doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Question about gunfit and specifically...drop.

reading all of this and looking at the pictures, it is clear that I mount a gun with the butt much higher in my shoulder pocket. For hunting where I just mount and swing through and shoot it seems ok but I wonder if I am handicapping myself on clays as all the videos I watch of the top shooters, they all have the gun mounted lower.

Lloyd,
2 3/4” drop at heel is about all I can stand. I guess you could say I have a “window” from 2 1/2”-2 3/4” that works. Or, worked. I have never believed that a man’s stock measurements remain static throughout his life. Watching the old guys at the club leads me to believe LOP becomes more critical (and, shorter) as a guy gets older. Depending. Just me, maybe, but that gun at 2 3/4” drop would be OK for an afternoon of bird hunting, but, I’m not going to spend a bunch of time shooting at clays with it. A better choice of some sort is in the safe.

Someone could write a book about stock dimension changes that happen between age 25 and 80 for the typical Joe.

Best,
Ted

Drop at heel is a very insignificant dimension. Your cheek is much closer to the comb. A Monte Carlo stock usually has a much lower drop at heel than a standard straight stock. The Monte Carlo puts the butt of the stock in the middle of the shoulder pocket where it belongs.

That must explain all those fine English SxS bird guns I have handled with Monte Carlo stocks.....


Best,
Ted

Stock fit changes as we get older and/or lose/gain weight. My bout with Covid two years ago resulted in my losing almost 20 lbs. nothing fit, from guns to clothes. My gunsmith told me as he fit an adjustable comb to my MX8, that for every five pounds we gain or lose comb height can change 1/16”. He does stock work mostly for trap shooters and I believe he’s right. I have gained some weight back but not in my face. Consequently, I shoot a high gun at 13/8” x 2” x 15”. Prior to this I’d get by with 11/2” at the nose.

Ted's sarcastic post neglects to mention all the shooters who are in it for the money (to win) who shoot Monte Carlo stocks. None of my English bird guns have Monte Carlo stocks, but I would probably shoot them better if they did.

You may shoot them better in a pigeon race, but, you wouldn’t in a Grouse woods. If Boss, Purdey, H & H, et al could have demonstrated otherwise, you would have had Monte Carlo stocks on a game gun.

They didn’t.

Best,
Ted

eightbore thinks monte carlo stocks make him a better shooter...

ted does not...

from eightbores perspective, who cares what ted thinks...

Static shooting at incoming birds compared to walked up shooting raises interesting points. In static shooting it would seem easier to "crawl" the stock and adopt a "style". Walking, expecting to see game flush, mounting from a low gun position while visually tracking the bird interferes with remembering to apply all the shooting school finer points like head position and footwork. Maybe that explains the greater DAH dimension of older guns.

There was a book "Shotgun Shooting: Techniques and Technology" by John Brindle published about 40 years ago which went into some detail about the different evolutions of gunstock shape and fit for different disciplines in some detail. Perhaps rather dated now, and mainly line drawings rather than photographs, it is nevertheless quite interesting top those interested in the historical developments.