Stock shape

M

model14

Guest
What is the thinking behind a straight bottom or an angled bottom where the stock rests on the rear bag? Why not angle the stock bottom such that as the rifle recoils back it counteracts the barrel rise (negative stock angle)?

Why would an F/Class Open stock be any different than a BR stock, other than weight?
 
F Class & BR stocks are set up for different imperatives in the US. According to the NRA rules an F class stock must contact the shoulder & cheek prior to firing. 100/200 yard benchrest stocks must comply with a design formula that necessitates that the butt slides downwards.

Under those conditions, it seems to me that the best bet to obtain uniform recoil characteristics from an F class stock is to have it not recoil further up into the cheek, that is to have a a similar slope to that mandated for BR stocks, or at the worst one with a horizontal butt line. Recoiling upward would risk irregular slide patterns depending on the nature of the cheek weld shot to shot & thus mitigate against uniform elevation, consistency period.

Other parts of the world don't make any rules about F Class stock contact & thus you'll find more variability about how a stock should be set up depending on individual preference. Depending on gun weight & recoil, you'll find stocks like the Shehane tracker & Tooley MBR used, with & without (added) cheek support.
 
F class is an outgrowth of High Power, and as such does not have rule book roots in any of the bench disciplines.

1,000 yard Benchrest has more than one sanctioning body, and its own history and rules that are different from so called short range Benchrest even within the same rule book (IBS, NBRSA,&PA 1,000 yd.)

In short range Benchrest, back when the weight limited classes were started, I believe that the idea was to define rifles that were closer to the shape and weight of "real", varmint and game rifles, hence the limitations on butt stock toe angle, barrel taper, action length, and weight. Since that time, rule changes have been done with the intent that records are shot under substantially the same rules as the previous ones.

Very few forms of organized competition are "run whatever you like", and while this does limit performance and innovation, it makes the cost of participation more predictable, and because of that the likelihood of broader participation is increased. Few can afford to field expensive equipment with the prospect of its made obsolete by some radical new design innovation.

On the other hand, if competition is not one of the design criteria, than none of this matters.
 
Boyd Allen said:
Very few forms of organized competition are "run whatever you like", and while this does limit performance and innovation, it makes the cost of participation more predictable, and because of that the likelihood of broader participation is increased. Few can afford to field expensive equipment with the prospect of its made obsolete by some radical new design innovation.

.
Click to expand...


I dont know. The newly formed PSL competition seems to have violated every criteria that you have mentioned.

I guess we will have to see whether this new league withstands the test of time...................Don
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top