doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Question about Modern Dimensions

I have a question about what some say in there ads.(i have been looking a fox shotguns)Some ads say it has been restock with modern dimensions.some one break that down for me and explain it to me.

PB: Almost all shotguns made around 1900, give or take a quarter-century, have what today seems like a ton of "drop" ... draw an invisible line down the rib or sighting plane and extend it out beyond the buttplate. The distance from that line down to the top of the comb is the "drop at comb" and the distance to the "heel" (as opposed to the "toe") of the butt is the "drop at heel". Today, most shotguns have a drop at the heel of anywhere from 2 to 2.5 inches (Browning Superposeds and A-5s usually have a drop of 2 3/8 inches), but in the old days, 3 or even 3.5 inches was pretty common. I have found Foxes to be among the worst on drop, and it's hard to find even a late one with more modern, "straight" dimensions ... Savage-era gun are best from that standpoint. Fox was not alone, though, as Parkers, Lefevers and the rest also configured stocks to meet the preference of the day. There's a lot of debate as to why shooters 100 years ago liked their guns that way, as bodies haven't really changed. It takes practice for a modern shooter to relearn how to shoot a gun with that much drop, because it becomes real hard to shoulder and sight accurately. The solution is a so-called "head-up" position, where you basically don't move your head down at all when you shoulder the gun. My two cents, anyway. TT

"Modern dimensions" usually denotes something like 1.5 DAC x 2.5 DAH. Witness the new RBL's advertised at 1.5 x 2 3/8. They're supposed to fit Joe Average.

Pre-WWII it was more common to see 1 5/8-1 3/4 DAC x 2 3/4 -3 DAH for off-the-rack guns intended for Joe Average. But it's not uncommon to see target guns and live pigeon guns of the day with higher dims.

Although I've encountered a number of pre-war British guns with large amounts of drop, it does seem that the odds are much better with the Brit guns of that era for finding a gun with more "modern" dimensions. Is that the case or just poor statistics? If it is true, I wonder why? Driven shooting versus the all round gun?

In my limited experience, British guns are usually higher combed, as Mike said. Also, IMLE, old Remingtons are usually the worst(lowest), requiring me to stand on a chair to see over the rib.

My opinion, worth very little, is that we've moved from being primarily hunters of game to shooters at targets. With clay target shooting there is a lot more time to mount the gun and "aim". Also, with driven game, such as the British indulge in, there is time to consciously mount the gun. My experience with field shooting, especially with unexpected shooting opportunities, is it's a lot easier to make the quick shot if the head isn't dropped down to the stock but the shot simply made instinctively. This form of shooting allows much more drop in the stock. I think we're too preoccupied with precision these days. Don't throw rocks at me--as I said, it's just my opinion.

A century ago is was common practice to point a shotgun and shoot instinctively - head up and not touching the stock. Lots of drop facilitates all that. Charles Askins (Sr.) touched on the subject in his 1910 book, "The American Shotgun," and likened it to a gunslinger pointing his pistol and pulling the trigger, sights be damned.

It is interesting that Krieghoff are now promoting their K80 SuperSport with an elevated rib 'to promote a natural head up posture'.
Could we possibly have been subjected to nigh on two hundred years of marketing ploys?
In this vein after being gently guided toward longer and longer barrels, should we not now consider 24" and 25" inch barrels in the intersts of 'quick' pointability?
Yours faithfully,
Robert Churchill

This issue gets debated every few months, and it's possible this 'upright head position' idea may be a myth. Look through the early 1900s posters, calendars, and die cuts shown in Classic Hunting Collectibles by Hal Boggess, esp. the Trap shooters on p. 47 and p. 80. To my eye, they all have their cheek firmly placed on the stock with their neck extended far forward; or 'crawling the stock.' A pinback on p. 208 shows a trap shooting lady and it look like her nose is actually touching her right hand. I had a 1928 Ithaca catalog with pics of champion trap shooters and every one, at least in the pics, had that same head and neck position, much different from the upright head position favored by trap shooters today and made possible by long LOP and adjustable Monte Carlo combs. On p. 76 is an actual photograph (rather than an illustration) of men shooting skeet using very similar gun mounts as would be seen on a skeet field today.

Wing shooting from American Game-bird Shooting by George Bird Grinnell, 1910



A. B. Frost



Trap illustration



Trap shooting photo (obviously posed)



Neck extended forward, head scrunched down on the stock, eye looking straight down the rib



Here's a very interesting Peters die cut showing a man in a shooting position but without the shotgun-clearly head down and neck extended.



And another Western bird shooter



Interesting photo showing the two shooting styles from "Modern Shotgun Shooting" by Lawrence B. Smith, 1935



Bottom line:
1. There doesn't seem to be alot of difference in the gun mount for wing shooting comparing illustrations from the early 1900s and shooters today. Rather than standing erect with a straight head and neck, early 1900s shooters 'crawled the stock', extending their head and neck far forward (probably touching their thumb with their nose?) One can imagine much less perceived recoil with the head forward and firmly on the stock, rather than lightly touching toward the heel, with the gun levering upward. When we try to shoot these 'lotsa drop' old guns, in order to look down the rib, we lightly touch the comb lower on our face, or even along the jaw, rather than under the zygomatic arch/cheek bone. Doing so just accentuates perceived recoil, especially to the face. And I shoot my 3" drop LCs by 'crawling the stock' comfortably and am very recoil sensitive.
2. Certainly trap, and to a lesser extend, skeet gun mounts have changed with the pre-mounted gun.
3. To hit the bird/target, we need to be looking where the gun's shooting.
4. In order to do that, we must look down the barrel somehow.
5. More drop is 'built in' cast off ie. you must mount the gun a bit lower on the face moving the position of the eye to the right (for a right hand shooter.)
6. We seem to be made so we can adjust pretty well to about any gun, once we figure out where to put our head

I can't 'prove' any of this, but it's interesting (and possibly illuminating) to look at these old pics and illustrations.

The British driven game gunners may have used a different style than American rough shooters. This is Archibald Thorburn "Coming Over the Guns - Patridges 1899" and the shooter appears to be standing upright with an erect head position