Stock design for moving targets

[Greener Jim]

Most driven game shooting is done with pretty regular stalking rifles, at most they'll be fit to the owner. The same is true of dangerous game rifles.
Tradition plays a large part in why something better may not be commonplace, that been said I've seen a couple of 'tactical' bolt actions used on driven hunts. Now the AR15 boys shoot moving targets a fair amount and do plenty of snap shooting in competitions.
Question is, is a full pistol grip better for fast shooting or is it a case that the AR users are just making the best of what they have?
Now the argument is that it slows bolt manipulation but we'll ignore that and just focus on transitioning between targets, tracking running game and snap shooting; Afterall, the Blaser big thumbhole is basically a full pistol grip and it doesn't seem to slow them down.

 

[kenbro]

Greener Jim,
AR15, or 10 in S.G.C. or M.A.R.S. configuration would very quick to cycle and a pistol grip to boot.
Sounds ideal for fast moving targets.
Ken.

 

[Vipa]

Pistol grips are ergonomically far superior to traditional sporting stock design... other than the Blaser/Sauer et al versions, I feel it is political correctness that prevents tactical style rifles with pistol grips being more widely adopted.


Pistol style grips promote a much more relaxed and neutral mount irrespective of whether the shooter is prone, standing, kneeling etc. They almost eliminate the effects of flinch and they are much less fatiguing to use for prolonged periods.

The military weapons market is constantly being updated/refreshed... technology moves on and is adopted very quickly if it makes a soldier a more efficient combat machine. Sporting firearm design however (other than those mentioned earlier) is still stuck on the 19th century and whilst aesthetically more pleasing than modern tactical firearms, is functionally way behind the curve.

The biggest issue we have in the UK however is public perception and no matter how much better a tactical rifle is than a traditional sporting rifle, other than target shooting, I wouldn't be seen in the field with anything that looks remotely 'military!' Target shooting though... I wouldn't use anything else!

 

[Klenchblaize]

Pistol grips are ergonomically far superior to traditional sporting stock design... other than the Blaser/Sauer et al versions, I feel it is political correctness that prevents tactical style rifles with pistol grips being more widely adopted.


Pistol style grips promote a much more relaxed and neutral mount irrespective of whether the shooter is prone, standing, kneeling etc. They almost eliminate the effects of flinch and they are much less fatiguing to use for prolonged periods.

The military weapons market is constantly being updated/refreshed... technology moves on and is adopted very quickly if it makes a soldier a more efficient combat machine. Sporting firearm design however (other than those mentioned earlier) is still stuck on the 19th century and whilst aesthetically more pleasing than modern tactical firearms, is functionally way behind the curve.

The biggest issue we have in the UK however is public perception and no matter how much better a tactical rifle is than a traditional sporting rifle, other than target shooting, I wouldn't be seen in the field with anything that looks remotely 'military!' Target shooting though... I wouldn't use anything else!

Thumbhole.

K

 

[User00033]

Thumbhole.

K

+1

After resisting for several years I'm fitting a thumbhole stock to the new woods gun, a rifle that I expect to use on deer (stationary) and pigs (on the run if required). It will be a heavy pill at medium velocity. The .30-06 Remington 7400 I used recently on pigs with a Boyds thumbhole stock totally changed (read massively improved) my performance with a relatively hard recoiling semi-auto. I loved it. And want one.

 

[Lateral]

I've never held a "tactical" rifle, so have no idea how they shoulder, but the one thing "I" have found, is that the best driven rifles shoulder similar to a shotgun, they just feel right, & open sights just line up without lots of movement required. I think the biggest issue, is most sporting rifles have straight stocks, where ideally, stocks need some cast to shoulder more instictively.

I have also found that if using a scope, I need it positioned further back, to get the correct eye relief, than I would shooting off bipod, seat, etc'.

I've had the Browning Maral, very good, but just didn't like the cycling system, and now have both R8 professional, & Merkel Helix, and Chapuis side by side. For "me", the Chapuis fits, and shoulders thebest, but it was made for me, but the Helix beats the R8 for driven every time.

 

[Orion]

Most driven game shooting is done with pretty regular stalking rifles, at most they'll be fit to the owner. The same is true of dangerous game rifles.
Tradition plays a large part in why something better may not be commonplace, that been said I've seen a couple of 'tactical' bolt actions used on driven hunts. Now the AR15 boys shoot moving targets a fair amount and do plenty of snap shooting in competitions.
Question is, is a full pistol grip better for fast shooting or is it a case that the AR users are just making the best of what they have?
Now the argument is that it slows bolt manipulation but we'll ignore that and just focus on transitioning between targets, tracking running game and snap shooting; Afterall, the Blaser big thumbhole is basically a full pistol grip and it doesn't seem to slow them down.

A bit difficult to remove that from the equation though - unless you're thinking of using a semi-auto for driven abroad.

My personal thoughts are that irrespective of stock configuration a bigger influence on your criteria of "transitioning between targets, tracking running game and snap shooting" would be the ability to maintain cheek weld and scope (or open sight?) picture. To that end the enclosed bolt, straight-pull designs appear to win out. Have a look at the side-by-side cycling views at the beginning and end of this video:

 

[bbrc]

Surely the most experienced individuals at shooting moving targets are shotgun shooters?
doubt if any particular format of rifle is used to shoot moving targets as regularly as shotguns are and therefore shotgun stock design would be the place to look

 

[nun_hunter]

Surely the most experienced individuals at shooting moving targets are shotgun shooters?
doubt if any particular format of rifle is used to shoot moving targets as regularly as shotguns are and therefore shotgun stock design would be the place to look

Where could you turn up and shoot clays or birds with a pistol grip shotgun without being shunned by the entire group of people there though? Practical shotgun often use pistol grips but its not a "traditional" sport so doesn't suffer the same level of "you can't use that here!"

 

[jthyttin]

Regular sporter design is faster and easier for the first offhand shot than e.g. AR. It's designed to be shouldered while being brought up to the target.

AR style improves recoil control and is faster for quick follow-up shots.

Problem for shotguns is that English style buttstock is designed to be fired at very steep angles (high birds). So it's quite unnatural if you're shooting horizontal.

 

[ejg]

A few years back we made a few prototype stocks for Westley Richards, I spent a day at Westley Richards and had a discussion with the late Simon Clode and his stock shaper about what a fast handling stock should look like. He told us it took 200 years to get their stock shape perfect.
I don't shoot much moving targets but must say the Westley Richards Mauser stock design is very nice to handle and seems to make sense.

We had designed our hunting stock long before the Westley Richards meeting and we can look back at almost 10 years of customer feedback from all types of hunters. Many from Germany using the stocks for driven hunts, quite a few special forces experts, some long range shooters and a few PH. By far most seem to like the simple compromise pistol grip we chose as our design. It is neither steep nor flat but is quite long and also works for large hands. My take is that the pistol grip for fast handling should not be too large in diameter so that one can grab it well and feel in control. Even when running with the rifle etc. For the actual shot the stock comb and eye position to the scope or sights is more important than the grip.
For fast handling I just do not see any sense in a thumb hole stock. Any direction the hand should go the thumb is "trapped".

For scoped rifles this works for me. Comb quite high and compromise pistol grip.

edi

 

[DRN]

I hope this link works and is the right one (most gun sites are blocked at work but not SD!)
Maybe you will start seeing pistol grips on the clay grounds!
I found this quite interesting, its certainly not pretty though.
www.ukgunrepairs.co.uk/nillgriffe/evocomp.html

 

[McKenzie]

Pistol grips are ergonomically far superior to traditional sporting stock design... other than the Blaser/Sauer et al versions, I feel it is political correctness that prevents tactical style rifles with pistol grips being more widely adopted.


Pistol style grips promote a much more relaxed and neutral mount irrespective of whether the shooter is prone, standing, kneeling etc. They almost eliminate the effects of flinch and they are much less fatiguing to use for prolonged periods.

The military weapons market is constantly being updated/refreshed... technology moves on and is adopted very quickly if it makes a soldier a more efficient combat machine. Sporting firearm design however (other than those mentioned earlier) is still stuck on the 19th century and whilst aesthetically more pleasing than modern tactical firearms, is functionally way behind the curve.

The biggest issue we have in the UK however is public perception and no matter how much better a tactical rifle is than a traditional sporting rifle, other than target shooting, I wouldn't be seen in the field with anything that looks remotely 'military!' Target shooting though... I wouldn't use anything else!

I find that with my traditionally styled wooden-stocked Sako I can grab the sling in a tight fist at the swivel & stud & hook my forefinger around the very front of the stock to create a pistol-grip effect and yes, the hand position really helps with a smooth & controlled swing.

 

[bbrc]

I've a few ex forces friends that ive discussed such subjects as this with and have read quite a few true accounts of military style pistol grip stocks being used in anger at non static targets and the hit rate to shots fired didn't seem to compare very favourably to the hit rates of people who have been on driven boar shoots with conventional stocked sporting rifles

 

[TOMMO.B]

Makes you wonder how we managed for 150 years and won two world wars with no pistol grips Some of today's clay guns are utter ghastly. Yet the scores remain the same?

 

[ileso]

my belief is it comes down to personal preference and habit. Then the balance of the set up... etc etc...
personally I have three guns and all thee have different style stocks. the rifle has a traditional pistol grip and cheek piece which I added because I have a sight on it. which I think is excellent for driven boar or high seat shooting. one of the shotguns has a straight hand stock which I find beautiful, but the one I shoot better with is the shotgun with the pommel grip or semi pistol... I think its more to do with the balance of the gun and how my hand naturally grips the stock. Its a very smooth transition from relaxed grip to shooting stance for me. more so than with the other two.

but, never having shot an AR style pistol grip I can only opine about what I know.

However, based on my understanding of design and ergonomics (designing being my profession) that the 'military' style grips have their own reasons for being, they have as much to do with function as anything else. Designed for use in different shooting positions, like prone for example that grip will work a lot better than a more traditional grip. Also the shooting situations are very different. Close combat being quite different from pigeon shooting or driven boar. So the way the military hold their weapons influences ergonomic design as does the size and weight of the weapon. The hand needs to be close to safety and other function buttons for speed. The weapon a the sling is also in a different position. All these factors and many more make the AR style pistol grip what it is.

Does it make sense to transition some of this design to the sporting world of hunting? maybe, maybe not, I don't think so. Hunters use their guns differently. (maybe for long distance Ibex shooting from across a mountain top, or fox lamping from a car roof...)

View attachment 87338View attachment 87339View attachment 87340View attachment 87341

 

[enfieldspares]

Pistol style grips promote a much more relaxed and neutral mount irrespective of whether the shooter is prone, standing, kneeling etc. They almost eliminate the effects of flinch and they are much less fatiguing to use for prolonged periods.

Yes ON WEAPONS WITH A SINGLE TRIGGER THAT DON'T REQUIRE ANY ACTION, SAVE A SUBSEQUENT PULL ON THE TRIGGER, TO FIRE ANY ADDITIONAL SHOT OR SHOTS. Thus they are seen on many single shot target rifles such as the Model 12/15 BSA Martini and the post-WWII BSA Martini International rifles.

On a double trigger weapon a traditional so called "straight" shotgun stock, is better to allow the hand to easily re-position for the pull on the second trigger. On a bolt action rifle a less pronounced pistol grip that has the hand positioned correctly for a fast manipulation of the bolt is preferred AND WITH SUFFICIENT BUTT LENGTH SO THE BOLT DOES NOT HIT THE CHEEK.

The SMLE and No4 are almost perfection in that respect. YET EVEN THE BRITISH RECOGNISED THE VALUE OF A PISTOL GRIP TODAY'S SUPPOSEDLY MODERN VERTICAL FRONT GRIP A CENTURY AGO! Yet the Americans erroneously think us "conservative" in our small arms design! See below:

 

[NigelM]

A few years back we made a few prototype stocks for Westley Richards, I spent a day at Westley Richards and had a discussion with the late Simon Clode and his stock shaper about what a fast handling stock should look like. He told us it took 200 years to get their stock shape perfect.
I don't shoot much moving targets but must say the Westley Richards Mauser stock design is very nice to handle and seems to make sense.

We had designed our hunting stock long before the Westley Richards meeting and we can look back at almost 10 years of customer feedback from all types of hunters. Many from Germany using the stocks for driven hunts, quite a few special forces experts, some long range shooters and a few PH. By far most seem to like the simple compromise pistol grip we chose as our design. It is neither steep nor flat but is quite long and also works for large hands. My take is that the pistol grip for fast handling should not be too large in diameter so that one can grab it well and feel in control. Even when running with the rifle etc. For the actual shot the stock comb and eye position to the scope or sights is more important than the grip.
For fast handling I just do not see any sense in a thumb hole stock. Any direction the hand should go the thumb is "trapped".

For scoped rifles this works for me. Comb quite high and compromise pistol grip.

edi

Lovely stock. Well thought out. I have been fiddling about modifying my own and this is very close to where I have got to. Who's is it?

 

[Heym SR20]

There's probably no right nor wrong answer to the OP's question. Very much depends on how you shoot.

I have had some experience of shooting moving targets with rifles, and a bit more in taking snap shots. I learnt to shoot in the traditional way with a side-by- side shotgun. Muzzles are up - you bring the front bead in line with eyes and the target, you start following with your front hand, with the front pointing the way to the target. All the back hand does is left the butt to the shoulder and squeeze the trigger. The straight grip on an English gun quite deliberately force the front hand to be the leading hand. Such a style is very good for instinctive shooting at targets going in all directions. Great for jinking teal, bolting rabbits or close range fast moving pigs etc. The forehand also absorbs a lot of recoil - the same for either a big game rifle or indeed a 6 1/2lb 12 bore.

Its also safer for when you have beaters out in front - the barrels do not swing up through the line.

The other way is the much more deliberate target style where your trigger hand does most of the aiming and its much more a deliberate mounting of the gun and then move with the target. This is more consistent method for known targets, and ideal for long crossers or tall overhead shots. A pistol grip, indeed a thumbhole gives lots of control. For military use, the Pistol grip gives complete control of the weapon with just one hand - the other being used for other things - signalling, opening doors, controlling crowds etc.

I know a superb rifle shot who I have seen head shooting fast running foxes and pigs. He was paid to learn to shoot and now uses the thumbhole Stock Blazer R8 and he keeps his scope on 6x. He likes it as feels like a military weapon and he basically drives it one handed. He starts with the butt in the shoulder and then swings. He also shoots clays that way. He takes deliberate aim even though he shoots very fast. But then he has shot thousands of practice rounds, and still shoots competitively. He also prefers 308 over the 9.3x62 barrel as he doesn't have to deal with recoil. But he also has a nice side by side double, which he shoots in the English style as the weight and balance demands both hands to drive it.

 

[Southern]

The reason all these modern rifles have pistol grips is due to the receiver machinery. You have to put the trigger and grip below the bolt, and most of these have the barrel low and inline with the stock, with the gas tube or cocking tube and above the barrel ( M16, FAL, HK G3, SCAR, etc ). And they are designed to have folding or sliding butt stocks.

As EJG said, stock length, pitch, and comb are going to be very important for fast mounting of a rifle, just like a shotgun.
And a more open grip and comb drop, like a field shotgun has, will be faster handling from a variety of foot positions.
That is what you will find on well-handling dangerous game rifles, which must point well, more than swing well.
As with an upland shotgun with a straight or Prince of Wales grip, you want to put your other hand out on the fore end ( barrel ) and point and control it with that hand.

The M1 Garand and M14 have conventional stocks like the older bolt action rifles of the era, and are pretty quick to get on target.

I find the FAL / SAR to be the best of the pistol grip rifles for fast mounting and sight alignment, but that may just be due to what I learned to shoot growing up for .22s and shotguns.

If you are in a fixed stand, making passing shots, rather than shooting jumped or charging game, you may find that a more closed grip is better for swinging the rifle, because just like with a sporting clays gun, you have time to choose the opening whether you must shoot, have time to set your feet, and settle the stock to your shoulder and cheek for a smooth swing. So something like a modern Sauer or Blaser may be very good for you.