Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
This came to me from another thread.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ofbandg" data-source="post: 2009950" data-attributes="member: 91402"><p>Gunstocks are a influenced by tradition and some of those traditions no longer apply. Originally the length of pull was a function of keeping your face away from the flash pan. Even when priming caps were brought in the length didn't change much. When cartridge rifles came in they were still iron sighted so length of pull wasn't as critical as with optics. It wasn't until the 1960's that scopes hit the big time and became the sight of choice but a hundred plus years of rifle design didn't change immediately. In fact, it changed very little. Combs have been raised somewhat but in many cases not enough, especially on rifles that still have iron sights, and my pet peeve, of course, is length of pull. So many people I have hunted and shot with over the years have their rifles out on their shoulder and have to lean their head because the rifle won't fit on their collar bone, allowing them to see through the scope. Ring extensions are almost a must on rifles to keep from stretching your neck forward and if you are wearing bulky clothing or a daypack all you are going to see is a peephole through your scope. Most of my adult life I was a six foot, two hundred pound, working man and all my stocks were cut to 13" or a little less for length of pull. When other guys put my rifles up they were either amazed at how well it fit or worried that the scope would hit them in the eye when they fired. It never did, besides scopes are moveable. When the thumb knuckle on your trigger hand is hitting you in the face, then it's too short.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ofbandg, post: 2009950, member: 91402"] Gunstocks are a influenced by tradition and some of those traditions no longer apply. Originally the length of pull was a function of keeping your face away from the flash pan. Even when priming caps were brought in the length didn't change much. When cartridge rifles came in they were still iron sighted so length of pull wasn't as critical as with optics. It wasn't until the 1960's that scopes hit the big time and became the sight of choice but a hundred plus years of rifle design didn't change immediately. In fact, it changed very little. Combs have been raised somewhat but in many cases not enough, especially on rifles that still have iron sights, and my pet peeve, of course, is length of pull. So many people I have hunted and shot with over the years have their rifles out on their shoulder and have to lean their head because the rifle won't fit on their collar bone, allowing them to see through the scope. Ring extensions are almost a must on rifles to keep from stretching your neck forward and if you are wearing bulky clothing or a daypack all you are going to see is a peephole through your scope. Most of my adult life I was a six foot, two hundred pound, working man and all my stocks were cut to 13" or a little less for length of pull. When other guys put my rifles up they were either amazed at how well it fit or worried that the scope would hit them in the eye when they fired. It never did, besides scopes are moveable. When the thumb knuckle on your trigger hand is hitting you in the face, then it's too short. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
This came to me from another thread.
Top