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:
From as early as 1900 Charles Hellis advocated the use of barrels which were shorter than the recognised standard of 30”, and was met by the opposition of most of the gunmakers of that time. One notable exception to this was Robert Churchill who built his prototype “XXV” game gun in 1914. The firm continually recommended the use of shorter gun barrels and in later years up to 95% of their guns had 26” barrels as standard, with any other length to special order.
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.
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.
