No, not really, all it does is move the entire gun laterally. So if the heel moves 5mm so does the receiver. And that's why true cast angles the stock so the butt and the receiver can be in different vertical plane.
Alternative to Cast
- Thread starter ChrisPackham
- Start date
Help Support :
Sorry but no. If, and it may be a remote possibility I don't know, there may be no need for cast at the toe?
Well if its a to you to me issue... the stock in question was made for someone... without the need for cast. Cast is not a twist in the stock it is a way the stock is made leaving wood where it is required and none where its not needed. If I need a stock with 5mm of cast at the heal and none at the toe... that is the way Perazzi would make it for me... they would twist nothing. You can with any adjustable straight stock add cast at the heal by moving the comb but you cannot add cast at the toe... that may or may not be important to the user.
edit
For the record I know many shooters using Ergosign, TSK and other fully adjustable stocks who employ no cast at the toe of their stock.
Last edited by a moderator:
I`d say adjustable combs are 3rd rate excuse for fitting ! The stock should come to the face,not vice versa.......
It really depends how much you wish to spend.. ? If a stock needs to be heat treated and moved to a new shape... that may well not be the last time you have to fork out to have it done, as you know wood is lively and given a chance will change to a more convenient shape and as an even worse case scenario... it cannot be done re OP.
edit
It may be of note one of the greatest ever shotgun shooters uses an adjustable stock and Vincent Hancock is no monkey you will see his gun glide effortlessly to his face!
Last edited by a moderator:
MartynB
Well-known member
Thing is though PP has said it’s a nice game gun he has . Although these days no one will turn their noses up at whatever you take to a shoot ( especially if you have just dropped a serious wedge to be there ) , some of us prefer to keep it traditional . What might be techno-porn on a clay ground might not feel right when you’ve got your breeks on 
Oh I agree entirely that is why I have said chop it in or get another stock made.Thing is though PP has said it’s a nice game gun he has . Although these days no one will turn their noses up at whatever you take to a shoot ( especially if you have just dropped a serious wedge to be there ) , some of us prefer to keep it traditional . What might be techno-porn on a clay ground might not feel right when you’ve got your breeks on
Wonko the Sane
Well-known member
and you seem to be making up a dialog with yourself. I'd really like to pursue this but we did it all a few mo back and IIRC you were still wrong about "cast", etc then.
thanks for playing
No it doesn't - the center of the butt plate is exactly where it was before the comb moved and moving the face does not move the shoulder
and the adjustable comb is so that will happen
Some of you folks do not appear to have any real appreciation for the purpose of all of the individual measurements that may be incorporated into a gunstock. And not knowing that can make for some interesting but totally pointless discussion.
hahaha OK now that's it
Cosmicblue
Well-known member
I loved all the techno-porn back in 2008 when I started shooting - crikey I fancied a Browning Cynergy Black Ice big time so must have been badly affected...same went for adjustable stocks, the beauty of a gorgeous piece of wood went unnoticed.
Now 12 years later I'm headed in the other direction and seek stocks that haven't been adulterated at all - that's properly contrary I guess.
To that Victor Hancock video in Jwpzx9r's post on the previous page (Victor Hancock video), whilst the guy achieves a smooth mount the heel of the stock is almost in his armpit which most of us would probably agree is a pretty poor fit - works for him though.
Now 12 years later I'm headed in the other direction and seek stocks that haven't been adulterated at all - that's properly contrary I guess.
To that Victor Hancock video in Jwpzx9r's post on the previous page (Victor Hancock video), whilst the guy achieves a smooth mount the heel of the stock is almost in his armpit which most of us would probably agree is a pretty poor fit - works for him though.
Exactly ,moving combs but not the rest of the stock is a wrong that can never be righted! If contorting your body to fit the gun is correct shooting i`ll eat my hat.
It`s a cop out to try and make mass produced ,too straight stocks half useable.Likewise teaching people to shoot pre mounted at sporting . Its a cheap and nasty shortcut ,nothing more.
It`s a cop out to try and make mass produced ,too straight stocks half useable.Likewise teaching people to shoot pre mounted at sporting . Its a cheap and nasty shortcut ,nothing more.
Lloyd
Well-known member
Having been tinkering quite a bit with cast as previously, to centre my eye over the bead I’d have to ram my face against the stock and turn my nose in firmly, or I’d have to cant my head.
I also had to raise my face off the comb or I’d be way too flat. Didn’t make for the most consistent of mounts to be honest.
However I’d kinda got used to shooting that way. Now that I have my temporary modified stock done (and painted to hide a few sins of the wood grain...it was only a grade 2 anyway), I found first time out with it that I was still turning my nose in and lifting my head. I guess I’ll have to relearn how to mount, and I think I’ve proven to myself that practicing in the basement is a poor substitute for shooting clays.
@Garwood Pre mounting is so contrite to me. compared to gun down, my mount is quite different however there are some presentations where if I didn’t pre-mount I’d have no chance of hitting the target as it would be long gone before I ever got the gun into my shoulder I can think of a couple of very close and fast crossers in a short window that I’d definitely struggle with but have hit consistently well pre-mounted.
I’d favour the gun set up for gun-down as I can adjust to pre-mounted, whereas I feel I need a gun to come up naturally to my face and shoulder. That said, I don’t actually have a clue as to what I’m taking about anyway
I hope the whole exercise pays off in time with a consistent and reliable gun mount/fit with a positive result in clays hit.
For all of the books, articles and opinions on the subject, there are folks who shoot very successfully who don’t follow the “rules” and those who do follow the rules and there seems to have been little benefit.
maybe gun fit belongs in that heap of valuable information on gun weight/balance, barrel length, chokes, shot size/count/pattern/velocity, eye dominance, lens colour, baseball cap colour, foot position, shoe size, sock cuff height, t-sh*t versus polo-shirt...
I also had to raise my face off the comb or I’d be way too flat. Didn’t make for the most consistent of mounts to be honest.
However I’d kinda got used to shooting that way. Now that I have my temporary modified stock done (and painted to hide a few sins of the wood grain...it was only a grade 2 anyway), I found first time out with it that I was still turning my nose in and lifting my head. I guess I’ll have to relearn how to mount, and I think I’ve proven to myself that practicing in the basement is a poor substitute for shooting clays.
@Garwood Pre mounting is so contrite to me. compared to gun down, my mount is quite different however there are some presentations where if I didn’t pre-mount I’d have no chance of hitting the target as it would be long gone before I ever got the gun into my shoulder I can think of a couple of very close and fast crossers in a short window that I’d definitely struggle with but have hit consistently well pre-mounted.
I’d favour the gun set up for gun-down as I can adjust to pre-mounted, whereas I feel I need a gun to come up naturally to my face and shoulder. That said, I don’t actually have a clue as to what I’m taking about anyway
I hope the whole exercise pays off in time with a consistent and reliable gun mount/fit with a positive result in clays hit.
For all of the books, articles and opinions on the subject, there are folks who shoot very successfully who don’t follow the “rules” and those who do follow the rules and there seems to have been little benefit.
maybe gun fit belongs in that heap of valuable information on gun weight/balance, barrel length, chokes, shot size/count/pattern/velocity, eye dominance, lens colour, baseball cap colour, foot position, shoe size, sock cuff height, t-sh*t versus polo-shirt...
Last edited by a moderator:
MartynB
Well-known member
Hallelujah! I’m of the age where we’d have been kicked out of the local gun club for shouldering a gun when we first started shooting
. Hallelujah! I’m of the age I’d have been kicked out of the local gun club if we’d shouldered a gun when we were learning to shoot
You will reap the reward once you get used to it I`m sure ! You`ll also find that short window presentations will become easier to shoot properly (gun down).Proper cast also eliminates a lot of master eye issues which are exascerbated by straight stocks .Having been tinkering quite a bit with cast as previously, to centre my eye over the bead I’d have to ram my face against the stock and turn my nose in firmly, or I’d have to cant my head.
I also had to raise my face off the comb or I’d be way too flat. Didn’t make for the most consistent of mounts to be honest.
However I’d kinda got used to shooting that way. Now that I have my temporary modified stock done (and painted to hide a few sins of the wood grain...it was only a grade 2 anyway), I found first time out with it that I was still turning my nose in and lifting my head. I guess I’ll have to relearn how to mount, and I think I’ve proven to myself that practicing in the basement is a poor substitute for shooting clays.
@Garwood Pre mounting is so contrite to me. compared to gun down, my mount is quite different however there are some presentations where if I didn’t pre-mount I’d have no chance of hitting the target as it would be long gone before I ever got the gun into my shoulder I can think of a couple of very close and fast crossers in a short window that I’d definitely struggle with but have hit consistently well pre-mounted.
I’d favour the gun set up for gun-down as I can adjust to pre-mounted, whereas I feel I need a gun to come up naturally to my face and shoulder. That said, I don’t actually have a clue as to what I’m taking about anyway
I hope the whole exercise pays off in time with a consistent and reliable gun mount/fit with a positive result in clays hit.
For all of the books, articles and opinions on the subject, there are folks who shoot very successfully who don’t follow the “rules” and those who do follow the rules and there seems to have been little benefit.
maybe gun fit belongs in that heap of valuable information on gun weight/balance, barrel length, chokes, shot size/count/pattern/velocity, eye dominance, lens colour, baseball cap colour, foot position, shoe size, sock cuff height, t-sh*t versus polo-shirt...
I would like to hear how you explain that. Even on a stock that is tailor made for the shooter the stock is actually straight.... the only thing that changes is the way the wood of the stock is sculpted to put the shooters eye over the center of the rib and allow for anatomical considerations... in exactly the same way I have used my Ergosign stock. The stock itself is arrow straight the only thing that varies are the part that can add cast... the comb and butt pad ... the only difference is there is very little wood involved ... it is if you will the ultimate try stock... and then some!
I do. I have. It made no difference for me at all.
Talking about fitted stocks and made to measure stocks is fine BUT for the average shooter they don't really make much economic sense. It makes a great deal of sense though for a manufacturer to make their, shall we say, off the shelf cheaper guns with a middle ground stock and an adjustable comb. This allows the buyer at no cost at all to themselves to fine tune their gun how they want it. Changes to cast at heel, comb height or even a Monte Carlo parallel comb become possibilities. Now for those who can afford it anybody who wants to buy a Perazzi can have a fitted stock made for them... at no extra cost to them... but not everyone wants to spend that much money.
MartynB
Well-known member
The way I look at it is this . A clay costs 30 pence , a cartridge costs 20 pence . That’s 50 pence a pop . On average I reckon a good gunfitting session and cast might cost you £200 ( my last 3 were nearer £300 as I had pads changed and on the 20 had the drop at face raised ) . If those mods buy me 400 or 600 more targets per gun over the life of the gun ownership they have paid for themselves . It becomes more relevant when you are live quarry shooting IMHO , and you aren’t going to settle into a pre mounted stance and call pull .
Even with a factory adjustable comb , I think there is a strong case to have a competent coach / gunfitter assess the fit , set it up with you and then confiscate the key .
Last edited by a moderator:
Lloyd
Well-known member
If I needed shooting to make economic sense, I’d get a pea shooter or a spud gun.
Im well below average, a relative novice still in my defence
When it became obvious I needed to modify my stock, I took a step by step approach. Needing a shorter LoP I removed the butt pad. Needing a higher comb, I taped on a comb raiser. Needing more cast on, I rammed my face into the stock, and needing to lengthen/ lower the grip, I had to put up with what I had.
the next step I took was approach gunsmiths/stockers to modify my stock. Shortening was fine. An adjustable comb for cast and comb height, despite that I don’t get along with them as I find I snag them on my vest, was the appropriate solution and the grip would have to remain as it was as no smith/stocker was willing to modify. That cost was £600 for half a job. Affordable, yes. Value added? Not so much. Well, not for me anyway
So I looked into a custom stock, prices from £500 up to close to £5,000!
I looked at hacking my stock and getting a factory replacement should I ever need to revert back for a sale or whatever. £1,600
In the end, being a bit of a amateur woodworker, though certainly no James Krenov, I made a stock from some American black walnut and reinforced it with a carbon fibre wrap just aft of the pistol grip as it is quite cut away and the balancing system renders the timber quite thin.
I plan to use this as a pattern for a full composite stock. Mainly because I’m interested in doing so, it won’t cost me too much and its all part of a learning process before I make the eventual trip to Manuel Ricardo next year.
So, for me, it’s about your own personal decisions about what is valuable and affordable and if it makes sense to you, average shooter or not.
I totally agree. The most expensive clay shooting can be, is a missed target... my shooting is thus very expensive!
I could pay 35p per cartridge, but what’s the point if I’m missing half of the presentations? I’m not doing such a shell the justice it deserves (debatable)
Ok, I’m being a bit ridiculous with my thought process as I still enjoy shooting whether is miss or hit, and I have my doubts that RF or GD would suffer a significant drop in form if they started shooting the cheapest of cheap shells.
But I’d getting a good gun fit help hit more clays, and it further adds to my enjoyment, then I see no problem in spending the money on my hobby.
That said, I’m not convinced that a perfectly fitted gun is the be all and end all either. I made my decision because it’s making me happy to do so. There aren’t any other reasons for me as I’m never going to be that great a shot that I’d see a return on investment so to speak
