doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Shallow Frames vs Deep Frames-whats it all about?

On the other thread about sxs mystique, TW mentioned shallow frames of sxs. I thought I'd take this question to another thread and not derail that one.

I hear a shallow frame design mentioned in the context of an advantage often, for both sxs designs and o/u designs.

At least one counterpoint is exemplified by the "Un-guns". They claim not only less heat distortion (not part of my question), but a more direct line of recoil energy into the shoulder and thus less muzzle jump.

On taller o/u frames than other shallower o/u frames, the top barrel is in the same position on both designs as is the lower barrel, assuming same rib dimensions and barrel spacing.

Purely from a shooting perspective, what's the advantage of a shallow(er) frame?

Is it all just asthetics?

I would guess a shallow frame would weigh less.

Generally a Deep frame has the hinge point and locking bolts between the barrels it should be stronger but because the pin is split this is not the case.
A shallow frame gun normally has the hinge pin under the bottom barrel also the locking bolt plus some extra material to cover this also a deeper forend the only deference you will really notice is that one needs to be opened further to load, wight is pretty much the same other things being equal. Go with what you are most comfortable with.

I think the general principle is that the shallower the frame, the less vertical distance there is between your pointing hand and your eyes, which leads to more accurate pointing. (Why else do we shoot from the shoulder and not the hip whenever possible?).

As the risk of going out on a limb with a big chainsaw, this could also possibly explain the frequent �sxs for field/OU for clays� preference. The horizontal barrel configuration/shallower frame of an sxs offers the least vertical separation between your pointing hand and your eyes. In the field, where one shoots low gun and often with little advance warning about target direction and speed, the ability to point quickly and accurately is an important advantage.

However, for clays, the targets� speed and line are usually known, and targets are often shot pre- or cheat-mounted, so there is generally less need for quick pointing accuracy. In most instances, there is more time for evaluation of the target/barrel relationship (not aiming), which is reflected in most of the techniques used for clay targets (pull away, maintained lead). The vertical distance between the pointing hand and the eyes is therefore less important. At the same time, where one is more deliberately evaluating the target/barrel relationship, some may find the narrower barrel profile of an OU less distracting and therefore less likely to pull focus away from the target.

Plenty of people shoot clay targets very proficiently with sxs and plenty of birds have gone down in front of OUs, so this is far from a perfect explanation. But I do think quick shooting benefits having your eyes and pointing hand as close to the same plane as possible - which is why many OU shooters (me included) still prefer a shallow-framed sxs in the field.

I agree with Doverham and I bet Garwood Thomas and Don Zutz would too. For the life of me I don't understand the current craze for high and higher ribbed competition guns. I tried a Perazzi TMX once and it didn't take me long to go back to a TM1. I bet this high rib thing is a fad and will pass.

Generally speaking, no one worries much about frame depth on sxs. OU's are a different story. Merkels, for example, are very deep. Contrast a Merkel receiver with a Browning Cynergy receiver--which, I believe, is about the shallowest one you're likely to see in a production gun. The depth, or lack thereof, is a result of how they're bolted--per the above. Merkels bolt a lot like a sxs, with a hinge pin on the bottom plus top fasteners (the Kersten bolt being an OU version of the sxs Greener bolt). Cynergys, in contrast, lock the barrels on the sides of the receiver rather than top and bottom. Therefore, nothing to add depth.

I think a lot of sxs shooters, used to guns with shallow receivers, also like OU's with shallow receivers. But it's not necessarily a matter of depth adding weight, because Merkels--as deep as they are--can be quite light. They're not as wide as some designs that use other bolting methods, which reduce depth but add some width.

The bottom line [at least for British guns]
Shallow frame: [ Boss, Woodward, and Purdey] Retail at over 50K

Deep frame: H&H, Lang, Lancaster, Westley, Green,Baker, etc. You are lucky if anyone even looks your way; generally less than 20K or even 10. Early Purdey O/Us[pre- Woodward patent] also go begging.

I guess its about asthetics not quality; A very fine BEST O/U can be had for a considerable discount even compared to a SXS if it has a "deep" frame [traditional hinge pin and locking lugs].

All the best, Mal

Well obviously the shallow framed guns were made for people with fat hands. If they lose a hundred pounds and their hands get skinny too then they have to change to a deep frame for the eye-hand coordination to be the same.

Best,

Mike

All I have read here is repetition from the pulp gun magazines from which I learned how to read 60+ years ago instead of Dick and Jane. Both had about the same level of content. We all know those writes knew nothing aside from regurgitating each others writings which spring from the marketing ploys of the various gun makers. Advantages/disadvantages are dependent on too many other variables (largely the individual shooter and his preferences/training) to be defined as simply as deeper or shallower. The Browning Superposed is about as deep as the O/Us get and it is revered. The Kreighoff M32 is about as shallow as is available and it gets hacked in some quarters for handling characteristics. Shoot what you like once it is fitted. The depth difference in sxs guns is insignificant unless you put on one of the big forends more appropriate to an unlimited benchrest rifle. IMHO

I'm with Jerry on this one. And an easy decision for me - I just don't like the deep frames slab sided look. FWIW I have not shot a deep framed gun that did not kick the crap outta me, including Belgie Brownings. But then so do Kreighoffs for that matter (not to mention too butt ugly to own).

The Boss/Perazzi/Beretta style guns get my vote every time. And the simplicity of the Perazzi puts it right at the top of the list. But that's just me of course. YMMV

have a day

Dr.WtS