doublegunshop.com - home Forums Thread Like Summary - Question about gunfit and specifically...drop.

Gentlemen: as guns evolved, stocks seem to have grown longer and to have less drop (at both the comb and the heel) than what you would generally see in many 19th century firearms. One would presume that this has been caused by several things, but mostly by changing demographics (caused by better diets, less destructive lifestyles at work, perhaps different genetics(?) and thus a changing physiology of shooters).

I know very-well now what my measurements are for my game guns: my question is this....how much drop can a person tolerate before it becomes an issue? I have been told by some very-credible people that a gun with little or no drop will be a big issue for me (I'm a 1 1/2 comb and a 2 1/2 heel fellow normally) but...I know I've shot guns with seemingly much-more drop that didn't seem to be so bad.

What does the cognoscenti here say about this one?

An interesting conversation which I am afraid will never have a satisfactory conclusion.
We need to factor in what type of shooting we are doing , Trap , Skeet, Walked up , Fixed Peg Game shooting etc.
We only need to view the differing stock styles and shapes to see that no one size or style suits all of us.

Important that the eye is aligned correctly with the rib.

There was a book "Shotgun Shooting: Techniques and Technology" by John Brindle published about 40 years ago which went into some detail about the different evolutions of gunstock shape and fit for different disciplines in some detail. Perhaps rather dated now, and mainly line drawings rather than photographs, it is nevertheless quite interesting top those interested in the historical developments.

Anyone interested in gunstock fit owes it to themselves to buy a copy of this book. It is head and shoulders above anything I've ever read on the subject. $26.95 new, on Amazon.

Drop is the dimension that is the most easily adapted to, IMO. However, I can shoot guns with too much drop much better than I can one with too little. A little more erect stance will accommodate a gun with lots of DAH, 2 3/4" to 3". Over 3" and I'm out. My best DAH is 2 5/8". I'm not a trap shooter and have no use for guns with less than 2 7/16" DAH. I want the gun to shoot where I look. I don't want to have to "float the bird" to accommodate a gun that is stocked too straight, and refuse to do so.

To clarify my favorite dims, I am 6' 2", 174#, with a slender face and build. Yeah, I gained about 8-10 lbs. over the winter. I prefer to be at about 165#. Holiday season and all ..........

The recent thread concerning Wm. Powell & Sons made me recall a similar gun by the same maker that I was pursuing years ago. If ever a gun fit me, it was that one. Stocked higher at the comb and a longer LOP it was a dream to handle. Sadly, the $$
weren’t available to complete the transaction. For the most part vintage guns don’t fit me very well.

Lloyd,
I don’t think you and I could be much more different, physically. That said, I shoot 1 1/2” and 2 1/2” drops, same as you. But, a gun at 2 3/4” DAH is still OK for me. If it goes the other way, say, 2 1/4” DAH, I’m out.

I have passed on some lovely guns that had high dimension, 2 1/8” seems to be a number I have seen on some really nice stuff. But, I know better.

Best,
Ted

I am average build 5'10" and 180 lbs but must have long arms because I am more comfortable shooting a long stock 15 1/8" lop and high drop at heel, 2 1/8" to 2 1/4" but feel drop at face is most important and often overlooked pitch. A gun with a sharp toe will come up and throw the barrels high. I had an old Purdey with more drop than I normally use and at times I shot it really well without realizing I was keeping my head very upright. No recoil since my head was very light on the stock , if at all. I was just very inconsistent. I wanted to shoot it well so bad I convinced myself I could. Eventually I faced the truth.

Yep. One variant and very commonly used by Inanimate Target shooters



Ewing and Beattie of Canada with Lefevers; Gold & Silver at the 1908 London Olympic Games



Others wore a glove on the leading hand



And the Rowley pad was specifically marketed to raise the DAC



A special determination was made prior to the 1898 GAH at Live Birds, when gun weight was still limited to 8#
Sporting Life, John L. Lequin. secretary of the Interstate Association, writes us under date of Feb. 25, 1898 as follows:
“We have received inquiries from most all directions recently from a number of shooters who are probably desirous of entering the Grand American Handicap next month, concerning the weight of guns, and whether the handhold and recoil pad will be counted as a part of the gun when weighed. The subject has been placed before the Tournament Committee of the association, which committee has decided that the guns will be weighed naked.”

That “naked” would be minus Hand Guard, Rowley Pad, or recoil ‘boot’.

Drop at heel is a very insignificant dimension. Your cheek is much closer to the comb. A Monte Carlo stock usually has a much lower drop at heel than a standard straight stock. The Monte Carlo puts the butt of the stock in the middle of the shoulder pocket where it belongs.

You may shoot them better in a pigeon race, but, you wouldn’t in a Grouse woods. If Boss, Purdey, H & H, et al could have demonstrated otherwise, you would have had Monte Carlo stocks on a game gun.

They didn’t.

Best,
Ted

Static shooting at incoming birds compared to walked up shooting raises interesting points. In static shooting it would seem easier to "crawl" the stock and adopt a "style". Walking, expecting to see game flush, mounting from a low gun position while visually tracking the bird interferes with remembering to apply all the shooting school finer points like head position and footwork. Maybe that explains the greater DAH dimension of older guns.

Don't forget Greeener came up with the Rational Stock back in the day. A hogback that did the same thing as a Monte Carlo. Fashion plays a much larger part than we want to admit. That and the changes of the human body as it changes and the habits and form of a shooter changes. Too high and too long are harder to shoot than short and too much drop. Add into that that an veteran shooter can adapt to many slight changes in dimension But a stock that "fits" on a day or for a season can make magic happen.

Amen. It's fun when that happens.

Shooters too often accept stock dimensions that hamper them in shooting well. I've been anal about it for the last 25 years or so, even to the point of building my own 4' X 4' steel patterning plate, in order to determine where each gun is shooting for me and whether or not it is regulated with the load in question. I have a few shotguns that have dimensions that aren't right for me, but I add length (and drop) to them to get them to shoot acceptably. When you are dealing with a gun with a sloping comb, and add length, it places your cheek farther to the rear (down the slope), which adds effective DAF (drop at face), which is what really counts. The reason they are not permanently altered is because I'm reticent to cut off a beautiful checkered butt, or nice heel and toe plates, to add a recoil pad. So, I just lace on my KickKiller leather pads.