|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 members (FlyChamps, Fudd),
417
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,480
Posts545,230
Members14,410
| |
Most Online1,335
Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 149 Likes: 5
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 149 Likes: 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Good point, Ken. Interesting that 12 bore on a 20 frame never got the "traction" as did 16 on a 20. I've never been able to explain that.
DDA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
I find that I shoot guns in the 6 lb & less range better if they are more stable & less "dynamic" than heavier guns. Most people do shoot light guns better when consideration is given to increasing the swing effort by longer barrels/barrels thicker near the muzzle and a stock with more than normal weight at the butt. Not sure I understand "less dynamic than heavier guns." I think Michel McIntosh once wrote something like that "as the gun weight goes down, the balance point should move farther forward from the trigger hand" & within reason I would agree with that. This is true only if the weight is removed from the action and stock. If weight is removed by shorter/thinner barrels, then the balance point moves rearward. A smaller, lighter action helps to achieve that. A lighter action reduces weight by the amount it is lightened. However, this lightening has limited effect on balance and swing efforts due to the closeness to the balance point. DDA [/quote]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
I take no offense.
Very good as surely none is intended. This subject is of great interest to me. Unfortunately, I find many shooters resistant to new learnings and offended when they are presented.
My views are largely uninformed and are simply based upon my experiences with different SXS's and how they "felt".
I suggest that you develop a habit of focusing first on how the weight feels. Then refocus on how the weight distribution between your hands suits you --- this is what balance does. Third, make swings left-right and up-down with the gun unmounted paying careful attention to the effort needed to start a swing, change direction, and stop a swing; this is unmounted swing effort. Last, mount the gun and make left-right and up-down swings, again paying attention to effort needed to stop, start, and change direction mid swing. Early on in the gun handling experiments one wag noted that low swing effort guns (whippy/wand/etc.) started in a wink, changed direction in a wink, and stopped in a wink.
My LOP to a front trigger is 14 3/4. Thus, there is a lot of wood weight to the rear (even if holes are drilled and a pad is used. Shotguns feel whippy to me if there is more weight to the rear than in front of the action. I think of this situation as being "Unbalanced"
Remember that balance is an individual preference with no optimum beyond individual preference.
A "balanced" -for me-shotgun has "enough" weight forward such that the shotgun isn't "whippy"-a smooth swing is easy. Obviously, multiple factors are at play: wood density and stock size, forearm type (splinter versus beavertail), barrel thicknesses and length, action weight, etc.
You feel weight forward or rearward only in balance. You can't detect where weight is located in swing efforts.
DDA
Last edited by Rocketman; 01/04/18 12:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 601 Likes: 39
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 601 Likes: 39 |
"Not sure I understand "less dynamic than heavier guns." To me "dynamic" means low swing effort or quicker handling if you prefer that term & in hunting guns I do prefer guns in the 7 to 8 pound range to be more "dynamic" than a gun in the 6 lb range & getting that feel usually requires having a higher % of the guns weight between the hands rather than @ the ends of the gun. I can't remember who wrote this but the line was something like "light guns should feel heavier than they actually are & heavy guns should feel lighter" & for most hunting guns I am in agreement. "This is true only if the weight is removed from the action and stock. If weight is removed by shorter/thinner barrels, then the balance point moves rearward." I think every one understands this. Can you further explain the point you are making? "A lighter action reduces weight by the amount it is lightened. However, this lightening has limited effect on balance and swing efforts due to the closeness to the balance point." I disagree. I you take a 6lb gun & add 1 oz of weight close to the muzzle or the rear of the stock you can feel the difference in how the gun responds. I know this because I have done both. If you keep the total weight @ 6 lb. & are able to remove 1 oz. from the action & move it either to the muzzle or the rear I'll bet the difference response will be even more pronounced (obviously I have not been able to do this).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,486 Likes: 393
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,486 Likes: 393 |
I can't remember who wrote this but the line was something like "light guns should feel heavier than they actually are & heavy guns should feel lighter" & for most hunting guns I am in agreement.
I have had only 12's and 16's. The 16's have weighed between 6 pounds even and 6 pounds, 11 ounces. The 12's between 6 pounds 4 ounces and 7 pounds 5 ounces (with the exception of a 8 pound plus Pieper sidelock that I haven't shot as it needs a new stock). The last gun I bought was a Lindner Charles Daly 12 gauge. When I received it and first handled it, I was convinced it would be nicely around 7 pounds flat. Was shocked when I weighed it to discover it was 7 pounds, 8 ounces. Heaviest gun in my safe, except for the unused Pieper. Would love to get it on Rocketman's device and get hard numbers on it's handling characteristics, and compare it to some of my other plus 7 pound guns.
Last edited by canvasback; 01/04/18 03:06 PM.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381 Likes: 1 |
I have searched the site and haven't found what I am looking for.
Does anyone have a list of steel-barreled 16 ga SXS's that are or were built on 20 ga frames?
Thank you. If you're contemplating a purchase I would take long hard look at 16ga Manufrance Ideal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,600 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,600 Likes: 13 |
Frame size, at least on Parker Bros. guns, is determined by the exact distance in 16ths of an inch of separation between firing pin centers.
In the smaller frame sizes, 0-frame, 00-frame and 000-frame the water tables could and would be milled out to reduce the gun's weight by an ounce or two.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105 |
The Parker Reproduction 28's also have the milled out water table. The 20's do not . . . which may be why they don't seem all that light for 20's, even though built on 0 frames.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,266 Likes: 93
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,266 Likes: 93 |
I was curious so I measured a Baltimore B grd 16ga. I’m restoring. It measured 1 1/16”. Would that be considered small frame?
My Parker 0 frame was 1”.
Manufrance Ideal 24ga 1”.
Hellis 2” 12ga 1 1/16”
|
|
|
|
|
