Having spent a log time now testing guns of all ages from 1862 through to WW2 it struck me on Saturday as I shot my way through 92 woodpigeons (with a John Manton hammer (8lb) gun and a Westley Richards 'drop-lock' (6lb 12oz) that were feeding on some cut wheat fields, how quickly one feels whether a gun is a 'shooter' or not.
I'm not talking about fit here: it is a given that if the gun is a very poor fit, you will struggle to shoot well with it and will therefore not rate it very highly.
The factor that immediately sprung to mind was weight. A preperly balanced gun feels lighter than it is but a properly weighted gun absorbs recoil and steadies the shot, making each one more repeatable and rhythmic.
To put it bluntly, I have developed a dislike for lightweight guns. They tend to kick too much, even when loaded with 1oz (12-bore), they are less steady to shoot and less pleasant.
I have developed a preferance for a 12-bore that weights around 7lb; certainly no less than 6lb 10oz. as for the real lightweights - the 5lb 8oz and 6lb 12-bores - in my experience bloody awful to shoot for an extended period.
Don't mistake the issue of weight as meaning that I like big, agricultural chunks now - the gun has to be very well made and balanced, not just heavy. Plenty of heavy guns are not very nice to shoot because they have no 'life' in them.
What think you?
