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

Salopian I agree, except I would sign it "PT Barnum"

Mike

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

Drew,
As always, you come up with some great historical references.

My experience shooting the old "big drop" guns makes me mount them with the comb on my jaw rather than my cheekbone as with a "modern dimensioned" gun. I can only surmize that this was the method of the day. I can't shoot them any other way.

Fred Gilbert, “The Wizard of Spirit Lake,” shortly after winning the Du Pont World's Pigeon Champion in 1895, was appointed traveling representative for both Du Pont and Lefever, shooting one of the company’s doubles. Very soon, Lefever was receiving orders for trap and pigeon guns with "Fred Gilbert Specifications": drop at comb of 1 3/8 inches; at the heel, 2 inches; length from trigger to heel, 14 1/4 inches; trigger to toe 14 1/2 inches; and trigger to center of butt 14 inches; with a full pistol grip and 30-inch full choke barrels.
He switched to a L.C. Smith in 1897, and then Parker in 1902, shooting his 32" Parker double the rest of his career.

I would add two items to the mix regarding lots of drop and the heads-up shooting style.

There was a very nice book titled "The Grand American" put out about ten years ago. It includes a number of undated pictures that I suspect were taken ca. 1890-1900, and I also suspect they were at live bird shoots. In most of those pictures the gents don't have their cheeks anywheres close to the comb. It's the head high & crooked stock scenario.

In roughly the 1930-1955 time period the "American Rifleman" magazine had three or four articles dealing with field shooting wherein the authors were promoting what I interpretted as a rapid, almost violent throw of the gun to the shoulder. Speed was paramount and when the gun hit the shoulder the shooter was supposed to be looking at the target. No mention of hand, foot, or cheek placement, no mention of sight picture. It was just instictive spot shooting. I remained mystified until I read Askins.

Height and weight statistics:
24 year old American soldier in 1860
5’ 8” and 147#
All American men 20-74 years in 1960
5’ 8” and 166.3#
All American men 20-74 years in 2002
5’ 9 1/2” and 191#
50th percentile for American 25 year old in 2002
5’ 10” and 168#

I'm amazed height changed little from 1860 to 1960, and not surprised about the increased weight, esp. 1960 to 2002.

5E
The problem with about any pic before 1910 or so is that almost all were studio pics and posed, like this about 1897 of Rolla Heikes with his L.C. Smith



Charles Grimm with his Smith



Lots of pics here http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/21690841

Here's a poor resolution c. 1900 possibly "live action" shot at the traps

Drew, one of your photos illustrates the case I made for the "heads up" shooting position when hunting. Notice the dramatically different head positions in the two photos. Either one is a matter of habit. I just prefer the first one and find it much more comfortable and a whole lot faster. I can also shoot a shorter LOP with the heads up position.

Might not splinter forends be a contributing factor to drop preferences? Is it coincidence that many sxs's with "modern" dimensions also sport beaver tail forends and/or raised ribs?

It isn't the same to have the front hand 2 plus inches below the sight plane versus directly under the barrels. Gun fit isn't all in the butt. Maybe "modern" dimensions get muddled with O/U dimensions?

I don't think sxs's and O/U's should have the same drop and I don't think I'm alone on this. Maybe big drop was reasonable all along for reasons other than shooting styles and clays vs. real birds.