doublegunshop.com - home

craig, you may want to translate that for us. Especially that last paragraph/sentence/question.

I think it does not take much imagination to consider what it would be like to swing a yard stick with two lead weights taped to each end, and then to swing it with the two weights taped to the 18" mark. What Rocketman says makes great sense. Unfortunately, there are no easily made standard measurements that could be used to characterize each gun so that they could be included in an auction description.

I and Rocketman, I thought, were understanding that the butt was the rotation point. What if a body type makes your yardstick 38 inches or 34 inches? Does everyone grip a forearm the same? Does a straight extended heavy off arm and forward leaning stance change the effective weight and distribution, a pivot point around the waist change things? Now the shooter hands the same gun dynamics to his petite wife and she leans back to counter the relatively heavy weight for her round of shooting? Do you see the the same numbers on paper?

Craig, I'll respond this way.

My career was involved with sporting goods. Particularly golf hardgoods, tennis and footwear. I started in the 1970's when raquets and golf clubs were made the same way they had been made for 60 years, and left those industries at the end of the 1990's, when the transformation of racquet and golf club construction was essentially complete. A move from very traditional methods of construction and materials to as advanced as one can imagine. And like a shot gun, both a racquet and a golf club are swung and consistencey of movement is paramount. They measure freaking everything and the application of scienctific analysis to the materials, to stresses, to movement to everything has created profound change and improvement....for all players, not just the best.

If you don't think Nike analyzed everything imaginable when they decided to enter the golf club business, you don't know how it works.

Shotguns and shotgun owners remind me of golfers from the early 1970's, clinging to tradition and embodying a refusal to understand how real analysis as opposed to subjective assessment of "feel" might improve the tool and their own abilities.

I believe Greener�s top of the line best gun, at the turn of the last century, was the self acting ejector, a box lock gun. He did produce side lock guns at the same time, and they cost less than that model.
My opinion only, but, the part of building a best that is often missed is the effort put into keeping the design serviceable by even a partially skilled gunsmith. I look at the Holland Royals as being better in that regard then the Beesley patent Purdey�s. But, it is almost never brought up.

Best,
Ted

cback, I can understand development and scientific analysis, what you did not say, was that club and racket makers failed miserably.

I asked how five factors could be crucial, when two of them are mathematically derived from the other three. I asked what the dynamic goal was, how far off was traditional from desireability. I guess I could add, have the tradtional or any side by side makers learned their lesson and improved the dynamics? Keep in mind, I hope we aren't thinking, yes we have learned and it's called the over under, not coincidentally paralleling the golf time frame scenario?

Constantly.

Guns are purpose built.

A pigeon gun has different dynamics than an upland gun.

I would submit that 'subjective assessment of feel' is the same as 'real analysis'.

Quantifying this while interesting and explanatory serves no real purpose in improvement of state of the art.

The only way you find out what you shoot best is to (drum roll) shoot.

What if state of the art is not necessary. Quantifying could give a number and location of where to shift a few ounces that makes a difference on a modest gun, but where are we headed?

It's easy to overthink this.

A decade and a half ago the Beretta 391 was all rage.

Nice aluminum alloy frame gun, light, splendid dynamics.... for most.

The target shooters got a hold of these and of course they knew better than Beretta and their years of experience and testing.

They started to hang weights all over them, defeating the design entirely. Even Beretta eventually developed a buttstock weight that was standard in some models. It sold.

No scientific testing was done on this, they just dorked around until they got something that THEY THOUGHT played well for them individually.

Shooters are sometimes not the brightest bunch, and I include myself in that demographic. They are going to modify and customize. It's just part of the hobby. A great deal of this business is simply in your head.

You can quantify and write equations all you want, it's not going penetrate a real shooter's skull.

LOL Failed misrably eh? Clearly you neither play tennis or golf. Or if you have in the last 20 years, you never played seriously with wood racquets or traditionally made forged head golf clubs prior.

Not by choice, turns out I have an allergy to both. Is it bad form to say that the lady golfers look more dynamic on TV, than a few of the dudes that swing a racket in the womens tournaments?