It seems like you have to get them built on a 20 ga frame to get the weight down and improve the balance.
rtw, no offense intended, I've a little problem with the above statement. My experiments with gun handling show that weight, balance (teeter-totter kind, not an undefined, summative, subjective "number"), unmounted swing effort (based on the gun's moment of inertia at center of gravity/balance point), and mounted swing effort (based on MOI at the butt).
Weight is a summation of all the parts' weight. It tells you the effort to carry, lift, and hold the gun.
Balance is the summation of increments of weight times distances from a point (teeter-totter point) where the summation is equal to zero. It tells you what % of the weight each hand carries. Individual shooters have a considerable range of preference for these two %.
Swing effort is based on increments of weight times their distances from the balance point squared. Thus, if two increments of equal weight are placed one at one foot and the other at two feet from the balance point we find that the one at two feet has four times the effect as the one at one foot. Swing effort is the measure of the effort to point the gun in a differing direction.
Actions figure much in weight, somewhat in balance, but little in swing effort. Barrel and butt lengths and thicknesses figure large in swing effort due the longer distances from the balance point.
What are you thinking when you say, "--- improve balance?"
DDA
