• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Fowler stocks and cheek pain ???

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Skychief

69 Cal.
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
4,351
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The hills of Southern Indiana
I shot my new-to-me "Tulle" fowler, with it's slight roman-nosed (or cow's foot) stock design.

I shot about 25 times, trying different loads for turkeys. My friend shot it once. My cheek (right under my cheekbone) took a beating and is sore and swollen at the moment. My friend is a long time shooter too, and he was done after one shot. :shocked2:

My question is which stock designs or schools of fowlers are easier on the cheek?

I have fired over 900 rounds in my T/C New Englander (12 gauge) and never had the slightest problem with getting bit under the cheek bone.

All input appreciated. :thumbsup:

Skychief.
 
Comb lines parallel with the bore are best for no cheek smack. I always have trouble with roman nose buttstocks unless they have alot of drop at the comb. I don't think I have ever shot a production "TULLE" and not got smacked in the cheek bone.
I might suggest you move your face farther back on the buttstock on your next outing...it's the only way I can shoot them.
 
I very much enjoy shooting the mid 18th c. English Fowler style. Also, my New Englander.

DSCN0075.jpg
 
Thanks Mike and Stump'.

By the way Mike, I saw three of your fowlers at the Connor Prairie gun Fair yesterday. Beautiful guns,all.

I appreciate you thoughts about stock design guys.

How about "trade" guns? Any thoughts?

Thanks, Skychief.
 
I like the club butt style, but I used to shoot a Northwest Trade gun and that didn't pound me either.
 
I had a straight stocked (think 2 x 4 here) Northwest Trade gun in 20 gauge once that didn't weigh 5 lbs & loved 90gr of 2f to hit. It whacked me awful. I loved being able to hit stuff but hated the pain so I got out a rasp and filed a big hollow on the comb. What a difference. Now all the recoil was transferred to my shoulder. I sold it to a guy who never could make it shoot. That was 20 years ago. He called me a few months ago and asked me if I wanted to buy it back. I declined. :/
 
About the only way for most humans to comfortably shoot those stock styles is to do like Mike suggested and move back on the comb. This is poor form no matter how you look at it but it usually brings relief. A dishing out is another option.


I am really liking the proportions of the early 18th century English arms after the French and of course the French sporting guns of mid-18th century and back. The higher comb, angulation, bent wrist, and other features makes for a really good fit for me and is a super platform for excellent fit and historical accuracy. The Germanic fowling pieces I have encountered from the 1720-1760 time frame are also workable into a correctly fitting piece.
The Georigian English examples are good also but many are made too low in the comb for most. Although they appear similar, the original examples I have found vary in fit. Just making a blanket statement about a particular style is only going to get you in the right church and not the right pew.
 
I shot my Centermark Tulle fusil on Sat. and yesterday. I too feel your pain! The stock has the absolute worst design. My cheekbone is killing me. Paul
 
These things were designed to be sold to potential enemies. Why would they give them a GOOD gun?

Just because people did things in the past in no indication of the real usefulness.

Here is a slow motion video of me shooting a English style sporting rifle using a one ounce ball with 140 gr of FF Swiss and a clip of me shooting a 54 Hawken style rifle of about the same weight with 90 gr of FFF and a ball about 1/2 the weight.
http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/DPhariss/Video 1/?action=view&current=SLOWMOTION.mp4

Note the position of the cheek as recoil progresses. I have a slower motion that I made onto my CD burner that is even more enlightening.
The stock moves straight back due to good stock design. But the HEAD rotates DOWN as the shoulder moves back.
Neither of these rifles will bite the cheek. And I have shot as much as 170 gr from the English Sporter rifle.
DSC03685-1.jpg


This is not as good a photo for this purpose these rifles are identical to the second one I am shooting in the video
35620006.jpg

Dan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With out a rear sight one must have a very proper fit as to comfort and position to put the eye in the proper place for sighting. I worked thew stock on my French fusil while in the white to get thew fit I needed and now it shoots great and does not hurt. Buying a gun that fits like this over the counter so to speak is a manure shoot for the most part, using a rear sight might solve the problem with shooting ball but probably not shot. there is generaly enogh extra wood in thew "kit" stocks to allow one to get the shape one needs from what I have seen in my limited experience. One may be able to reshape and finish the stock, the buttplate can be reshaped and refit if wood needs to come ofd thetop ofd thew buttstock. It may be thta some folks just cannot sahoot some of the exagewrated stock shapes like the French guns have, being able to shoot one before purchaseing one might give an idea whether this will be a doable project or not. The true gunsmiths on this forum probably have much more to offer on this than I do, they will probably come foreward with some thoughts.Good luck
 
It takes all the fun out of it when your gun is beating your cheek. I had a Ped Bess once upon a time ago that I quickly came to dread firing it, and sold it. What a difference when you get a gun made by someone who knows what their doing. Both my Brooks and Stroh smoothbores are a joy to shoot and never bust me in the cheek like that Bess did. :thumbsup:
 
The general mehtod of pointing raher than aiming as we now do may have had an impact on how much recoil or stock shape may have bothered folks if at all in the past. Some folks have thought that many trade and hunting guns were of a smaller bore becaue they might be turned against the original supplier someday. At this time a larger bore was equall to a better more powerfull shoulder arm. We just do not have a lot of info to make any absolute proven theories/speculations but must try to look at it from a period perspective to get any kind of idea of the what and why/how of things in the past, but here on this thread we are trying to figure out how to shoot these guns in the manner we shoot guns today and not get smacked. It does somewhat come to the issue of the old then vs Now as for methodology and cause and effect. I would be surprised if any French guns were fitted as I did mine but an after market bit of work by a good smith may have been done, if the shoter and smith were on the same page and had an idea what they were looking to do.I suspect it would be pretty rare with trade guns or hunting guns as would most any after market work. As I could have shot my gun by just holding my head up and back it just would not have been as comfortable and accurate as the way I went about it.This was probasbly the normal solution to such problems if they were considered problems.IMHO
 
The hunters and natives who would have used these arms would not likely fire more than a shot a week anyway. Hunter/trappers. If used in a firefight against an enemy, the recoil would go unnoticed as well. Until after the fight, at least. Your sore cheek would not compare to wounds elsewhere.
 
Dan Phariss said:
Just because people did things in the past in no indication of the real usefulness.
Dan

That remark needs to be hammered in stone here...if there were any stone. Maybe in a heading on every page of every thread as next best.
 
I think it either TG or Paul V that posted some time ago about how some folks "mount" a gun and obtain the cheek-to-stock-weld too far forward. The explanation made a good deal of sense to me back then if I can find the original post again.
 
"Just because people did things in the past in no indication of the real usefulness."

Actually in the reenactment world it is everything, it does not mater if they did something wrong even, if it is what was done or how it was done it is the core of the hoby
 
Keb said:
......I loved being able to hit stuff but hated the pain so I got out a rasp and filed a big hollow on the comb. What a difference. Now all the recoil was transferred to my shoulder.
Years ago when Curley Gostomski (Northstar Guns owner) was still with us, he did his personal Trade Gun that very same way. He was a small, wiry man and used his Trade Gun to take lots of large game animals.
Here's another thought....do you think the length of the shooter's neck might have something to do with felt recoil?
 
Back
Top