doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Thoughts on Gun Fit

I have worked very hard to get my guns to 'fit' me. I have had a professional gun fitting which was close but not perfect. I made several adjustments on my own. I don't think gun fitting is horribly complicated but I don't think it is simple. Clearly gun fit is more critical for low gun instinctive shooting than it is for pre-mount. Likewise, I think gun fit is much more critical on a side by side than on a gun with single sighting plane such as with an O/U. I also think pitch has a lot more to do with gun fit than most people think. Any thoughts on gun fit and what parameters are important to you?

Proper cast and twist of the butt make a gun feel a bit better than a gun without them. Pitch should be adjusted so the gun does not slip off the shoulder at the shot.

I think gun fit is somewhat over rated. In an ideal world, every gun would fit perfectly. In the real world, humans are extremely adaptable. Find a gun that is close to what you need and learn to shoot it. When I was a kid, the old guys who didn't miss much had never had a gun fitting. They would have fallen over laughing if someone had suggested they get their old pump guns professionally fitted.

I will concede that if you are a competitive target shooter, fitting has more value.

Or hit you in the face.

JC

When I first began shooting competitive sporting I set about modifying my old 30" 1100 Rem. for the job. Realizing I needed to improve the fit I installed an adjustable butt plate and pad, then set about getting the drop right. I did this by pattern testing from low gun, knowing that if I ever got that right I could shoot it fine pre-mounted. I added cardboard "cheekpieces" until all was right. Then, a few months later I went for a gunfitting. After all was said and done he wrote my needed measurements on a slip of paper to bring home. When I got home I measured my gun against what he said I needed and found that I was within about 1/16" on all the dimensions.

What does this tell me? That he did a good job with the fitting, but also that anyone can do it themselves if they are diligent, do some research, and don't quit until they know it's right, by shooting a pattern plate.

Frankly, I am much less concerned with pitch than with DAH, less concerned with DAH than with DAC, less concerned with DAC than LOP, and less concerned with LOP than cast. Horribly wrong pitch can be really bad, but I haven't encountered that many guns that have a really radical pitch. Also, too little drop is much worse than too much. Too little and the the gun whacks my cheek really bad, even worse than with the pitch being off.

I don't believe gun fit is more important on a S x S than an O/U. I can shoot many of my S x S guns pretty decently, and have never altered the pitch on a gun, but I DO try to get the LOP right for me. If the cast is not right I don't even buy it in the first place. I know some can be bent, but there are too many fish in the sea. JMO.

SRH

There is a lot talked about gun fit .A lot of people have strong opinions as to what they want ,as do a lot of instructors who have there own ideas and think you to should have them too . Every one is different so guns like clothes are made to fit the "average " man . When gun fitting it is important to listen to your customer and ascertain exactly what is his problem ,weather it is actually gun fit or dose he think he needs his gun altering . Incorrect stance and mount are often in my experience 50% of the problem .
There are no hard and fast rules and so part of the "fun" is talking to a customer ,looking at his physical shape ,height , weight , width of shoulder , length of neck , length of arm upper and lower , slope of shoulder , Etc.Etc. Then look at the gun to its current set up length ,drop , cast . Discuss the sort of shooting that he is going to do mostly and finally what actually is the problem . After that you just have to work out what he needs ,what he wants ,and what can actually be done to the gun in question.

I have Michael Yardley's little book on gunfitting. Great insight. I think an enthusiastic, experienced shooter, with the knowledge of that book and some aptitude, can figure out his or her own dimensions. Experienced shooters will have already gravitated to their dimensions in adjustable comb and LOP target guns or by going thru numerous guns. I've never had a professional fitting, but I can recite my dimensions and I would really question a pro that suggested dimensions much different.

For me, I have no differences in tolerance of general gun fit dimensions for o/u, sxs, auto, or pump guns. I do believe shooters have a lot of tolerance on LOP and in general, I would rather have a gun shorter than my ideal LOP rather than longer. That is: I can tolerate a 1/2" shorter better than 1/2" longer.

Some of the best shots I have ever seen would have gotten a blank look on their faces if you asked about " a gun fitting". Replacement hit the nail on the head with his comments.

My thoughts about this matter are that some type of bodies are much more "adaptable" to "standard" shotgun dimmensions that others.
Slim and tall bodies adapt very easily to almost any "normal" shotgun. A thin long neck helps a lot to put your dominant eye in the correct place over a wide range of shotgun�s meassures.
Short and fat bodies are the worst in terms of adaptability; big and tall in the middle.

I also think that cast is the most important meassure for gun fitting.

Best,

I think the fact that some of the best shots around aren't fitted just means they are either a good fit with an off the shelf gun or they are even more talented than an average joe than their exhibited shooting reveals. Me, I need all the help I can get. It just boils down to whether or not shooting can be improved.

With experience and study one can lean what fits and what doesn't and if one understands what is going on, one can compensate to a degree.

Without this, a gun which shoots where the shooter does not think it does is going to make him miss more shots.

You can and must compensate for fit - when changing from thin to heavy clothing for example.

If the drop is wrong, you will be shooting the legs of your birds or shooting over them. hopeless if you don't know it.

As range increases, fit matters more.

I shoot over a dozen different gun on a regular basis. About half of them are near my normal fitted dimensions half are not. I can pick up just about any gun and have very good results for a round or two of clay targets or a few live birds. But a gun that does not fit me well will start to become harder to shoot well the more I shoot after that. Many others have similar results. Just pick up any gun for sale and you will shoot it well until you buy it and get it home.

I have had several fittings over the years. Gain fifty pounds or loose fifty pounds or age 30 years and you better get refit. Funny thing is that most were almost what I was shooting with only minor adjustments. If you watch the target and see how it breaks you can figure out most of what you need to know and make your own adjustments. Experts can tweak but if you can not get within 90-95 they will not be the answer. It is the Indian more than the arrow.

You can get free shooting advice on any skeet squad. Four "experts" will tell you that you were over, under, behind or in front of every missed target. And the best thing is that one of them is exactly right. You just have to figure out which one.

Gun fit is just one of many variables that contribute to whether you do (or will ever) shoot to your potential.

Sure, you can shoot "pretty well" with a gun that doesn't fit perfectly, with cheap promo shells and a cylinder choke.

But just how good a shot you can ever become is certainly influenced by gun fit. For me, perfect gun fit is table stakes. I make a pattern stock, shoot the pattern board, tweak the stock, shoot a couple hundred targets & tweak the stock, etc., etc. Usually within a couple thousand targets I will have decided that the gun fits as perfectly as it ever will. For sure, I will be able to mount it with my eyes closed, open my master eye, focus on the rib and bead and see exactly what I expect to see. And shooting it will have proven that it shoots exactly where I expect it to without having to be conscious of the muzzle, unless I choose to. This applies as much to a trap gun that will be shot pre-mounted as a 6lb SxS. The gun is an extension of my eyes and once the gun touches my cheek not the slightest adjustment should ever be necessary, even from a hurry-up, low gun start. Then I duplicate the pattern with some pretty English walnut.

Now the whole issue of gun fit has been laid to rest, I'll go out and proceed to find a myriad of ways to miss. But with supreme confidence in gun fit I can give them the attention they deserve.

Say what you want about gun fit. I believe a perfectly fitted gun is extremely advantageous. In fact, with an ill-fitting gun, such as an old gun with 3 1/2 in drop at heel, I could literally shoot such a gun better from the hip and I'm not trying to be funny. I mean it.

No question gun fit is important. However, as suggested above, some people adapt to significantly different dimensions better than others. Ted Lundrigan, a Minnesota grouse hunter, discusses his grouse guns in a book called "Hunting the Sun". He talks about using a Westley Richards 20ga, a Remington Model 31 Lightweight, and a Parker 12ga with a dogleg stock. I'd submit that anyone who can switch back and forth between those 3 guns when hunting grouse--where, to borrow a phrase from OJ's lawyer, "if the gun don't fit, you will not hit!"--is about as adaptable as one can be.

Cast is one dimension which, I think, is less reliable than LOP and drop when it comes to the measurements you need in a gun. I've found that I can shoot guns with no cast and guns with quite a bit of cast equally well (or poorly). Yet on other guns with a fair amount of cast, I know immediately when I mount them that they won't work because I'm looking down the right barrel rather than the rib. Seems to me the reason that cast isn't necessarily as fixed a measurement as either LOP or drop is because comb thickness plays a significant role. It can function either to negate a lot of cast or to emphasize whatever bend is present.

Not too surpising that fellows who do stock work and gun fittings, and those theyve brain washed, are most adamant about this. Kind of like them that sell special minerals ect claiming it will cure all your ills. Or them that sell womens facial products claiming their ingredient will make skin look like its 20 years old. Digweed shoots different guns with different stocks and he is world champ many times over. How do you stock makers and fitters and their customers explain that ?

Digweed is a genius. It is always a very bad example to take someone like him as an example of what the common man is capable of. Besides, do you really think he shoots his competitions with a random gun picked up of the shelf, which does not fit him?

As a language teacher, there were always 5% of pupils who would learn a language whatever method (or lack of) you used to teach them, they had a particular aptitude for language learning.

That was no excuse to have a department with poorly trained teachers who lacked a proper teaching methodology. If you did and pointed to the 5% who learned anyway as an excuse, the 95% of failures would have something to complain about; rightly.

Gun fit is simple - if the gun does not shoot to where you think it is pointing, you will miss. If it is too short, you will hit yourself in the face with your thumb, too long and you will struggle to mount it cleanly and it will be pointing across your body. Too much drop and you will shoot under things. Your get the picture.

Having said that, I do get frustrated when people look at a 100 year old gun and then give you a set of dimensions, all down to the extreme degree by a fitter quoting for a bespoke stock and expect you to be able to bent it to exactly what they think they need as if the wood is play dough! If it is basically correct and you practice enough, you can shoot well with a gun which is not theoretically perfect.

I believe the most intelligent and insightful book title in shotgunning was Bob Brister's Shotgunning: The Art and the Science. It accurately depicts the challenge of defining shotgunning because it is are both clear science and malleable art.

The variables when swinging a gun to put its pattern on target are greater than most of us imagine and because they interact differently for each of us they cannot be completely grasped.

I see gun fit as part science and part art. I have had guns fitted and none have the same dimensions, yet each of them when shot against the patterning board come out about the same. However I must sadly admit that the gun I seem to hit best with was one the was fitted like the others, then bent, and after the fit bounced back some (1/4 inch) I now hit with it better.

My point is not that fitting is a waste, it is not. It is that fitting is only part of the variables. Shooting style consistentcy is a foundational necessity for gun fit to work. If you are inconsistent in mount and or swing, then fitting is a waste. This is why when starting your kids get a gun about the right size and have then shoot a bit (maybe years) before any detailed fitting should be bothered with.

One comment on cast. While some do not believe it is an important dimension to concern yourself with, I disagree. I find cast is very important for me, as is length of pull, I find drop less important. But that is me and each of us is different. You will never know which variables matter more or less to you without experimentation.

Some of us are blest to stumble on what works. If you do then do not change it.

The true key to competent shotgunning is repetition. Shoot alot of shells, play around with the variables and find what works for you.

What Digweed or Tom Knapp or Annie Oakley can/could do with a gun that fits or doesn't fit, has no bearing on my need for a well fitted gun. To paraphrase Matthew Quigley: "This ain't the World Championships, and you ain't Digweed"

I'm sure any of the above could stand on their head and shoot with the gun not touching their shoulder and hit more than I can standing pre-mounted.

Brister was a genius-and also a great con man- he conned his wife into driving the station wagon towing the patterning targets, as he was wise enough to know that shooting a shotgun for pattern tests on a stationary target with a 30" to maybe a 36" dia circle inscribed did NOT cover the dynamics of shot stringing as does a moving larger patterning board. The best of the British instructional videos I have seen is the two-part H&H shooting school programmes- with now retired instructor Ken Davies- gun fit, mount, foot position, swing and balance-- all made simple and the videos show both game bird shooting and clays--Tower and British SC programmes-- I watch and re-watch those many times, and practice a 'dry-mount" with the comb of the buttstock tucked under my armpit, muzzles pointed upwards, a easy forward and up movement locks the comb into the "rear sight" of a scattergun, the cheek- or zylogmatic arch perhaps? I think the Digster, the late Tony Treadwell and others are like the late Gene Hill once described the equally late American shotgun "ACE" Rudy Etchen-- who showed up a Gene's duck club but sans shotgun- was invited, of course, to stay and shoot- took a std issue "club gun" a 12 gauge 870- and added a bit of foam and tape to the comb to make it fit him better. He may not have shot 20 ducks with 20 shells like Harold Money did in 1915, but I'll betcha he came damn close to that achievement!!

But many could be Digweed if they forget about every thing but hit the target and correct if they miss. Fancy gadgets and special stocks fitted to the 1 /8 inch aint going to make you shoot better if you do stupid things.

Another thing regarding gun fit. I think the more one shoots and the more accomplished the shot, the more of a requirement proper gun fit becomes. An accomplished shot is going to notice a poorly fitting gun before a novice will and likely will not shoot as well as a result. This can be carried over to other fields as well. For example, in golf, if I, who am probably the world's worst golfer were to play with Tiger Woods expensive and well-balanced golf clubs, I doubt seriously if I could tell much difference, nor would my score be much different than had I played with the cheapest set of clubs that Walmart sells. But I bet Tiger sure as hell could tell the difference and I bet his score would show it too. Just a thought for what it's worth.

I agree, many could be Digweed, given the billions of people on this planet, there are many that will have the hand and eye coordination and reflexes to do what he can.

But, people with average motor skills will never rise to the level of Digweed, Steffy Graf, Phil Hill, Ted Willians, or other examples of extraordinary skills. That'd be me...the one with average reflexes and hand-eye coordination.

A well fit stock helps me a lot. If you can shoot anything from 1" of drop to 4" of drop without any loss of accuracy or consistancy, I envy you. I can't. I know what I need, you know what you need. Neither of us knows what each other needs.

Because I shoot low gun and stand straight with head not bent forward I find a gun with 3 to 3 1/4" of DAH fits correctly. I'm 6'4" tall and that may also have something to do with it. I believe gun fit is very important if you shoot gun down and want to be consistant. Having the same gun mount every time is just as important. I shoot seven different SxS's and have altered each one to have same dimensions. If the gun doesn't shoot to where you're looking how are you gonna hit anything ? Paul

I should have said, in my opinion if you're shooting with a pre- mounted gun then fit isn't real important - anyone can make their eye line up with the rib - like shooting a rifle. Paul

There's a story--maybe true--about Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle, going back to when they first played on the All Star team together. Both were supremely gifted "naturals". As a batter, Mantle had the advantage of being a great hitter from either side of the plate. Williams' advantage was that he was not only a gifted natural, but a serious student of the art of hitting. (I lived in DC when he managed the old Senators, and he turned a couple weak-hitting infielders into much better hitters.) It's also interesting to note--contrasting the two--that Williams' lifetime batting average was close to 50 points better than Mantle's, and that's with having lost the equivalent of about 4 seasons--in his prime--to military service.

Anyhow, the story goes that Williams asked Mantle a lot of questions about his batting technique--which Mantle hadn't really thought about in the same way Williams thought about those things. The result was, post-All Star game, Mantle went into a slump. Yogi Berra helped Mantle end it after a few games by telling him: "Mick, stop thinking. Just hit!" Likewise, it's possible to overthink shooting too--at least while you're doing it.

Some great shooters are more like Mantle, others more like Williams. But all are pretty much like one or the other. The rest of us, less gifted naturally, need all the advantages we can get.

[quote=L. Brown]There's a story--maybe true--about Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle, going back to when they first played on the All Star team together. Both were supremely gifted "naturals". As a batter, Mantle had the advantage of being a great hitter from either side of the plate. Williams' advantage was that he was not only a gifted natural, but a serious student of the art of hitting. (I lived in DC when he managed the old Senators, and he turned a couple weak-hitting infielders into much better hitters.) It's also interesting to note--contrasting the two--that Williams' lifetime batting average was close to 50 points better than Mantle's, and that's with having lost the equivalent of about 4 seasons--in his prime--to military service.

Anyhow, the story goes that Williams asked Mantle a lot of questions about his batting technique--which Mantle hadn't really thought about in the same way Williams thought about those things. The result was, post-All Star game, Mantle went into a slump. Yogi Berra helped Mantle end it after a few games by telling him: "Mick, stop thinking. Just hit!" Likewise, it's possible to overthink shooting too--at least while you're doing it.

Some great shooters are more like Mantle, others more like Williams. But all are pretty much like one or the other. The rest of us, less gifted naturally, need all the advantages we can get. [/quoteI'll betcha old Ted Williams- Ace USMC fighter pilot in WW11- along with Joe Foss- must have read Havilah Babcock's "Slim Boggins' Mistake"--and I can picture ol' Slim's 20 gauge pumpgun- a early Model 1912 20 with a 25" barrel, half the choke bored outta her-no blue or varnish left on the field grade stock-and when with the action slide locked shut tight, you tipped her muzzle toward the sky and hit the release button (LH rear of the trigger guard) the slide dropped like ol Bessie Smith's legendary Fat Daddy sittin' down in a tub of warmed up honey--0h yeah!!

From Ted Williams in his book, "The Science of Hitting':

"If you don't think too good, don't think too much."

Seems like Yogi knew that intuitively.

Orvis Wing-Shooting Handbook by Bruce Bowlen
"Before you decide you need more choke, larger shot, or a new gun, determine if you are pointing your present gun in the right direction."

Ten points to consider .
1, You can not fit a gun for a man who can not shoot [novice].
2, Some people will never be able to shoot well no matter what is done to the stock.
3, You can not fit a gun to a man who will not listen.
4, Physical problems ,as well as physique
biuld ,hight ,weight ,size of limbs/hands etc.
5, Physcalogical problems ,
6, The wrong gun.
7, You will need lessons.
8, Getting past ingrained habits /past incorrect coaching.
9, 50% of problems are related to stance and mount .
10,What can actualy be done to the gun in way of altering the stock .

This is part of some musings I am currently compiling for a future publication .Each of these points is explained and discussed .

Make sure you use your spell check when you draft this book,-- "actualy", "Psysacalogical", biuld, higth," all might need another look-see- Cheerio and Pip Pip!!

Unfortunately I was having computer problem this morning ,would have ment shutting down and having to re type everything .Its Sunday and I having a lazy day .

Gunman, Don't sweat the little stuff. This is a tough crowd. I got roasted here once for using 'ping' rather than 'peen'. I, for one, value your opinions way above many of the contributors here!

Once again for the laptop buffoons living in a gray twilight of their own imagination. Courtesy of TR.
Blow 'em off gunman.

The man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done.

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.
Citizenship in a Republic - a speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, France (23 April 1910)

To quote Abraham Lincoln:

You can shoot all of the clays some of the time, and some of the pheasants all of the time, but you cannot shoot all of the Ruffed Grouse all of the time.

I believe the speech this is taken from was about proper shotgun fit

Gunman, good input, none of us type perfectly. I know I don�t. Typo�s or not your post is valid

I further agree with the Krakow Kid, that Ruffed Grouse are not always available. Oddly enough, my record on them is over 70% hit and taken (over four heavy years of hunting) and on Pheasant I am still running about 50%. I can't explain it save rushing the shot makes me better than having too much time.

Wow. I don't think there are many people who shoot a better percentage on ruffs than on pheasants.

I was younger in my ruff years, but wild pheasant have been a challenge for me (probably all in my head), where wild quail these days have been a pleasure and remain above 70%. Preserve birds are so easy I think I keep record on them only to make myself feel competent, where wild pheasant leave me humble.

Every year I practice the pheasant shots on the clays course and look great only to humbled all over again. I only get about 4 to 6 days of wild pheasant every year compared to 20-30 days a year on quail

Note my percentages are based on birds engaged and retrieved which include a large number of two shots to bag one bird engagements. On ruffs I almost always put two shells into the bird to be sure. On quail more often than not I shot at only one bird on a covey rise. Sometimes I take no shot at all if it is a small rise

Foxy! YOU tellin' somebody to use spellcheck? Oh, the humanity...

Kudos to you, Colonel! I genuinely take my hat off to you, that is truly an accomplishment.

And, like you, I bemoan the small numbers of these feathered rockets now in our woods.

I think if you are talking about competition like trap where you are trying to clean 100 yes fit.I have broken targets that I thought I really missed when I pulled the trigger but because of a good fit my body adjusted and the target broke.
I can adapt for most poor fits but I am not competitive. I hate a 1 3/4 inch drop at the comb. I usually pass on those.

If you want to kill more game, you need a game gun that fits. Period.

Another "Heart of semi-darkness" oh the Horror- oh the humanity"?? I just have a keen pair of eyes for spelling and grammar-- ask my DFP buddy in the Nutmegger State about that--

It is in itself an interesting subject and one which is worth reading about - if only to educate oneself about all the factors worthy of consideration. Mike Yardley wrote a very good, readable book on the subject - 'Gunfitting, the Quest for Perfection'.

I am always wary of people who dismiss something out of hand, especially when it is easier to do so than to actually learn what here is to be learned about a subject.

I like to keep an open mind and in education always promoted to my students and teaching staff the idea that before you dismiss a particular methodology, learn all about it, become a proficient practitioner of it, then offer an informed critique of its benefits and shortcomings in relation to he alternatives.

Really? I was just remembering your post on the misfires board ...

I'll never forget my first truly well-fitting shotgun. I was stupified how much better it was than what it replaced. Hard to go back to mediocrity.

Chris Batha has an article on fit in the current issue of Shooting Sportsman.