Hey guys. I am looking at getting a synthetic stock for my Remington 870 Police.
It seems there are quite a few positive comments on the Hogue stocks, and quite a few of those use the shorter 12" LOP version.
Do any of you have any personal experience? I like the idea of having a shorter gun (nothing less than 18" barrel here in Washington), but not if it is going to severely effect my shooting.
By the way, this is a personal defense gun (and my fun shooting gun).
How does the pistol grip fit compared to the original stock?
I feel the grip needs to be oriented at more of a vertical angle, so the trigger pull is back, and not up.
I use the Hogue 12" stocks and prefer them over the Speedfeed stocks. In addition to the shorter LOP, the Hogue’s also have more of a pistol-like grip angle. If you use the 12" LOP, you may need to use a thumb-on-the-stock grip rather than a thumb-over-stock grip to avoid a bloody nose.
I find the 12" LOP stock to be more comfortable and faster for me on a pump gun. I use the Hogue on my 870 and have two 1897 Winchesters (1 clone, 1 original) that have been shortened to a 12" LOP for cowboy action shooting. The shorter stock allows me to the run the gun faster when using a squared up stance (rather than bladed) like in defensive shotgun or even cowboy action.
For me, a 12" LOP is perfect (and the exposed bolt on the Winchester does not hit me in the nose). Most cowboy shooters shorten the stock and there are some pretty good shotgunners in the cowboy game.
Please elaborate. I have the Hogue on a Rem 870 and I like it, but to be truthful I’m not a shotgun fan and I don’t shoot mine much. If I start to shoot mine more, what am I going to find out?
I went to the 12" LOP stock back when I was still trying to shoot every long gun like it was a MP5. Once I changed my stance to a slightly bladed one, I discovered the 13" LOP stocks fit me and my shooting style much better.
And what’s old is new again. I learned my combat shotgun techniques in the Marines back in the 80s when Louis Awerbuck was training us with the then new Mossberg 590. Our stance was the typical bladed stance and we did pretty good with it. In more modern times everybody is shooting squared up with the target weather they are wearing armor or not no matter what weapon they are using.
I always like to say I can remember the days when you had to keep your finger on the front of the pistol’s trigger guard to prevent muzzle flip and designs like the Glock, Beretta, Sig, HK, etc all came with trigger guards with a hook to facilitate this design. Then of course it was later found out that the problems of your weak finger on the trigger guard pulling the shots left and right were worse than the muzzle flip that technique was supposed to correct. :rolleyes: I don’t teach that method these days, I don’t know of any instructor that does either and instead we teach students to wrap all their weak fingers around their strong fingers and fire the Weaver stance. I tend to think that the squared up shooting stance is another fad method this generation is being exposed to much as my generation was exposed to the “weak trigger finger wrapped on the trigger guard” method of handgun techniques my generation was exposed to.
Well, I think that is the issue. If you have a bladed stance you will most likely need the extra length when shooting from the shoulder notch. If you shoot off the pectoral in QCB style you will want the shorter stock.
For defense, the shooter should take his readiness condition into consideration. Are you going to blade in order to reduce your silhouette, or are you going to rely on your frontal armor? Many civilian shooters will not be wearing body armor in a gun fight. Something to thing about.
I don’t blade in order to reduce target profile and use the same position whether I’m in armor or not. While I may give up a small amount of coverage to frontal targets my increases in accuracy, follow up shot speed, etc are worth it. Keep in mind also that we aren’t talking about a Camp Perry bladed position here
Most of my shooting and training has been .mil. Body armor has been a given for almost 10 years now. Most of the shooting being taught now filtered down from Tier 1 units into the rest of the force. The CQB style assumes that you would be better off using your frontal armor for cover.
As I understand it, more than a few LEO’s have been killed in the line of duty when round entered the unarmored armpit area. How does the LEO community address this issue?
The squared up stance typically stems from people that try to take material that was applicable to the MP5 and use it for every long gun they lay hands on. This is the reason we see people trying to shoot with their non-dominant hand close to the receiver (which causes them to have less control over the weapon). By applying a slight blade, we are able to push our non-dominant hand out further on the gun which enables us to better control muzzle rise and transition from target to target. While shooting with the slight blade, you do give you a slight degree of coverage to your direct front. However, as I said before, the gains in speed and weapon control are more than worth it to me.
Exposing weak spots in armor is obviously an issue. This isnt as much of an issue with the slight blade though. Once again we are talking about a few degrees of rotation in the upper body. The torso isnt perpendicular to the threat. When we blade off in a Camp Perry style stance is when we greatly increases the chance of the cross-torso shot occuring.
