[quote=Shotgunlover]"That said to best is first a gun that fits the shooter, properly choked for the shooter's style of shooting and type of game, 100% quality engraving, good wood, excellent to near prefect metal to metal and to wood fit, checkering done as near prefectly as can be seen, and balanced."[quote]
The "balance" part is a bit of a problem. There is no "balance" characteristic that is a summative for handling. Nope, none, nada. Balance is, indeed, one of four significant handling characteristics. It is the distance from the teeter-totter point to some reference; (front) trigger being the most convenient and useful. The other three are weight, unmounted swing effort, and mounted swing effort.
There has been a pervasive myth that "best" guns had some special, magical handling that was never duplicated in lessor guns. Nonsense. Any handling profile (set of the four characteristics) can be measured and then duplicated in another gun. The most sensible approach to handling is to think of the handling characteristics in the same way as a set of stock fit numbers. Unfortunately, the Brit gun trade, as well as all other trades and makers, failed to identify and measure swing efforts. So, they obsessed about weight and balance, the only handling numbers they measured. A lot of ink and paper were wasted on essays about the ideal weight and the optimum balance. Truth - there is no more one ideal/optimum handling than there is one optimum set of stock fit dimensions. Handling dimensions need to be fitted to the shooter just as much as do stock dimensions. BTW, the average Brit "best" game gun handling is as follows: 6 1/2# weight, 4 1/2" balance (forward of front trigger), 1.45 unmounted, and 6.4 mounted. Most shooters like lighter/lower/faster handling numbers but shoot better with heavier/higher/faster numbers.
Above said, handling is not an attribute unique to "best" guns.
DDA
