doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Churchill's 25" Barrels - Thoughts On

I really like my Churchill XXV 12 bore. It's not a "Premiere Grade" SLE, its a lowly Regal grade BLE. :-( I shoot it fairly well, right now its at the Stock Dr.'s shop getting a little southpaw flavor bent into its right-handed buttstock. Even with its "for right hand only" cast off dimensions, this Southy shoots it pretty stinkin good. I bought the XXV with the idea of it being my go to sharptail grouse gun and I think its gonna fill the niche nicely. Heck, it might even pull double duty on pheasants, quail, woodcock, ruffs, rabbits, or anything else I might be after. The Churchill XXV is balanced (well at least mine is anyway) to feel "right" in your hands. It is a very fast handling gun and really not designed for the "sustained" lead type of shooting so popular with "pre-mounted" target shooters. Its fast and gets on target quick, thats what I really like about the gun. For shooting birds over pointing dogs or even a close working flusher....The Churchill XXV is hard to beat.

Dustin

Maybe you never hunt woodcocks in woods hardly overgrown with shrubs. Nothing better, that 25's. Unfortunatly personally I can't shoot light 25" barrel guns, too swingy to me, that's why I sold my 25" Francotte SLE. But I know a lot of people doing it just fine.

The XXV's that I have handled did not feel that whipie. One was surprisingly heavy. Perhaps it was made to order and was intended for heavier loads where the weight would pay dividends in absorbed recoil. Might be a time to get out the MOA machine to check out the swing dynamics.

Talking of fashion and old timers.My father was very active and proficient in the art of wingshooting when Robert Churchill was at his zenith.You have to remember that Churchill was primarily a salesman not an artisan.My father regailed me with a story that the XXV was spawned as the result of an unfortunate accident to a customers gun that was being repaired in John Harpers works.(Many Churchill guns were made in Brum)Robert was not perplexed that the barrels had to be shortened to 25" and the choke removed as a result of the repairs required to the damaged gun and proceeded to 'sell' this modification to his customer.Who was delighted at the fast handling and killing ability of his now very individual gun.The power of the hard sell.
One can only speculate at how many Beretta's, Kemen & Perazzi's have been sold as the result of Digweed's prowess?
I have one of these short wands and use it for walked up over my dogs, I DON'T use it for tall driven pheasants, not because I can't more because I prefer a steadier swing on long birds.

A charming example of apocrypha. Doubtless your father regaled you with other fairy stories in your childhood!

One of the interesting aspects of the highly competitive London gun trade was the constant buzz of nasty stories being spread by supporters of one maker against another. You can find the same sort of rivalry BS between Ford and Chevy fans, or Colt and S&W enthusiasts.

I go along with Researcher that it was a clever marketing ploy. Whether it "works" for some people is an entirely different matter . . . but it was a means of selling guns, pure and simple.

Stop and think about what was happening to the British gun trade in the 20's, when Churchill brought out the XXV. As a result of WWI, the clientele for fine guns had been reduced considerably. And it's also very likely that the second hand market was flooded with 12's with 28" and 30" barrels. An entire generation of British manhood didn't come home from France, and the upper classes--the customer base for fine guns--were particularly hard hit. Would-be grandfathers without sons and grandsons to whom to pass on their guns. New guns like the ones on the second hand market would've been a tough sell, so gunmakers needed a gimmick: Churchill's XXV, the 2" 12, Lang's 12/20.

The gun was also a particularly good fit for Mr. Churchill himself, who was quite short and stout. Put such a gun in the hands of someone taller and slimmer, and you may not have such a good fit.

Larry Brown's theory is interesting, but has little basis in fact. The shorter barreled game gun was around well before WWI, and Churchill was not its first advocate. From the history of gunmaker Charles Hellis & Sons:




Certainly Mr. Brown should know that barrel length has little or nothing to do with gun fit. Good gun fitters measure the shooter and prescribe stock LOP, drop, cast, bend, pitch, balance, etc. I don't know how a fitter would measure a man for barrel length - it is simply a personal preference. Robert Churchill was a superb shot, and would have been so with any length gun with a stock that fit. If a man's height had anything to do with correct barrel length, Mr. Brown himself should be advocating shorter barrels.

The XXV was no mere "marketing ploy", any more than 28" or 30" barrels are marketing ploys. It is a design that works well for some and not for others, in some circumstances and not in others. It is a common but unfortunate trait of man that partisans tend to bad mouth anything that doesn't fit their own prejudices.

So those who don't shoot them "well" don't shoot them well at woodcock which don't fly true. Sounds like hydroponic gardening on a ship with no anti-roll stabilizers--the definition of sport.

jack

Jack, you have much in common with Robert Churchill. The late Gough Thomas on the subject: "When Robert Churchill introduced the distinctive type of short-barreled game gun now generally known as a 'XXV', he alienated much potential support by his sweeping claims and combative publicity."

Further, from Mr. Thomas on the issue of barrel length to an individual's physique: "Just as the modern low-roofed motor car is grossly unsuited to a really tall or long-bodied man, so is the short-barrelled gun to certain shooters . . . It would be regrettable if such a man succumbed to the lure of lightness and fast-handling quality to the detriment of his shooting . . . As ever, the stronger the fashionable trend, the more independence of mind and judgement is needed to assess its true worth in individual cases, and to resist it if need be."

And Jack, what you're missing--while trying to turn the discussion away from Churchill's 'XXV' to shorter-barrelled guns by other makers--is that Churchill, in Gough Thomas' words, promoted the gun through claims " . . . that there is some exclusive merit attaching to 25" barrels. This, of course, is absurd."

And this is the difference between Churchill's XXV and guns with 28" or 30" barrels. No one tried to sell those guns as having some "exclusive merit" due only to barrel length. So indeed, Churchill was using barrel length as a marketing gimmick. There's nothing wrong with that, but we should recognize it for what it was--while indeed recognizing that XXV's do work well for some shooters and not for others.

And Jack, while I don't have the height to be a basketball star, I believe I am somewhat taller--and am positive that at my heaviest a good bit less rotund--than Mr. Churchill himself. The fact that he could doubtless outshoot me with his gun is no more relevant than the fact that I outshot you at the UP Shoot with a gun that had 28" barrels. It was a handicap I was somehow able to overcome . . .

Be nice guys!