the simplest way of saying this is:
The stops on the '95-up are there because while the steering angle is greater without them it's not steering angle you can use with the hubs locked without breaking something.
I don't actually miss any loss of angle with my 1995-97 beams and brakes, because my supercab started life as a 2wd and the narrower track width would cause the steering to be limited by the tires hitting the frame....
So going to a D35 4x4 I got a smaller turning radius on the same truck.
Could I get a tighter turning radius? yep,
But not without rubbing or breaking.
You have to atleast consider the possibility that the factory engineers know something you don't.
In this case with the stops and the hubs locked and the T-case in 2wd
you can actually cause enough bind that turning the steering to the stop you can
both hear and feel the U-joints "rumble" as they get to the wrong side of their bind angle.
with the stops removed I'm sure you can wreck your shafts without even engaging the
transfer case
Now I don't know why, because I've never bothered to study the issue closely,
but on my 1993 with the single piston calipers brakes I can't turn it far enough to
get the joints to bind like they are (painfully obviously) doing on my '87 with 95-97
beams WITH the stops intact.
I know enough to say that removing the stops is a bad idea for anyone who doesn't
fully realize that they CAN turn the steering far enough to break something.
If I can get the joints to bind with the T-case in 2wd that raises a big red flag with me....
I'm just saying that while you can do what you want, don't be suprised when you egg out a yoke,
spin a cap, spit a clip and then find yourself replacing a front axle shaft out on the trail somewhere....
AD