I don't know about you, but I have noticed certain guns just feel good, and feel 'right'. I recently bought a Beretta A400 parallel target with 32" barrels and it is that way. I also shoot it extremely well (after some minor shim adjustments and after taking a file to the worlds worst trigger). I can't put my finger on why this gun feels so good?? I have seen and have owned far better and more expensive competition guns, but rarely do I find one that feels as good as this very affordable Beretta automatic. Odd.
It's blend of good weight distribution in a gun that is not too heavy. Personally I like light weight coupled with long barrels.
It's the 'Italian formula'.
The key is the 'lively' front end.
The Beretta automatic series has been evolving for a long time.
The 391 was very popular, and with good reason. The R&D people are the guys responsible for the excellent handling of these guns. They simply did their homework very well, and clearly involved 'average Giuseppe' in the final equation. Most everyone shoots a Beretta auto well, and they make a great general purpose shotgun. Their only flaw is called 'bent carrier syndrome' and fortunately is fixable with a drop in aftermarket part.
I recently traded for a Tekny's model 391, and fortunately it came with a good trigger at 3 lbs. 12 oz. This is not always so, but Rich Cole can tune a trigger for you easily.
Another benefit is the easy parts and service available for these guns.
I enjoy all makes and styles but on a longish and challenging SC course I usually select the Beretta auto or Cynergy Sport, another natural pointer with a lively barrel set.
A nice wipe down with G-96 after running a hundred straight.
Ahhh! Guns that "feel" good when you pick them up. I hate that!!
I was recently traveling your good country and found time to stop into a gunshop or two. I picked up a nice little 16 gauge in one of the shops and it "felt" great! Just what I like and it had some other desirable attributes.
However it also has some problems that mean it's a "project" gun if I bought it and the last thing I need is another "project" gun. So I'm trying to convince myself not to buy it and running out of objections!
My old mantra...."This will be awesome when I've got it the way I like it!" I have five of those in the safe or with smiths now!
I believe with D. Amos' spinner, you could find them sight unseen.
No question that I shoot a slow MOI gun better for the first 100, then a faster gun better for the second.
I believe with D. Amos' spinner, you could find them sight unseen.
No question that I shoot a slow MOI gun better for the first 100, then a faster gun better for the second.
Yes. Don has been able to quantify the answer to your question and built a remarkable machine to measure it.
If you find a gun that fits never part with it. I have a 12 bore Lancaster sidelock made circa 1911 with 29 inch barrels that seems to just be an extension of my mind. If I could have that magic formula transferred to every other gun I would be a happy man indeed. Lagopus.....
I may be different from most. I don't notice when a gun "feels good" as much as I notice when one feels really bad.
What sets a gun apart, for me, is when I can pick it up after a long separation from it and crush the first pair with it, or fold the first shot of the season on doves. It has to fit pretty well to do that, and I admit that I work hard on that with my using guns.
One thing is for certain, with me. It has nothing at all to do with weight. My Perazzi MX8 weighs 9 lbs. 3 oz., and it shoots great for me. But, I also shoot my 20 ga. Beretta 687 SP II Sporting extremely well, and it comes in at 6 lbs. 5 oz.
Go figure.
SRH
I owned mostly American built doubles and a few Spanish, Italian and German doubles but I have never felt anything that even remotely compares to that William Evans 16 gauge I shouldered. Perfection.
IMO, there are three main factors in "feels good." They are stock fit, handling fit, and "in the hands feel." Stock fit is based on length measurements needed to properly position the aiming eye. Handling is based on weight, teeter-totter balance, and swing efforts, both unmounted and mounted. Feel comes from the size, shape, and texture of the grip areas.
The more closely the gun satisfies all three the better it feels. The snag in the foregoing is learning what numbers really want/need. One of the big hitter problems is determining whether you will be shooting for fun or seriously trying to hit targets. For example, I find properly (for me) stocked game guns with splinter forearm and svelt wrist to be a delight. However, I shoot pigeon/light fowlers better.
DDA
when you shoulder a gun, guess what it weighs...if your guess is significantly less than the guns actual weight that is a good indicator that the gun feels good...
I couldn't agree more. For me, LOP is not such a simple dimension to ascertain. With this particular Beretta, I'm finding a slightly shorter LOP than what I am accustomed to is better for me. In addition, the extremely light recoil of this particular gun is a huge bonus.
Don's point is often overlooked. What feels good, and is a delight to handle, often is not what we shoot best.
What is the point of handling and using a shotgun if it is not to hit what we shoot at? Don's system of measuring the characteristics of shotguns allows one to choose a gun that can be shot well, regardless of how it may "feel".
There were girls that made me feel good, but they wouldn't have been what I needed over the long haul. Fortunately for me I found one that did both, and it has lasted for 46 years.
SRH
That's poetic re the girls, Stan. Wish I could have said that 1st. But, the Beretta is a tool for me, to crush clay targets. It's a bonus that it feels good. And it's ugly....no kidding and with a funky blue colored receiver, not like a pretty girl, but again, a tool.
how it looks an how it feels is most important if you aint gonna shoot it...
however, if it shoots where you point it, then all else is tolerated...
Ugly indeed.
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
I think they are very good looking guns.
Cole will make you up one in any color Cerakote you prefer, complete with Briley speed closure and op handle to match. He claims a 3.5 lb. trigger is supplied also.
I'm thinking about ordering up a white one, and having a well known custom motorcycle artist do it up in hot rod flames.
I'm thinking about ordering up a white one, and having a well known custom motorcycle artist do it up in hot rod flames.
You'd better be able to shoot it lights out if you're gonna carry around a flamed shotgun. If you can't you might get some jibes about "all show and no go" .............. remember that line from the 60s about hot rods?
I prefer sleepers. Buddy of mine won a fairly large S X S event at a big sporting clays tournament once shooting a beat up Parker with the forend held on with black electrical tape. He outshot a Purdey in a shoot off for HOA. Now, that is fun.
SRH
I know you like your Beretta Stan, but one that has always worked very well for me in 20 gauge is the XS Sport.
Mine is 30" unported (most of them were ported).
Weighs exactly 7 pounds, and has probably the best overall dynamics I've ever run across.
K-20 has better triggers (which is the only reason for the existence of Krieghoff in my opinion), but scales 3/4 pound heavier than the Browning.
The K-20 handles well, but the Browning XS is better.
They hit the mark with that model, but apparently were not happy with the profit margin. The XS is simply the best of the Citori models, when they can be found without the misguided porting feature.
Shooting well at clay targets isn't quite the same as shooting well at game.
I advocate buying dozens of shotguns so as to make the daily choice as difficult as possible, as well as to provide a ready selection of excuses for when misses accrue.
34" semi auto target guns are difficult to use in the woods.
Mostly because how they are typically used on the range is a slower, much more deliberate style of shooting.
I know when I grip a stock if my wrist will swell from recoil, and I know when the comb arrives at my cheek if recoil will give me a headache. I know from the feel of the butt against my shoulder if it's too long or too short for me.
And of course, experience and the regular use of the tape, show's me that is true.
Of course there is some latitude, but not meters of it.
"Shooting well at clay targets isn't quite the same as shooting well at game."
Sounds a bit like the British sour grapes after getting whipped by there lessers in the 1901 Anglo-American match
The Country Life (London)
When it goes forth to the world that the Americans have beaten the Englishmen, in a team match of ten shooters each, in three test matches, and the Americans did this with one barrel, whereas the Englishmen used two, the prestige of this country will not be improved as a shooting nation. In one sense it will suffer rightly enough; in another, it will be a quite unfair inference. In watching the performance of the Americans, good shots that they are, the writer could only feel that if it were necessary to shoot in that style, it would be better to give up shooting altogether.
A good game shooter would not consider that his ability was tested in its most important points when the game always rose at one spot in front of him, in the way it did in this Anglo-American competition. Even when several rises are used, as they are occasionally under the system called ‘unknown traps and angles,’ the limitation of rise and of angle is too great to be considered first rate practice for game shooting.
At clay bird competitions, and for winning under present rules, the choke-bore and the pigeon guns and loads are the most effective by far. The Americans go to extremes because their object is to break clays. We bolt between two minds and get beaten by the Americans because we do not go to extremes; and we frighten away English sportsmen because we go toward trick shooting half-way, which is further than real game shots go.
It is impossible to agree that the (Americans) would necessarily be good game shots, or that they could even break clays if the rules of sport were present in the conditions. https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=185YOyQl7GIB9OYLs9Hr3tnMLHqs4rjEdR4j_E9l4HLw
The object for me is to kill the bird, break the clay. I've much greater admiration for a man that never misses with an 870 pump, than a man who can only shoot 50% with a bespoke gun.
SRH
"Beware of the guy who shows up at the state championship with the rusty and old 1100"!
Yeah, yeah...
About this time of year they start showing up at the clubs to 'tune up' for bird/duck season.
The orange vest is the first giveaway, the complete lack of gun manners the next.
We had one guy last year start stuffing shells in his Benelli (3.5" of course) in the parking lot.
Many average Americans seems to think they are descended from a line of natural born shooters and somehow have innate ability that they very much do not.
After breaking maybe half a dozen at skeet, they proudly announce that this is nothing like the shooting they usually do, and that they seldom if ever miss a bird in the field.
We take their money, wish them luck, and invite them back next year.
It's a tradition.
But, yes, once in a while 'old rusty 1100 guy' will show up and demonstrate that he was likely born with that gun in his hands. Such people are rare, but they do exist.
For me, nothing is quite as nice as the diamond grip on a Hussy "Imperial Ejector" or the 2'nd patent thumb lever opener on a Boss hammer gun. Even on my worst days, with a quality English hammer gun or side lock ejector I at the very least look elegant!
Quick point and no offense meant to Stan. It should be no surprise when a rusty Parker, or Stevens 311,for that matter, that fits its shooter in most aspects whupsup on a Purdey that does not really suit its shooter. The custom aspect of bespoke guns does not convey to successor/following owners. Pre-owned/non-custom guns must be carefully selected for all fits or modified to fit if you want a lifelong keeper.
I have undying respect and admiration for all the good things found in Purdey guns. However, it is a mistake to buy the name and/or aesthetics of a high dollar gun without due consideration to stock , handling, and feel fit.
DDA
No offense taken, Don. The curious thing is when second, third and fourth owners of Purdeys somehow think the name will enable them to break birds.
It won't, but that doesn't stop some people from dropping big bucks after convincing themselves it might. Having the gun fit the shooter is very important, but shooting it enough to get very good with it is the most important factor, IMO. There is simply no substitute for experience.
SRH
The old wives tale of the magical shooting properties of bespoke guns is alive and well in todays shooting lore.
I agree, Stan, that muscle memory/experience is priority one for those who would shoot well.
BTW, I think aesthetics of a gun is a valid fit point for some shooters.
DDA
I don't understand Drew where it says the American use one barrel and the English used two. It looks like the American shooters were using either Remington or LC Smith double barrels in that match.
"Shooting well at clay targets isn't quite the same as shooting well at game."
Sounds a bit like the British sour grapes after getting whipped by there lessers in the 1901 Anglo-American match
"A good game shooter would not consider that his ability was tested in its most important points when the game always rose at one spot in front of him, in the way it did in this Anglo-American competition. Even when several rises are used, as they are occasionally under the system called ‘unknown traps and angles,’ the limitation of rise and of angle is too great to be considered first rate practice for game shooting.
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=185YOyQl7GIB9OYLs9Hr3tnMLHqs4rjEdR4j_E9l4HLw I think what the author was saying was that it is possible to groove a repetitive target, as in Skeet and ATA Trap, and that flying birds don't behave in such a predictable, repeatable way.
And I would agree.
Primarily in the acceleration and curling areas.
A knot of Teal is a very testing target.
The contest Drew is referring to , I was agreed the Brit's would use Brit guns, ammo and rules. Yanks the same . American trap 1 shot , mounted gun . Brits low gun 2 shots. Fred Gilbert et. al. would have won with live birds too!
Regardless the rules of engagement, if both sides agreed to them before the contest began, the writer is still wincing from sour grapes. It's poor sportsmanship to agree to the rules then complain about them when you lose.
This explains the one barrel, two barrel statement a bit better:
"July 6 Sporting Life editorial regarding the match by Will Park
This foreign trip has proven one thing quite conclusively, and that is this – the American gun and ammunition is unsurpassed by the same product of any other country. The skill of the American gunner has also been proven superior to that of the foreigners and it can also be said that we have the largest number of experts in this line of sport on the globe.
The English method of shooting at “clay birds,” as they call the inanimate flying targets, is to throw a rather high flight, follow it well to it’s height, and fire both barrels in rapid succession, trusting, as one might say, to luck. The American style, on the other hand, is careful, deliberate, but with a certain quickness which does not permit the target to get beyond a reasonably fair range. That the American style is superior, or their skill vastly greater, has been shown by the recent matches. It was also shown that the Americans were better prepared for this kind of shooting. The guns were heavier, and handled a larger load of powder and shot, all reaching a point of perfection acquired only through a series of exhaustive tests and continual experiments by the manufacturers of such goods and constant practice by the users of them."
SRH
Thank You!!! I was completely confused over that statement.
But that is why I have such high regard and respect for the LC Smith.
Whenever Doc Drew posts this excellent information on these old turn of the last century shoots, the LC Smith and Parker are there, taking on and trading blows with the best the English can throw at them or the Irish or the Scottish or the French or Germans.
Sometimes you see a Remington or Lefever but its mostly the LC Smith and Parker getting the job done when the American shooters finally decided to use American built guns and American ammunition.
Yeah, yeah...
About this time of year they start showing up at the clubs to 'tune up' for bird/duck season.
The orange vest is the first giveaway, the complete lack of gun manners the next.
We had one guy last year start stuffing shells in his Benelli (3.5" of course) in the parking lot.
Many average Americans seems to think they are descended from a line of natural born shooters and somehow have innate ability that they very much do not.
After breaking maybe half a dozen at skeet, they proudly announce that this is nothing like the shooting they usually do, and that they seldom if ever miss a bird in the field.
We take their money, wish them luck, and invite them back next year.
It's a tradition.
But, yes, once in a while 'old rusty 1100 guy' will show up and demonstrate that he was likely born with that gun in his hands. Such people are rare, but they do exist.
No offense intended.
At the Club/place I shoot at I am one of the few that uses a hunting strap vest. Most "shooters" are fat over weight slobs that have trouble fitting their big belly's under the steering wheel of their custom built golf cart they use to haul their guns, soft drinks and snacks. Most have never seen the open praries of the Dakotas/Pheasants or the giant Idaho hillsides for Chukars. Their pre mounts and call for pull are so structured that the thought of a wild bird flushing in front of them unexpectedly would no doubt make them pee their pants.
One of the more unexpected happenings would be seeing one of these guys actually walk a round of Sporting Clays.
I shot with a group of the suburban Club shooter guys one time. I was ridiculed for being a bird hunter. How cruel to shoot birds. Turns out that guy owned a chain of Diary Queens. I asked him how he thought his chickens were processed that he sold.
The tricked out guns with the adjustable combs and crazy looking stocks of the Club shooter is almost comedic. Most would be better off shooting with a single shot Stevens.
Talk about gun manners. By and large my experience is that the suburban club shooter is about as uncouth with a gun as they come. I would rather shoot with a hunter any day of the week.
Again, no offense intended.
No offense intended? Seriously?
I can't measure how much enjoyment others get from this hobby. Certainly one aspect is X's and O's, another, cartridges /bird.
I'm glad that our clubs get some business at this time of year.
It keeps the sport alive.
Come one, come all, We'll help you hit more of what you shoot at.
Near as I can tell, at this moment of our lives, there are only a few devoted hunter/shooter's or shooter hunter's posting on BBS type websites anymore.
It's just the changing technology and aging of the cadre.
If you are shooting at 10K clay birds/year, and another 500 live birds (or more) per annum, you won't have much company on BBS's. But whether anyone believes you or not, you'll know absolutely the significant difference between a clay birds flight, and that of a live animal.
I think some gun writer said that the cost of being a naturally good game shot was constant practice.
J.A.R. Elliott and Ed Banks used Winchester Repeating Shotguns in the 1901 Match
Lefevers were used by champions too
Remington was out of the double business, but Jay Graham was high gun at the 1912 Olympics with a...
oh the shock and shame...PUMP
CZ
Fred Kimble “The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice.”
More wise words from Will K. Park, Editor,
Sporting LifeAs the drowning man clings to a straw, so does the shooter love to think that his load or gun may, instead of himself, be responsible for a referee’s “lost.”
BTW: turn-of-the-century Live Bird shooters frequently used some form of the low gun "ready" position before calling for the bird. E.D. Fulford in 1897
Brief live-action shooting at the 1912 Stockholm Olympics is here; some essentially pre-mount, others low gun "ready" position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...t-ts=1422579428 Olympic rules called for "gun below the elbow" set-up.
Ed Banks' comments thereupon:
"The conditions of the Olympic competitions at Stockholm are, in the main, those usually adopted in England, there being 15 traps to the five marks, but a point which is of considerable importance, and will need careful attention by the competitors of all nations, is that the “gun below the elbow” position is insisted upon.
Game shooters, on first taking up clay bird shooting, invariably decry the “gun at the shoulder” position. If they continue to take part in competitions they end by adopting it, because there is no doubt at all about its advantage when conditions are “known traps” and what might be called the “flushing point” of the bird can be covered."
obtw,
It occurred to me that the essential element for a shotgun to feel good to me
immediately, is for it to be valued as much as a house.
That seems to be some kind of universality.
I would not be surprised if there is a relationship between clay target % killed and game killed.
For me, until I was edging up on a certain % on the range, my field improvement lagged. The last 5% in clay target improvement probably added 20% to game harvest.
They are correlated, but not linearly.
Biggest correlation I believe is at very low skill, and then reappears at very high skill.
Regardless the rules of engagement, if both sides agreed to them before the contest began, the writer is still wincing from sour grapes. It's poor sportsmanship to agree to the rules then complain about them when you lose.
This explains the one barrel, two barrel statement a bit better:
"July 6 Sporting Life editorial regarding the match by Will Park
This foreign trip has proven one thing quite conclusively, and that is this – the American gun and ammunition is unsurpassed by the same product of any other country. The skill of the American gunner has also been proven superior to that of the foreigners and it can also be said that we have the largest number of experts in this line of sport on the globe.
The English method of shooting at “clay birds,” as they call the inanimate flying targets, is to throw a rather high flight, follow it well to it’s height, and fire both barrels in rapid succession, trusting, as one might say, to luck. The American style, on the other hand, is careful, deliberate, but with a certain quickness which does not permit the target to get beyond a reasonably fair range. That the American style is superior, or their skill vastly greater, has been shown by the recent matches. It was also shown that the Americans were better prepared for this kind of shooting. The guns were heavier, and handled a larger load of powder and shot, all reaching a point of perfection acquired only through a series of exhaustive tests and continual experiments by the manufacturers of such goods and constant practice by the users of them."
SRH
Sounds like a good bit of patriotic flag waving to me. I wonder if the Brits or Italians would agree/
Regardless the rules of engagement, if both sides agreed to them before the contest began, the writer is still wincing from sour grapes. It's poor sportsmanship to agree to the rules then complain about them when you lose.
This explains the one barrel, two barrel statement a bit better:
"July 6 Sporting Life editorial regarding the match by Will Park
This foreign trip has proven one thing quite conclusively, and that is this – the American gun and ammunition is unsurpassed by the same product of any other country. The skill of the American gunner has also been proven superior to that of the foreigners and it can also be said that we have the largest number of experts in this line of sport on the globe.
The English method of shooting at “clay birds,” as they call the inanimate flying targets, is to throw a rather high flight, follow it well to it’s height, and fire both barrels in rapid succession, trusting, as one might say, to luck. The American style, on the other hand, is careful, deliberate, but with a certain quickness which does not permit the target to get beyond a reasonably fair range. That the American style is superior, or their skill vastly greater, has been shown by the recent matches. It was also shown that the Americans were better prepared for this kind of shooting. The guns were heavier, and handled a larger load of powder and shot, all reaching a point of perfection acquired only through a series of exhaustive tests and continual experiments by the manufacturers of such goods and constant practice by the users of them."
SRH
Sounds like a good bit of patriotic flag waving to me. I wonder if the Brits or Italians would agree/
True that, but would you not agree that flag waving has more credence when you're the clear winner? We were. Nothing wrong with a bit of flag waving, especially when the losers are sore losers.
The medalist's home country's flag is displayed with the winner on the podium at many events, including the Olympics.
SRH
My comments were about the unpracticed field shot and those with an inflated sense of their skill and knowledge level.
It matters not to me which equipment you select, what you choose to shoot at, or how you are attired.
A safe and proficient hunter is as obvious at the clay target ranges as is his opposite number. I shot with two such fellows today, they did very well indeed and were a pleasure to shoot with.
We don't mind explaining range rules to new shooters, it's rather expected that we will have to even though the simple act of watching a line of skeet or trap before actually signing up to shoot would seem to tell a person most of what they need to know.
My beef is with those who don't observe, who don't ask, and who can't read the ugly signs we are required to post for just such people. Like it or not, it's the once a year shooter we have to keep an eye on.
Don's comment that "I think aesthetics of a gun is a valid fit point for some shooters" is likely correct, with the emphasis on 'some'.
I gave a wispy little AyA a try. As beautiful as that gun was, it was no dice. A nifty Bernadelli also received my honest best effort. I sucked.
I wanted very much to be able to shoot those guns. Down the road to new owners they went.
What came along eventually was a Rizzini, just as pretty as the others I failed with but this one has a high stock, a long pull, and some weight in the ends. Bingo. I can shoot it.
I don't know how many game birds you shoot at in a year,
but it really is a "horses for courses" endeavor.
Guns that move well on the target field can be a little slow when taking ruffed grouse off the flush. At least that's my experience. They just seem slow to get out front of the bird when they launch.
I'm pretty sure that's why small bores with short light barrels have such a following in the woods.
They are a brutal task master when you start shooting typical clay courses with them. No momentum. If your move doesn't put the shot out front, mass won't do it for you.
Understand.
The Rizzini with two 20 gauge shells in it weighs exactly 6 pounds, so it's actually lighter than the AyA was, and a good bit lighter than the Bernie.
The weight distribution is what does it. The gun has 29" barrels and a 15" pull.
I've always favored a 28" Beretta 20ga. O/U in the woods. It's a good compromise between weight and control for me.
Moment of intertia. Dynamics. People used to call it balance, but I can get a barbell to balance. I think Gough Thomas discussed this in his book 'Shotguns and Cartridges'.
Understand.
The Rizzini with two 20 gauge shells in it weighs exactly 6 pounds, so it's actually lighter than the AyA was, and a good bit lighter than the Bernie.
The weight distribution is what does it. The gun has 29" barrels and a 15" pull.
I've always favored a 28" Beretta 20ga. O/U in the woods. It's a good compromise between weight and control for me.
Exactly! That is the only reason I can shoot typically 60-70% on a dove field with a 4 lb. 14 oz. Yildiz .410 ............. alloy receiver, 28" tubes and a man-sized buttstock. Mass is moved more towards the ends of the gun.
SRH