I wish I could get you all to drop the "perfectly balanced" idea. We seem to have advanced beyond the idea of an "optimal weight" for guns; an idea which caused a whole bunch of experimenting and writing to no avail in Victorian and Edwardian times. All four of the handling parameters are unique to each gun and to each shooter's preference. Remember that one guy's "sweet thang" may be the next guy's "ugly stick."
Not to be pedantic, but to try really hard to clarify, a couple of examples follow. The average Brit game gun weighs 6 1/2#, balances 4 1/2" in front of the front trigger, unmounted swing effort of 1.45 and mounted swing of 6.4. Now, suppose we made a gun that weighed 13#, balanced 4 1/2" in front of the front trigger and had 1.45 and 6.4 for swing efforts. Surely no one thinks these two guns would handle the same, despite having identical balance. Now, suppose a 6 1/2# second gun happens to balance at 1" in front of the front trigger. That is a lot different than 4 1/2". Is it possible for this to be an optimal balance? For a shooter with a very weak forward arm it might be just the ticket.
It should come as no surprise to find a gun of "less noble trademark" that suits you better than anything else, even a, gasp, boxlock.
Stan opined that it may make sense to maintain one handling pattern across purposes. No argument from me. However, a differing shooter may well find he shoots better with differing handling for differing purposes. Neither way is "right." Remember, shooters are individuals.
Joe, your gun most likely has unusually low swing efforts for its weight. That is, the muzzle end of the barrels is lighter than usual and the butt end of the stock is likewise lighter than usual. The action , barrel breaches, and forward portion of the stock are probably heavier than usual. This heavier center area reduces the MOI which reduces the effort required for swing.
DDA
