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

Not quite true. Here's what Thomas actually said:

So Thomas says a lower-cost XXV boxlock or even a cheaper imported copy delivers handling qualities comparable to "best" guns with longer barrels. I think most of us would consider that an inherent, practical advantage.

Thomas called 25" guns:
Delivery from excess gun weight and length - when you get to my age, Larry, I think you'll find that an inherent, practical advantage!

Gough Thomas also wrote:
Apparently he saw some advantage.

Jack, can an elderly gent like you be expected to recall what it felt like to shoot a specific gun 25 years ago?

Again, per Thomas--himself a "convert", although not of the doctrinaire variety--the XXV is a gun with "little originality and no true invention", which is not "everybody's gun". A "logical choice" does not mean the best choice for everyone, or even a majority of shooters. (And nothing like a majority of sxs shooters has ever embraced the XXV concept.) Excess weight doesn't necessarily have anything to do with barrel length. I have a pair of British boxlock 12's that weigh 6 1/4#, with 28" barrels. There are a lot of shorter-barreled sxs out there that weigh more. Speed in action can be an advantage or disadvantage. Generally speaking, a lighter gun with shorter barrels is faster getting started, but also easier to stop. One reason the trend in target guns for all games runs to longer barrels is that where swing is important, more weight and barrel length help most people. Were that not true, the trend in target guns would be to shorter barrels. (And interestingly enough, the current trend in game guns--especially the very light smallbores--is away from barrels as short as 26", never mind 25".)

Jack, do you have any figures on the volume of early Churchill sales? Would you not say that the bulk of those sales--and in fact a higher yearly AVERAGE of sales--occurred in the 1920's and later, rather than prior to that date? I note that from your own information, Churchill was adding workers . . . in 1922, which is certainly in the 1920's. And the velocity tests conducted by "The Field" took place in 1925. Figures I have showed that E.J. Churchill sold an average of 67 guns annually from 1900-24; that average increased to 123 guns annually from 1925-57, a period that included both the Great Depression and WWII. To me, that's evidence of a very successful marketing campaign, during a generally flagging period in the British gun trade (as McIntosh indicated in his quote).

And finally . . . if the XXV isn't simply a marketing ploy--and I have yet to see any proof of GENERAL advantage, like that of the Model 21's strength or the Super Fox's patterns, rather than an individual shooter's preferences in barrel length--that would mean that the XXV also has some sort of demonstrable advantage over the many guns Churchill also made, with other barrel lengths. Personally, I believe that Churchill quality was high across the board, regardless of barrel length--but promoting the XXV was simply a way of attaining greater market share in a highly competitive and flagging market.

Churchill was a very clever businessman, Jack, whose company prospered when many others in the industry were failing. Were that company still in business, you'd likely have a good career as one of his salesmen.

I have handled (but not shot, sadly) a couple of Churchill XXV bests in the last month or two - one a 12, the other a 20; both were superb guns, made to fit and balance well rather than being whippy. I did notice that the 12's muzzles looked quite thick, and probably had thick barrel walls to maintain a good balance. Less inertia out in front seemes to offer good pointability. I am, for reference, shorter and stockier than the average; your mileage, may, of course, vary, but I really enjoyed handling them.
Where does all this talk of barrel length leave W.W. Greener's pronouncement (himself prone to self-aggrandisement too) that 40 calibres is an ideal barrel length? We're back to 29 inches for a 12 again! I personally like the idea of barrel length being proportionate to bore diameter, but is 40 the magic number? (Woodwards are often that length...)
RG

Sorry for the delay, Thorny... I was on a shooting trip. Shot 400 targets. Used four diferent guns (which I have to clean, only downside), shot 5 different clay target games, each game demanding somewhat different techniques unique to that game. So, as well as adjusting to different guns, we (it's an avid group of all-around shooters) have to adjust our styles a bit for each different gun we CHOOSE to use. This is the whole fun of what we do... variety and challenge. This takes time, resources, and dedication. You have to WANT to acquire the necessary skills.

I pulled targets while a 70+ year old guy shot a very respectable score on a difficult 5-stand... with a Model 42.

Some of our top guns were humbled by the Crazy Quail, I had a chance to shoot a line of doubles skeet with a RBL, and one guy there loves to shoot so much he was shooting essentialy one handed while a bum shoulder heals up.

We were not always shooting the 'correct' equipment, nor shooting the 'correct' game since driven grouse are scarce in Michigan. Our attire was a mixed lot at best, I even shoot in blue jeans and of course no necktie or breeks. Horrors, and at the height of the social season too!

So, there is no 'correct' tool for the shooting my group gets the most pleasure from. The closest might be the Remington 1100 with a set of interchangeable barrels. Personally, I would be a better shooter if that's all I used, but that's not the point.

You need to get out in the real world, Thorny, and do some shooting. It's a wonderful sport with great people and if you're bored with it, it's your own fault.

Well one thing seems certain aboout the Churchill XXV - it is still capable of arousing hot debate among shooters!

Think again. The first 25" Churchill was made in 1913, I have already cited production of an XXV in 1914, and Masters' book says many 25" guns were produced by Churchill by the middle of the war (1916). So by the 1920s they were certainly not a "new gimmick."

Churchill's first public pronouncement on the merits of the 25" gun was not until 1920, seven years after his first 25" gun. His trademark 'XXV' was not advertised until 1925 - 11 years after he first applied the mark to a set of barrels. That's an incredibly slow roll-out, if the gun was a marketing ploy "pure and simple."

Like playing 'Whac-A-Mole,' knocking down specious claims with solid fact is fun at first, but eventally it becomes repetitive and tedious. Now it is no longer worth the bother. As Housman's Shropshire Lad said (LXII), `Terence, this is stupid stuff.'

Our friend 'salopian,' good Shropshire lad that he is, had the grace to admit that his charming tale failed to fit with known facts. Mr. Brown goes on, and on, and on.

Well Jack, what's very clear through all these back and forths is that size really DOES matter to you. And the shorter, the better. No little blue pills chez Maloney.

The Winchester Model 12 was introduced in 1912, right? The first guns were 20ga with 25" barrels. The overall length would be a bit longer than a double, but the ballistic issue seems to have been worked out by then.

I shoot a 12 gauge 26" Winchester Mdl. 21 that is almost unfair on quail, and a 12 gauge 28" Mdl. 21 IC/M for pheasant that seems just about right. The 26" is a bit quicker but other than that if there is any difference it is probably between my ears.

FWIW (probably not much, if anything), I own a Bernardelli Gamecock 20 gauge with 25 inch barrels. It weighs no more than 6 pounds.

For a number of years, it was the only shotgun I owned and I shot birds, hunted deer with slugs (didn't shoot both barrels anywhere near the same point of aim) and shot skeet with it. Not the perfect tool for any of those tasks, but it worked fine as long as I practiced with it regularly. It was only after I began shooting true target guns that I realized how light and whippy the Gamecock was. I have some trouble with it now, but that's a result of having a number of longer, heavier, target style shotguns with weight forward that make it much harder to stop the gun. I'm out of practice with the little lightweight.

I suspect that a British shooter using nothing but a Churchill 25 inch game gun got very good with it and shot enough to overcome whatever inherent limitations that exist in a short, lightweight gun.

By the way, the Bernardelli carries like a wand and is still a great poke and shoot shotgun for the grouse woods.