Lowrider stocks, how you finding them?

A

Ackley Improved

New member
Guys

I have searched the forums, and have decided to ask the question.

How are you guys liking them? Do they track better than what you were using?

Are you happy with them?

From looking at the pictures of them, they should be a very good stock, thats tracks extremely well.

I am tempted to change to one just to see how they are!

Cheers
AI
 
You need a reply from Mark Scrounce. He's been burying the competition with his and can give you a good assessment.
 
IMO it depends on the chambering. Larger chamberings that produce a lot of torque will twist the low rider stocks in the bags more than a Tooley/McMillan type design. You can't argue with the Physics.
 
I have the Ian Robertson version on my 30BR and it is extremely stable, does not torque at all, and I shoot free recoil without any problem. Plus, Ian does 'em pretty.

I have a 6BR in a McMillan and it's not in the same league with the Robertson.
 
ReedG said:
I have the Ian Robertson version on my 30BR and it is extremely stable, does not torque at all, and I shoot free recoil without any problem. Plus, Ian does 'em pretty.

I have a 6BR in a McMillan and it's not in the same league with the Robertson.
Click to expand...

More torque is generated when you have a fast twist barrel with heavy/long bullets that you are pushing hard. I would not consider a 30BR to fall in that category. Most folks use lighter bullets with a slow twist barrel in 30BR.
 
Just out of curiosity, I went & looked at the "Lowrider" stocks. First thing I noticed was that due to the forearm, they would not be legal in IBS-VFS competition, which is where the .30 BR rules. Maybe the highpower shooters have adopted the .30 BR -- but if so, it's news to me.

Second, they are "low" only before the buttstock portion. That butt drops a long way down, so the rifle mass below the boreline is still quite significant. The presence of a cheekpiece adds to that mass -- cheekpieces are usually thought of as wasted weight in BR shooting. That low butt will aid in lessening felt torque if there is good stock contact in the rear bag towards the bottom of the bag.

The I-beam shaped forearm will be quite stiff against left-right movement, with the compromise that it won't be as strong in resisting up-down movement. Up-down movement is what we traditionally worry about (with so much mass below the bore centerline), though I don't know any definitive studies showing that stocks that exhibit this are any worse. Could just be a remnant of the old "stiffer is better" philosophy.

On balance, it doesn't seem particularly suited to benchrest (and illegal in short-range BR), but as always, whatever works.
 
ReedG said:
I have the Ian Robertson version on my 30BR and it is extremely stable, does not torque at all, and I shoot free recoil without any problem. Plus, Ian does 'em pretty.

I have a 6BR in a McMillan and it's not in the same league with the Robertson.
Click to expand...

So are you saying the Robertson in your opinion is better than the McMillan?
 
Don,

http://www.richardscustomrifles.com/lowrider.htm

I assume this is what they are talking about.


Edit: I see Joel & I got it posted at the same time. My thinking on this stock, purely for benchrest purposes, is that we can do much better; we could keep the low butt (that is, keep the leverage of a dropped butt against a sandbag) without all the mass. Even better would be to use less of a drop in the butt, but offset the rifle, like in the (new) Tooley-Fletcher profile (that uses a low butt, too.)

People need to remember that the more mass below the boreline, the greater the amplitude of barrel vibrations. If one of your goals is to minimize these (vibration amplitude), you want the mass of the rifle distributed as best possible around the center of the bore.

Lots of compromises, aren't there?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top