S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,588
Posts546,766
Members14,425
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,206 Likes: 1179
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,206 Likes: 1179 |
One thing never mentioned when we talk about preferred drop measurements is the differences in facial features. The distance from the pupil down to the bottom of the cheekbone would seem, to me, to be the very minimum drop needed at comb to try and get a gun to shoot flat, or 50/50. Add to that the preference for some, like myself, to cheek very lightly the comb, and you may need to add a bit more to that distance.
It is 2 1/4" to 2 3/8" from the bottom of my cheekbone, where I would have the comb if I cheeked snugly, to the center of my pupil. That is DAC, mind you, not DAH. DAH is usually more, except with a parallel comb or Monte Carlo. So, you can see why I could shoot what some would consider excessive drop okay. If you prefer a gun with around 2 1/4" DAH, stand in front of a mirror with a tape measure or a ruler and measure that distance. It might be enlightening.
There are all kinds of differing facial measurements. They affect what we each need in stock measurements. I do not argue that some shoot 2 1/4" DAH very well, but they either don't have as long a distance from cheekbone to pupil as I, or they "float the bird" over muzzles.
SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 302
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 302 |
Makes you wonder where firearm weight and MOI fit in.
Out there doing it best I can.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,206 Likes: 1179
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,206 Likes: 1179 |
Makes you wonder where firearm weight and MOI fit in.
I don't follow you, CZ. DAH has nothing whatsoever to do with weight or MOI. Both those things are important in their own right, but the OP was referencing drop, not weight or dynamics. SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 302
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 302 |
It's all about hit or no hit, Stan.
None of that other stuff means diddly.
Out there doing it best I can.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,206 Likes: 1179
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,206 Likes: 1179 |
Of course it is. Did I give the impression that I concern myself with "drop" for any other reason?
What is the other stuff that is unimportant as it applies to hitting what we shoot at?
I really don't know now if you're being vague, or if I am just dense.
SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,988 Likes: 108
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,988 Likes: 108 |
I think drop at face which is defined by both drop at comb and drop at heel may be the most important dimension. Too much drop is terrible for me. I can shoot from the hip about as well as shouldering the gun if the gun has excessive drop. Also, its been explained to me (I think Daryl Halquist might have mentioned this) that cast equates somewhat to drop. Although I dont like too much drop, I do like some mild-mod cast. Having said all this, I had a gun once with 3 drop at heel, but a very high comb. I shot that gun fairly well, but it always felt very odd for me. I think the high comb was why the gun was almost ok for me, but Im not 100% sure. I like guns to shoot a little high. 50:50 isnt that great for me.
Socialism is almost the worst.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,206 Likes: 1179
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,206 Likes: 1179 |
I like guns to shoot a little high. 50:50 isnt that great for me. Me, too buzz. I like 60/40. SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,421 Likes: 198
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,421 Likes: 198 |
I think Stan and Buzz have defined it. I have several guns that have differing drop at comb and heel dimensions that I shoot well. The consistent dimension of the ones that I shoot well happen to have a 2" drop at face, with a length of pull and cast off that is in the ball park for me. Karl
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,007 Likes: 65
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,007 Likes: 65 |
Also, its been explained to me (I think Daryl Halquist might have mentioned this) that cast equates somewhat to drop. I wasn't going to open this can of worms, but this Parker has some cast-on (I shoot right handed), which may explain why it's giving me a workable sight picture. (for lack of a better term). I have to be a little conscious of getting the butt well into my shoulder pocket, but there it is. This gun will be fine for the range, but not my first choice for flushing birds requiring helter-skelter gun mounting.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 456 Likes: 149
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 456 Likes: 149 |
I shoot all kinds of dimensions with no trouble.
|
|
|
|
|