doublegunshop.com - home

Can a boxlock be a "Best Gun"?

One word

ABSOLUTELY

tigertrout, spot on!

And if the design distributes the action area weight properly, the boxlock is the BETTER best gun.

See comments by gunmaker Peter Powell on weight distribution at www.williampowell.com.

Where within the site above is the Peter Powell comment? I failed to find it first try.

DDA

"A Boxlock lasts as long as a Sidelock and some would argue that it is a lot more reliable. Due to ita��s short a�?stubbya�� action length, it tends to feel heavier when finished to the same weight as a Sidelock. The feel of the best gun is all about weight distribution and the Sidelock spreads ita��s action and locks over almost twice the area of a Boxlock, hence it feels more alive in your hands."

This is the relevant quote that I saved to my documents some years ago. The site may have changed content since then.

Interesting in view of the above comment is the tendency of modern boxlock designs that bring the triggers ever closer to the action body, ie shortening the weight dristibution axis, inorder to improve the balance. But balance is not always the same as feel.

Afraid I'll Have to disagree with the gun dynamics part of this statement. The gun making trade failed pretty miserably at understanding gun handling dynamics.

Following is the science of the issue.

Weight is measured with a weight scale and is felt in lift, hold, and carry.

Balance (the teeter-totter kind, not the magical kind that sums up handling in one factor but can't be measured or defined) is the point of the gun where it will balance over a fulcrum, pencil, or finger. It determines how the weight is divided between the hands.

Swing effort is an expression for moment of inertia about some point of the gun. Center of gravity/balance point is the lowest effort for any given gun. It indicates the effort required to point the gun in a different direction when not mounted; for convenience referred to as unmounted swing effort. If the the butt is assumed to be the pivot point then we have an expression for mounted swing effort.

A calculation involving the gun's weight and the unmounted swing effort produces a fifth factor called half weight radius which is an expression of the gun's compactness.

The above five factors characterize individual gun's handling. Weight, balance, and unmounted swing effort are easily measured. Mounted swing effort and half weight radius are easily calculated from the first three.

I have measured and compared a large enough sample of sidelocks and boxlocks to state that action type is of trivial concern as related to handling.

Questions or opinions?

DDA

If factors four and five are calculations and not derived from additional information taken from the given gun, why are they needed?

What are the average or typical gun handling dynamic measurements, and what standard do they fail against? Just curious.

Having handled thousands of shotguns over the years, I have come to a less scientific view, but one that is born out by experience. A well handling gun will have most of the mass of each and every part towards the middle of the assembled gun.

To make it clearer. Find a gun that handles, well, one that does not resist your movements when you shoulder it. Disasemble it and hold each part, ie barrels, action and forend at the places where the hands normally go when the gun is assembled. Held in such a way each part will tip towards the centre of the gun when assembled.

I have tried this with hundreds of guns and it has proven true.

I think we are talking about the same thing though not in the same terms.

And yes, the action type is not a main factor in handling. Though I do understand what Powell is getting at.

The best handling shotguns I have come across are quality British single barrels, mostly hammer, though there have been a couple of one sided sidelocks. I thought the handling might be due to thinness of the barrels, but all had barrel wall thickness over 35 thou and all had barrel length of over 28 inches.

As always, the best handling shotgun is the one you use all the time and your body has adjusted to it. My opinion anyhow...Geo

But where's he fun in that?

I agree that we are talking about the same thing. However, I think it worthwhile to clear up some differences.

Guns are fixed objects and do not change their shapes. So, their dynamics are also fixed. Each and every gun will have a weight, balance point, unmounted swing effort (the relation between the amount of effort expended by the shooter and the change in direction the gun points while the gun is held between the two hands), mounted swing effort is the same as unmounted except that the gun is mounted to the shoulder and point of rotation is now near the butt. The fifth factor, compactness, is predictive of the relationship between the guns weight and it's swing efforts.

Each part of the gun contributes to weight and each part's weight plus its location determine how much the part contributes to the gun's swing effort.

Balance is determined by the linear equation of weight times location. Swing effort (moment of inertia) is weight times location squared. Weight distribution is much more important in swing effort than in balance.

DDA

If a gun can be weighed to with in a standard of say an ounce, or a balance point measured to say within a quarter inch, is it accurate enough to say mounted swing effort is near the butt?

Will different shooter builds, shooting styles and target presentations have the potential to significantly change the mounted point of rotation in a consistent way for some shooters and in a variable way for other shooters and situations?

There are probably ways to measure a gun, but are there predictable ways to determine how it will be guided through space by a human, meaning are fixed dynamics a predictor for a successful wing shot?