Doc, I find your emumerated statements convincing, particularly #5. Relatively low or narrow combs can "stand in" for cast; at least I always find G. T. Garwood's illustrated argument to that effect convincing when I read it. I can certainly take an "upright facial position" to get more eye elevation over the action and rib but that long fulcrum to the chin doesn't seem all that steady and sure. Never hear target shooters (no matter how spacey their ribs) saying "Keep the wood just lightly caressing the wood!" Seems to me if I crawl forward (as well as canting the face over) to get up forward on a low comb, I revert to the "bullethead" position which reduces distance eye to cheek and I'm once again looking at the toplever. From this disappointing result I have concluded that 2 1/2" comb and 3" heel are "historical" dimensions which aren't for thoroughly modern, short-faced little me. I saw something on the net which concluded that pupil to cheekbone distance in humans varies within a very restricted range. Has this always been true/ Did the phizs of old make the long face?
jack
