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?
I don’t pretend to be an expert on guns or shooting, but your question is interesting. So, I’d like to venture a comment. As to changes in stock dimensions over time I would concur that it does appear that stocks are getting longer and flatter. My guess is it has less to with physiology and more to do with people learning more about shotgun shooting. I will credit the English with starting it all. Of its face it casually looks as if our cousins gained an early grasp of controlling impact and recoil mitigation.
As to how much drop one can tolerate, I’m not qualified to state for everyone. I know what is too much for me. I learned through painful and expensive experience. I’ve had to learn not to buy a gun, no matter how wonderful it might be, whose stock was obviously not well suited for me. I think avoiding excess is the key in length, drop, or cast.
Shooting styles varied. Some turn-of-the-century wing shooters shot with an erect neck, others crawled the stock.
Part of the confusion is that many old images showed the shooter in the 'ready' position, not as they were pulling the trigger
Clearly Live Bird and Inanimate Target guns had dimensions similar to those of today, except for the fact that shooters today are taller and much heavier than they were in 1900. 24 year old Union soldier in 1860 - 5’ 8” and 143.5# 22 year old American soldier in 1955 - 5' 8" and 150.2# 50th percentile for American 25 year old men in 2002 - 5’ 10” and 168#
In an August 2016 report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, the average weight of men in the United States rose from 181 pounds 1988 - 1994 to 196 pounds 2011-2014. Their average height remained the same at about 5 feet, 9 inches. The average woman expanded from 152 pounds to 169 pounds while her height remained steady at just under 5 feet, 4 inches.
Thanks Dr. Drew, that's great info! The term "big-assed Americans" does really seem to apply now, eh? Oh well, the price of prosperity I suppose. I'm also hearing that unlike cast, drop is much harder to alter in a gun by bending. Is that a common understanding here as well?
Also, perhaps hammerguns need a bit more drop, and for obvious reasons? In the beginning they were all flint or cap ignition.
I’ve shot pigeon/trap guns from 100+ years ago and the dimensions were high and “modern”. It was a style thing related to hunting guns, in my observation. Not everyone shot heads up
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 ..........
Shooting styles varied. Some turn-of-the-century wing shooters shot with an erect neck, others crawled the stock.
Part of the confusion is that many old images showed the shooter in the 'ready' position, not as they were pulling the trigger
Clearly Live Bird and Inanimate Target guns had dimensions similar to those of today, except for the fact that shooters today are taller and much heavier than they were in 1900. 24 year old Union soldier in 1860 - 5’ 8” and 143.5# 22 year old American soldier in 1955 - 5' 8" and 150.2# 50th percentile for American 25 year old men in 2002 - 5’ 10” and 168#
In an August 2016 report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, the average weight of men in the United States rose from 181 pounds 1988 - 1994 to 196 pounds 2011-2014. Their average height remained the same at about 5 feet, 9 inches. The average woman expanded from 152 pounds to 169 pounds while her height remained steady at just under 5 feet, 4 inches.
Interesting numbers. Today, we may be taller than we were, but we are shorter than almost all other 1st world countries. This is something that has happened over my lifetime I think.
In any event, we must be a nation of very short necks because I certainly struggle to get behind a 2.5" drop. I tend to crawl the stock with my neck well forward, and a slightly short stock will leave me beating my cheek bone with my thumb. I'm routinely noted for holding the forearm too far back though I have reasonably long arms for a 6 ft person. Just the way it goes, but I prefer around 2.75" of drop and 3" does not scare me. Anything under 2" makes me think the gun was built for a scope. More cast off seems to help a bit. Yet, I have a very narrow face.
I'd be interested in being measured by a true pro, but one that is schooled for the hunting shooter, not the high-gun target shooter. I'm not sure where to find such a person, though they must be out there somewhere, just not local.
it has been my experience over the past 40 years or so as a hobby dealer in antique and collector firearms, the following has been observed about sxs shooters...
most dont concern themselves with drop...some hunters make a big deal about drop at comb...target shooters are more concerned about drop at heel...
sxs guns stocked 1 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 14 1/2 are the most popular...
o/u, autoloader and pump gun shooters are mostly happy with factory dimensions...
in the right hands, a browning superposed, remington 1100 and win model 12 are magic, right out of the box...
take a close look at the nine images posted by doc drew above...
notice how the placement of the leading hand varies...
these are examples of how shooters can adopt themselves to a gun, instead of vice versa...
try it on guns that do not fit you...you may be surprised at the positive results that can be achieved by just moving your leading hand up and down and even in front of the forend...
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 $$ weren’t available to complete the transaction. For the most part vintage guns don’t fit me very well.
I am average build 5'10" and 180 lbs but must have long arms because I am more comfortable shooting a long stock 15 1/8" lop and high drop at heel, 2 1/8" to 2 1/4" but feel drop at face is most important and often overlooked pitch. A gun with a sharp toe will come up and throw the barrels high. I had an old Purdey with more drop than I normally use and at times I shot it really well without realizing I was keeping my head very upright. No recoil since my head was very light on the stock , if at all. I was just very inconsistent. I wanted to shoot it well so bad I convinced myself I could. Eventually I faced the truth.
The recent thread concerning Wm. Powell & Sons made me recall a similar gun by the same maker that I was pursuing years ago. If ever a gun fit me, it was that one. Stocked higher at the comb and a longer LOP it was a dream to handle. Sadly, the $$ weren’t available to complete the transaction. For the most part vintage guns don’t fit me very well.
Me too Ken. I love my Holland, a rare long and high stocked gun that was built as though it were made for me. Tough to find in a vintage shotgun. That gun will not be sold until I can no longer follow a bird dog.
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.
Me too Ted, meaning I know better than to try to shoot a "too high stocked" gun, as well.
Many Italian built doubles are stocked too high for me at the comb and at the heel. Zoli, C. Guerini, FAIR are all examples that are normally stocked too high for me. Berettas are not. I don't shoot trap, and don't want a gun to hit higher than 60/40. Both my built to order .410 doubles (Dickinson and FAIR) are stocked a little too high for me, even though I requested 2 5/8" DAH. They will both get bent eventually ........ hopefully they will bend.
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’.
This is the best demonstration of turn-of-the-century gun mount; live action (the first minute) from the 1912 Stockholm Olympics Even some of the English shooters "crawled the stock" rather than shooting "heads up"
When I was getting into more-serious shotgunning (back in my late 30s), I was measured at a high-end gunshop in East Central Pennsylvania (their name escapes me at the moment, but they owned the Thomas Bland name then) by an American fellow that seemed to know what he was doing. He came up with that 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 number. I then watched an Englishman (Chris Batha) measure a friend of mine here in Colorado a few years later and he essentially performed the same functions, so I figured that those numbers should be pretty good. Both folks used English try-guns (the one I used had a very-heavy trigger!). Come forward about 30-years and I'm guessing that both of those "fitters" had it about right, but I'm guessing they both subscribed to the same school of thought, which is English and then based on driven game. I suspect that walk-up hunting provides a very different set of challenges, and with that in mind, different dimensions might be considered. It sounds from what I'm reading here that more drop is OK until you get to about 3 1/2 inches at the heel? Cast and pitch are a whole different can of worms.
Edit: I was fitted at Woodcock Hill (had to look that one up).
Lloyd, That would have been Glenn Baker . Both he and Chris Batha were taught shooting instruction and gunfitting at the BASC Instructors course of which I was one of the tutors.
If you've learned to shoot classic American sxs, especially if your gun dates back before WWI, you've likely adjusted to a stock that is both shorter and has more drop than you find on classic British sxs. I once guided a hunter that showed up with a new Spanish gun, dimensions based on a professional fitting. He shot that gun on Iowa pheasants the first day and did not do well at all.
The next day, he switched to a Parker, which was the gun he'd been shooting prior to having the fitting and buying the bespoke Spanish gun. He shot very well. I tried mounting both guns. The Spanish gun was both longer and had less drop than the Parker. I told him that he had obviously adjusted to a gun that was "wrong" for him based on the fitting. And that he might very well adjust to the gun that was "right". But the difference between the two was significant enough that I doubted he'd ever shoot both of them equally well.
But your ideal dimensions can change based on how your body changes as you age. I'm thinking that's happened to me, because the gun I've been shooting best at skeet lately has an LOP of 14" and almost 3" of drop. Previously, 3" of drop usually left me looking at the top lever with even the front sight invisible. I'm sure my arms aren't any shorter (although I've probably lost an inch or so of height and definitely put on some weight.) But contemplating my next purchase, I'm thinking about guns with shorter LOP and more drop.
Lloyd, I would hazard a guess and say that the main reason American shotguns have less drop is because the manufacturers can save a tremendous amt. of money on straighter stocks. Consider how much wider a blank has to be to accommodate a stock drop of 2.75-3" heel drop as opposed to 2.25-2.5". Multiply that times a million guns and you've got a significant savings on raw wood. The so-called gunwriters push all of that stuff about the excessive drop of the old guns, but somehow hunters managed to kill off most of the game in North America with them. I'm about 6'4" with long neck, and I settled on 1 3/4" comb and 3" heel drop early on when I couldn't hit a bull in the ass with my old 870 Remington and stumbled onto an old A. H. Fox that fit me like a glove.I've never looked back. Just one observer's opinion. Sandlapper
reading all of this and looking at the pictures, it is clear that I mount a gun with the butt much higher in my shoulder pocket. For hunting where I just mount and swing through and shoot it seems ok but I wonder if I am handicapping myself on clays as all the videos I watch of the top shooters, they all have the gun mounted lower.
Lloyd, 2 3/4” drop at heel is about all I can stand. I guess you could say I have a “window” from 2 1/2”-2 3/4” that works. Or, worked. I have never believed that a man’s stock measurements remain static throughout his life. Watching the old guys at the club leads me to believe LOP becomes more critical (and, shorter) as a guy gets older. Depending. Just me, maybe, but that gun at 2 3/4” drop would be OK for an afternoon of bird hunting, but, I’m not going to spend a bunch of time shooting at clays with it. A better choice of some sort is in the safe.
Someone could write a book about stock dimension changes that happen between age 25 and 80 for the typical Joe.
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.
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.
That must explain all those fine English SxS bird guns I have handled with Monte Carlo stocks.....
Stock fit changes as we get older and/or lose/gain weight. My bout with Covid two years ago resulted in my losing almost 20 lbs. nothing fit, from guns to clothes. My gunsmith told me as he fit an adjustable comb to my MX8, that for every five pounds we gain or lose comb height can change 1/16”. He does stock work mostly for trap shooters and I believe he’s right. I have gained some weight back but not in my face. Consequently, I shoot a high gun at 13/8” x 2” x 15”. Prior to this I’d get by with 11/2” at the nose.
Ted's sarcastic post neglects to mention all the shooters who are in it for the money (to win) who shoot Monte Carlo stocks. None of my English bird guns have Monte Carlo stocks, but I would probably shoot them better if they did.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have a Beartooth slip on recoil pad in my gun safe. Two good things about the Beartooth: 1. It's relatively inexpensive. 2. It comes with inserts in various thicknesses, allowing you to make the LOP either just a little longer or a lot longer. Then find whatever works best for you and have a permanent pad installed.
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.
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Shooting/Shooting/i-6wVNbHd/0/d1f3e62a/S/Sept.%2029%2C%201906%20Forest%20and%20Stream-S.jpg)
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Shooting/Shooting/i-pGcbb8z/0/b7a5e3a1/M/1895%20DuPont%20Tournament%202%20-%20Copy-M.png)
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Shooters/Trapshooting/i-4LwkQ3W/0/8449c5f2/L/M%2017%20Capt.%20Money%202-L.jpg)
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Shooting/Shooting/i-mHNNncB/0/11df90df/M/H%209%20Heikes%20Hand%20Protector-M.png)
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Trap-Skeet/Olympics-1901-Match/i-Rp4j9f8/0/9ce461e7/L/London1908Olympics-L.jpg)
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Shooting/Shooting/i-H3B6Z2B/0/889730b3/M/October%201922%20Field%20and%20Stream-M.png)
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Shooting/Shooting/i-4rhh8BR/0/f908da19/M/M%2014%20Rowley%20Pad%201901-M.jpg)
![[Linked Image from jpgbox.com]](https://www.jpgbox.com/jpg/70944_800x600.jpg)