Re: Comb height questions
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2026 10:45 am
Excellent photo! Thank you for sharing. I agree that when viewed in the light of today's rules, the belly of that stock is probably deeper than the current rules would allow. The cheekpiece may be higher than the bore centerline as well.thauglor wrote: Wed Dec 31, 2025 5:12 pm Tony,
Here is the picture of Karen, looks very similar to today's stocks except for the deeper belly
Screenshot_20251231_160302_Drive.jpg
The other feature that's interesting to note is how low the scope is mounted in comparison to the barrel and receiver, presumably to allow proper head alignment based on her hold and physique.
She was/is obviously a well qualified shooter, being on the US Army Marksmanship Team. Shooting a .308 through the course of silhouette matches was probably no small feat for a smaller framed woman. Impressive performance to say the least. Imagine how effective she would have been with a .260 Rem or more modern 6.5mm package.
Just spitballing here, but if the scope was mounted higher, and the belly of the stock had been raised, the whole package might fit inside the current rules. Of course, lowering the rifle in her hold and raising the centerline of the scope would then result in changing her head position. She appears to be of a fairly slight build, so probably doesn't have the "Big Ole Head and cheeks" that many of us are blessed with. Having a more slender build and smaller face calls for less distance between the top of the stock comb and the centerline of the scope.
In any event, thank you for sharing this snapshot of history.
Steve.