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

Don - I have attempted 3 times to PM the answer for you, but my PMs aren't going through. To post this, I'll have to explain it in reverse order so the codes won't be recognized as codes.

To close a quote, type [/quote] at the end.

To open a quote, type [quote] at the beginning. For an attributed quote, type [quote=Don Moody]

Hope that helps!

Five years ago at the Vintagers, Millbrook,NY, Churchill had a display of their new guns. I had the opportunity to meet and talk to Don Masters. I remember our discussion re: the XXV and it's handeling merits - I personally had always wanted a Churchill XXV. His comments to me was that I should consider a 28" barrel model and not the XXV - I'm 6'4" with a 37" sleeve length.

The current fad for long barrels is of no more merit than the previous fad for short ones.

It just means that people were cutting down 30" barrels in the 1950s and now they are sleeving 28" guns to 32" because people will buy what is in fashion.

Remember when people were sleeving perfectly good 16-bores to 20-bore because of fashion?

Just musing a bit off track....

I do not think its possible to fit a man over 6' tall with a 25-26" barreled gun - make that a 20b. - and you'd need some tights, tutu and leg warmers to go with that little wand.
Fashion demands 28-30" barrels - otherwise it'd look like your carrying a toad.

Lowell, I'm 6'3", weigh well over 250, and can't buy long sleeve shirts off the rack. I shoot a 26" barreled gun as well as anything at skeet. I've shot 25 straight trap targets with a 26" barreled M-21 skeet gun. The same gun works just fine for five stand, and pheasants over pointers.

We have a very good lady shooter at our club who shoots nothing but 32" barreled guns. She has short arms, and holds her left hand just in front of the trigger guard. It looks as goofy as I probably look shooting a short barreled gun. Ask us if we care.

The barrel length is just part of the gun. The most important component is the nut behind the stock.

Well said Jonesy.

Yes, very well said.
The down playing of short barrels is very over done, as well as the touting of long barrels. They both have their place. They were neather one ment to cover all types of hunting or shooting.

at the end.

To open a quote, type

Thanks, Jack.

Well Jack, it's more than just "one gun writer" (and several people on this thread) suggesting that barrel length was simply a marketing ploy. Michael McIntosh on the subject:

"In the 1920's and 30's, when 28 and 30 inch barrels were standard far among game guns worldwide, Churchill insisted that 25 inches was plenty. Although the whole thing was largely an attempt to create something new that his company, E.J. Churchill, could use to advantage in a flagging gun market, he was right--ballistically, at least."

McIntosh also commented on the rather interesting logic behind the Churchill rib: "He also designed a special rib . . . intended to give the illusion that the barrels are longer than they actually are. The illusion actually does work, but the concept belies the basic premise of short barrels: If short barrels are so good, what's the need in making them look longer?"

And finally, back to Mr. Thomas--who, on a personal level, was an admirer of Churchill's guns. "I count myself among his converts, but not as a doctrinaire convert, for I am sure that the XXV is not everybody's gun." And Jack, you might learn objectivy from this fellow convert of yours (although you appear to be of the "doctrinaire" variety): " . . . there was little originality and no true invention in his 'XXV' gun . . . " So you see, it's quite possible to recognize something for what it was (a marketing ploy) and still admire it . . . without resorting to deflection from the subject at hand (the merits of Churchill's 25" barrels). Indeed, he made fine guns, and his marketing ploy worked very well in the "flagging gun market" to which McIntosh and I both referred. And they would have been (and are) fine guns, even when they don't have 25" barrels. But they would not have sold as well, and that's what the XXV was all about. And making one's company successful, even if that success didn't hinge on any "true invention", is plenty to be proud of.

Good thing we have objective, non-doctrinaire converts--like Thomas--to listen to on the subject.

Really? What ever gives you that idea, Larry? I am neither a "convert" (from what to what?), nor do I adhere to any "doctrine." My earlier statement on Churchill's XXV makes this clear:
Personal characterizations (and mis-characterizations) contribute nothing of value to honest discussion, or to this board.