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

Diggory, they ARE being nice.

jack not maloney

Larry, you suggest that the XXV was designed for the post-WWI "British gun trade in the 20s." You were wrong; the Hellis article clearly states that Churchill made a prototype in 1914, when no one could have anticipated the course or outcome of that war.

You argue that that the shorter barrels were a new "gimmick" because "the second hand market was flooded with 12s with 28" and 30" barrels." But Hellis had been selling shorter-barreled guns more than a decade earlier.

You suggest that barrel length should somehow be determined according to the shooter's height or girth. I doubt there is a respected gun fitter who would agree with that.

Your quote from Gough Thomas about "the modern low-roofed motor car" being "grossly unsuited to a really tall or long-bodied man" is rather dated - cars today are considerably lower-roofed than in Thomas' time, and suit people who are - on average - taller. Do selective quotes from Gough Thomas have any value? Here's one: "there are good practical arguments for barrels shorter than 28 inches."

No one denies that Churchill was a salesman, and a pugnacious one. When he introduced his XXV, other gunmakers attacked it in the Field. They argued that the XXV's shorter barrels would deliver insufficient shot velocity - in other words, they too believed there was "some exclusive merit attaching" to certain barrel lengths. In the end, Churchill proved their arguments wrong, but his combative defense of the XXV made a lot of enemies in the process.

What Mr. Churchill needed to do was couple the 25" barrels with the perfect load of the 28 gauge. Two myths in one would be a real feat. I have had more than one "expert" explain to me that the 28 is a perfect square load, which it is not. Other "experts" explained to me how short barrels are better than long barrels. To each their own.

Short barrels positively, factually, do only one thing-hurt your ears.
Best,
Ted

When shooting in volume, as in targets, or even hunting where it is practical one simply needs to use ear protection. Considering that a shotgun uses a fast type of powder & even with a 25" bbl has an expansion ratio in excess of 50:1, while a .30-06 for instance will use a much slower burning powder & have a ratio of less than 10:1. I doubt within reasonable limits bbl length of a shotgun will make much difference as to ear damage. I have done a good bit of shooting under hunting conditions with a 26" bbl'd 12ga & never noticied any unusual effect. On the other hand a GI .45ACP, now that's a different proposition.
As to build of the shooter, it would seem to me to be rather obvious a short armed person is not as apt to support the gun as far out as a long armed one, & thus will quite often be better served by a slightly shorter gun, or at least with a balance point nearer the rear, than will a long armed shooter. I am only around 5'8" with rather short arms & find few guns having 28" bbls that do not give me all the forward inertia "I" need, as do many 26" ones. Anyone who thinks 32" tubes are a "Necessity" can have my extra 4"-6" & put them where-ever they find "Handy", we're just not all made alike.

You write 25's off too early. It will be on top very soon again, because everything in this world cycle by spire
Ted, I didn't notice 25's hurts my ears, 20" barreled rifle really did.

Jack, the fact that Churchill built his prototype in 1914 is irrelevant. There was not a lot of sporting gun production in England during WWI. It wasn't until after the war that Churchill began a significant publicity campaign for the gun (mainly because he didn't have any significant number to sell, nor did he have any significant number of potential buyers until then).

The fact that Hellis had been selling guns with 26" barrels earlier is also irrelevant. You keep missing the point, Jack, which is that Churchill clearly assigned "exclusive merit" to his choice of 25" barrels--even breaking with the British tradition of using barrels in even inch increments rather than odd ones. And the proponents of longer barreled guns did not believe that there was "exclusive merit" inherent in longer barrels OF A SPECIFIC LENGTH. There was never such an uproar, for example, between a maker that touted 28" vs one that touted 30". Their only claim was that longer barrels produced higher velocities--which they do, although the advantage is minimal, as established in tests which also involved Churchill's XXV's.

Gough Thomas is the one who suggests the relationship between a shooter's build and barrel length. For years, the British trade regarded anything other than a 12 as a woman's or youth's gun--based largely on lighter gun weight for a lighter individual. So why not shorter barrels for a shorter individual (as 2-Piper also suggests)--and of course shorter barrels generally reduce weight also.

The facts remain, Jack: There were fewer buyers of fine guns immediately after the war than before, because a lot of those potential buyers never came back from France. There were more guns (with longer barrels) on the second-hand market. So whether the XXV had any "exclusive merit"--which, as Thomas points out, is an absurd claim--suggesting that it did and using that as a marketing ploy was a clever sales pitch on Mr. Churchill's part. The only merit the XXV has is relative to the needs, wants, and taste of the potential buyer in question--which is also true of a gun with any other barrel length.

It is relevant when someone conjectures that the gun was a "pure and simple" marketing ploy for the unforeseeable post-WWI market.

It is relevant when someone conjectures that the XXV's shorter barrels were a "new gimmick" in the 1920s because of all the 28" and 30" guns on the market.

That may now be your point, Larry. You introduced it, and no one else here has been arguing it. Perhaps it is irrelevant.

Jack Maloney,
I never wish to get into a war of words with anyone, and this is not the start.Perhaps you should read from page 104 of my friend the late Don Masters's book 'The House of Churchill'.Don clearly refutes my allegations but then goes on (in my opinion) to acknowledge that maybe there is no smoke without fire.He actually states that John Harper promoted the story.If that was the case why did Mr. Churchill continue to use Harper's services.
But I think we are going off the point of the thread.
I really do believe that knowing Churchill as I did it was a marketing ploy, to cover up a faux paux.
And as Geno said, it may well soon be back round again.

It is often overlooked that Churchill did not just offer XXV barrels, he also designed a 'natural' stock to go with it and coached ashooting style which suited the whole gun.

Of course short barrels were nothing new, Greener wrote of producing shotguns with 24" barrels to order in 1875. The 'XXV concept' was more than lopping off afew inches of steel.

I regularly shoot best English shotguns with barrels ranging from 32" to 25" and of all types. Some shoot well, others do not. As I said earlier, a best Churchill XXV Premiere is a crackingly effective gun in the right conditions if used as intended.

I am familiar with the story Salopian mentioned and I do not think it is backed up by the balance of the evidence on the history of the XXV development. That is just my personal opinion.

I happen to be of the opinion that 28" is the best 'all round' length for the barrels of a sporting shotgun that has to do everything. Longer and shorter barrels have their place and either will be better than another in certain circumstances.

This debate prompted me to check my gun cabinet - I have gus with the following lenght barrels: 25, 25 1/4, 26, 28, 29, 29 1/2, 30.

I have shot things with all of them.