forend. If the gun gets too hot they use a glove or a handguard. Even on an over/under which is bulkier at the forend than a side by side they favour a slim graceful forend and seldom use the bulky type of forend we typically see on many target oriented guns from Browning, Perazzi, etc, although this seems to be starting to change as as some makers such as Beretta, Blaser, Zoli and others now have target guns with 'field' type forends.
Click to expand...

Perazzi has offered numerous forend styles for years. For whatever reason people order them with bulky beaver tails. Trapshooters at heart I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom