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 . . .
