When cutting a stock to reduce LOP by 1" . . how much wood should actually be cut off? To me this seems like an odd question to ask, but I think I saw or heard somewhere that 1/4" reduction of stock material results in a 1" reduction of LOP.
Shortening a stock for LOP?
135405
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
When cutting a stock to reduce LOP by 1" . . how much wood should actually be cut off? To me this seems like an odd question to ask, but I think I saw or heard somewhere that 1/4" reduction of stock material results in a 1" reduction of LOP.
Joined
·
1,431 Posts
The ususal way of measuring LOP is from the trigger to the end of the stock. If you remove 1/4" off the stock how could that reduce the LOP by 1 inch? It can't.
Take a measurement from the middle of the trigger back to the middle of the stock butt ! Now whatever the pad you want to use , measure its thickest , add the two together and subtract what LOP you
want to end up with ! That should tell you what your New LOP will end up being but wait , what pitch will you also need ? Best educate yourself a little more as to what you need to CUT ?
want to end up with ! That should tell you what your New LOP will end up being but wait , what pitch will you also need ? Best educate yourself a little more as to what you need to CUT ?
Yep, I agree, and as I said . . it seems like an odd question for me to have to ask . . but I’m sure I saw it in a gunsmith/fitter video I watched recently . . so I’m just triple checking.. In fact, at the end of the video, I’m sure he emphasized it with a reminder saying ‘don’t cut it too short, remember 1/4” off the stock equals 1” reduced lop’. If I can find that video again I’ll post a link. It doesn’t make sense to me either, but I don’t know if there is some dynamic between form and stock length that can make true?
Joined
·
851 Posts
Westender: you're mixing up actual LOP measurement and the "ratio theory" of how an LOP change supposedly changes the resulting face position on the stock.
Actual LOP measurement
Actual LOP measurement is exactly that (just as pettifogger mentioned above). Example: if your gun's current LOP measures, say 14.75" and you are dead sure you need 13.75", then yes, you simply cut off 1-inch of wood (or remove less wood and install a thinner recoil pad . . . whatever makes the direct measurement 13.75").
Ratio Theory
The oft-quoted theory is that if you shorten LOP by "x", then the shooter's face will supposedly move forward on the stock by a factor of 3x or 4x.
Similarly, if you lengthen LOP by "x", then the shooter's face will supposedly move rearward on the stock by a factor of 3x or 4x.
I think that theory is close to reality in some cases, but not all. A lot depends on the individual shooter, his gun-mount technique, whether or not a (dropped) adjustable recoil pad is on the gun, whether or not anything else changes before/after the LOP change (such as how upright the shooter's head is) and other factors. As previous posters mentioned, perhaps this theory's greatest benefit is to remind shooters not to barge ahead and cut too much off a stock from the get-go.
Actual LOP measurement
Actual LOP measurement is exactly that (just as pettifogger mentioned above). Example: if your gun's current LOP measures, say 14.75" and you are dead sure you need 13.75", then yes, you simply cut off 1-inch of wood (or remove less wood and install a thinner recoil pad . . . whatever makes the direct measurement 13.75").
Ratio Theory
The oft-quoted theory is that if you shorten LOP by "x", then the shooter's face will supposedly move forward on the stock by a factor of 3x or 4x.
Similarly, if you lengthen LOP by "x", then the shooter's face will supposedly move rearward on the stock by a factor of 3x or 4x.
I think that theory is close to reality in some cases, but not all. A lot depends on the individual shooter, his gun-mount technique, whether or not a (dropped) adjustable recoil pad is on the gun, whether or not anything else changes before/after the LOP change (such as how upright the shooter's head is) and other factors. As previous posters mentioned, perhaps this theory's greatest benefit is to remind shooters not to barge ahead and cut too much off a stock from the get-go.
Ok thanks . . what do you think I’m trying to do here
Ok, yes, this is what I was referring to. I might be lost a bit in translation . . but I read this as cut .25” off the stock (.25” difference in LOP) is about 1” difference in nose to thumb. I just have trouble understanding how moving the stock back .25”, by removing .25” of stock, moves my thumb back a full 1” closer to my nose.
Excellent . . thanks Jeff . . that’s what I didn’t have clear in my head. Got it!
Ugg . . math . . I had to look it up . . no wonder I didn’t have it clear in my head
I do have one of your fine illustrations ( Understanding Shotgun Stocks for better shooting) , I should have invited Westender to explore it , then it would make sense for his question !
It's a Great one to have for ALL shotgunners !
Where would I find this?
I just checked out gunshowbooks.com
Hhmmm . . why are you sending me this? I've already discussed the book with Jeff.
Sorry , but you'll be entertained by his knowledge and your's too when your done reading it !
It all depends on how long you intend to keep the gun. If you plan to keep it as a shooter for the long haul I'd cut the stock to fit you. But make sure gunsmith knows how to fit a gun and cuts it to the proper length. Or another option would be to buy a 2nd stock and have that one cut down and save the original stock. But if you don't think this is a gun you will have for the long haul I'd sell/trade it for one that fits you properly.
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
