|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,493
Posts562,053
Members14,585
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,541 Likes: 330
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,541 Likes: 330 |
CZ,
You've seen me shoot that gun, and it worked well that day on the sporting course. It worked even better after I started copying your Churchill method.
Given the task at hand for which they are best suited, they work very well. Again, the key is practice and the development of muscle memory.
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,344 Likes: 648
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,344 Likes: 648 |
"Game Shooting: A Textbook on the Successful Use of the Modern Shotgun," 1955 The Churchill Method proposes an upright stance with the feet placement almost as though you're driving. The right foot is angled about 40 degrees to the right (on the gas pedal) and the left one (on the brake) is point almost straight head. The gun stock is tucked under the armpit, with the muzzles tilting slight upward at the approximate elevation one anticipates the bird will fly, providing a full view of the field. Helps to be short and with no neck  Disagree. My shooting mentor was 6’4” and around 190 lbs, long arms and neck. He shot a Churchill Crown grade XXV that was stocked to fit and he was murder on the clay course and in the field. Used the Churchill method since the 1960’s after when he took lessons there on the method while stationed in England. Body size has absolutely nothing to do with it. Gun fit has everything to do when trying to be successful utilizing this method.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 42
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 42 |
Try reading Mcintoshs book Shotguns & shooting Best description of Churchills method.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 460
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 460 |
For CZ 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,867 Likes: 170
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,867 Likes: 170 |
My local gun club has a J Graham side lock for sale with all the traditional Churchill features. Engraving is spectacular and wood is pleasant and it is cased in the original case.
Price is very reasonable too. It has been there a long time and no sale as of yet.
I do admit it is pleasant to look at and to mount.
I have noticed that all J Graham guns I have seen seem to have the 25" barrels. Is that the case?
Mike Proctor
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 460
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 460 |
A younger and thinner Churchill taking a high bird. I've been trying to document his height without success; I think he was 5'6". His short arms certainly make the barrel appear longer.  King Edward VII straight arm. He was 5'8"  Michael Mcintosh "Best Guns" https://books.google.com/books?id=lIR7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT157&lpg"...some aspects of what Churchill prescribes really apply best to short, stockily-built people - like Churchill himself..." "I cannot believe that Churchill the teacher truly felt that such a piece was appropriate for everyone."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 289 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 289 Likes: 7 |
Churchill's method of producing guns - buying in barreled actions, or semi-finished guns and commissioning outworkers for each facet of fitting up and finishing, was common in the British gun trade. They also had workers in house.
They could provide any level of workmanship the customer chose to afford.
I highly recommend Don Masters book on The House of Churchill.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 460
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 460 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,012 Likes: 1817
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,012 Likes: 1817 |
This is a very subjective subject (pardon me). I am a more deliberate shooter, preferring longer barrels, especially for longer targets and game. However, in the last three years, after the purchase of a lightweight 16 ga. AE Fox with 30" barrels (hey, I try to stay consistent) I found that I could not shoot it well at doves, initially. With a bit of experimentation I found that by using the method Rocketman described, slapping the trigger asap after cheek weld, my percentages on doves skyrocketed. But here's the kicker, it worked admirably even on very long shots. The method also worked with my little S x S .410s.
I believe this is something similar to Churchill's method. I once took a shooting lesson from the owner of Deep River Sporting Clays, Bill Kempffer. He showed me a method similar to Churchill's where you see no forward allowance, but the "lead" is provided by a strong forward movement of the gun. Ir worked well on the presentations he presented. When I got home I tried it on other long, fast presentations and it did not work. I abandoned it forthwith, with no regrets.
Though I am first and foremost a long barrel man, I've got no issues with short barrels in many situations. I've just never found any need for anything shorter than 28", with 30" barrels, struck light, being a very close runner.
SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,012 Likes: 1817
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,012 Likes: 1817 |
I've been trying to document his height without success; I think he was 5'6". His short arms certainly make the barrel appear longer. I used a scale and tried to make measurements based upon 25" barrels on Churchill's gun, (in that picture). If it was a 26" gun the numbers would be different. I found that, if those are 25" barrels, his height would be closer to 5' 1" than 5' 6". However, I understand that the way I did it is inexact, and could be an inch or two off. No argument here, just offering another view. SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
