What Powell said "the Sidelock spreads its action and locks over almost twice the area of a Boxlock, hence it feels more alive in your hands.", does not jive with how I understand what Don Amos explained, concerning the moment of inertia, to me. I equate "alive in the hands" with the ability to move the gun easily about, at will, almost as if there was nothing in your hands and you were just pointing a finger, so to speak. This is accomplished by doing exactly the opposite of what Powell suggested. Concentrating the mass of the gun nearer the balance point has the effect of taking mass away from the extremities of the gun. It creates less resistance to the muscles moving the gun. In extreme cases it can lead to what one person may call "whippiness", or the quality that may cause one to wave the muzzles all about before they settle down on target.

The opposite scenario, lessening the mass at the balance point and moving it towards the ends (the muzzles and the butt), causes the gun to have greater resistance to moving from a static state, or changing direction. This can be a bad thing ........... or a good thing. I have a little 28" barreled .410 S X S that only weighs 4 - 14. Ordinarily one would assume it would be nearly impossible to shoot well, yet I found I could shoot it very well. I was a bit puzzled until Don (Rocketman) spun it for me on his turntable device and did some measurements. He told me that it even surprised him that the MOI was what it turned out to be, and that it was very close to that of a 12 ga. English game gun that would weigh considerably more. This was accomplished by using an aluminum alloy for the action frame, which lessened the mass near the balance point, and by leaving the barrels thicker nearer the muzzles, and also by stocking it for a full sized man, at roughly 14 3/4" LOP ............. thus shifting much of the mass from the center (balance point) towards the ends (muzzles and butt).

There is no disputing the numbers. The physics of this are not up for correction. The problem, IMO, comes when we try to assign terminology to how a gun feels. "Alive", "lively", "whippy", "quick", "alive in the hands" ........... as opposed to "sluggish", "heavy", "clumsy", "dead". Two people may never be able to agree on the proper adjectives to describe gun handling characteristics (because no two persons have the same muscle memory with shotguns), but to argue that dynamics are not greatly affected by internal weight distribution is akin to denying the sunrise. I consider my time spent with Don, and his MOI machine, at the top of the most enlightening times I have ever had in understanding gun handling. I've shot lots of shotguns in my life, at targets and game, including English best. I can find nothing "exclusive" about the way an English "best" handles, nor does it break targets or kill game any better than another make of gun. If beauty is where you find it, then I would advance that the perfect match for any one person, in a gun, is where you find it, too. Understanding the numbers can help you narrow that search, but ultimately it is how well you bond with that gun, and how much you shoot it. Once that "pearl" is located, one would be well advised to sell off whatever is necessary to acquire it, and then never let it go. The more you shoot it, the better the gun will "become".