S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 members (trw999),
852
guests, and
5
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts544,014
Members14,391
|
Most Online1,258 Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,063 Likes: 565
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,063 Likes: 565 |
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?
Last edited by Lloyd3; 03/30/23 03:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 886 Likes: 352
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 886 Likes: 352 |
Is it not at least partly a matter of changing shooting styles.
Old time shooters are pictured standing more erect, and with heads up rather than lowered to the stock.
Did they shoot like that to accommodate the way the guns were built then?
Or were the guns built that way to suit the way they shot them?
Last edited by Parabola; 03/30/23 03:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 161 Likes: 14
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 161 Likes: 14 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,398 Likes: 307
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,398 Likes: 307 |
Here you go https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c7UkkNyMTZ9NAztILpzjSLKvgIneAw5i7eqkZ3d3Eno/editShooting 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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,063 Likes: 565
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,063 Likes: 565 |
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.
Last edited by Lloyd3; 03/30/23 05:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,109 Likes: 91
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,109 Likes: 91 |
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
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127 Likes: 1129
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127 Likes: 1129 |
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 ..........
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
1 member likes this:
John Roberts |
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670 Likes: 372
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670 Likes: 372 |
Here you go https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c7UkkNyMTZ9NAztILpzjSLKvgIneAw5i7eqkZ3d3Eno/editShooting 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.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,718 Likes: 94
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,718 Likes: 94 |
a few come to mind that will happy to relieve you of a few thousands bucks... https://www.google.com/search?q=cus...AcgBAsABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1say, heres an idea...for every buck you blow on wood...make a matching contribution to this fine forum... the odds are 50-50...either way, you win...
Last edited by ed good; 03/30/23 06:57 PM.
keep it simple and keep it safe...
|
|
|
|
|