Does anybody actually shoot guns with a lot of drop well? I am talking about 1 3/4"-2" at comb and 2 3/4"-3" at heel. I can't get used to them to save my life. Or are most of these old guns wall hangers that nobody shoots?

My favorite dimensions for actual bird hunting is 1 5/8" X 3". I can use a straighter stock on clays but on unexpected (and unprepared) flushes I shoot with my head up. Maybe strange considering today's fashion but works for me.

Insofar as to "shooting well", that's another matter. I've never climbed above "middling average" but that doesn't bother me and somehow I generally manage enough birds.

I shoot 3" drop pretty well...Geo

Most people's neck will bend 1" one way or the other.

I do ok with up to about 1 5/8" x 2 3/4" on game. After that, I have to struggle a bit. My preference for a game gun is 1 1/2" x 2 1/2"

I may be wrong but it is my understanding that a lot of shooting in the U S is what we British called "walked up" , that is the birds rising from the ground , as opposed to our more traditional "driven ". Having had the occasion to do emergency repairs on guns from the U S that have been brought across with shooting parties and for guns that have been made or restocked for American customers , that on the whole you prefer guns with less drop the we do . If indeed you do shoot more rising bird this would be to you advantage where as if shooting drive then more drop may well be the advantage . It is also worth bearing in mind that shooting styles do or did vary from county to country as have "standard" stock dimensions ,in 1900 a British gun would have had 14&1/4" to 14&1/2" as standard ,in 2000 15" is more likely the norm .

Despite using them for differing kinds of shooting I have found that I can adjust to differing drops fairly handily. That said, it is much easier for me to shoot one with "excessive" drop than one with not enough. I cannot bear having to cheek the gun hard to prevent looking down on the rib. I know from much experience I will shoot high with this setup, and it will most likely kick me on the cheekbone.

Having a long neck (me!!) makes it easier to adjust to varying amounts of drop. How? Most field guns have a rearward sloping comb, meaning that the spot on the comb that you cheek it determines the amount of Drop at Cheek (DAC). This is what really matters, not drop at heel(DAH). Having a long neck allows me a bit of leeway to cheek it where it needs to be cheeked to get the picture down the rib right. Though it sounds like a contorted way of fixing things it is second nature with me. I shoulder and cheek the gun, and find that "sweet spot" on the comb, and just use it. Just a little bit of fore and aft movement of the cheek will make a vast amount of difference in the effective drop on these old guns having over 3" of drop. The more the Drop at Heel, the less movement is required to "make it look right".

All that is fine and good, but anybody is far ahead of the game by having the right amount of drop for the style shooting being undertaken, as gunman aptly described.

SRH

I much prefer 2-3/4" or so of drop - and shorter length of pull (13-3/4" or a bit less) - for walk up upland hunting here in the eastern US. Those who shoot quite a bit with different guns and an open mind, often come to realize that guns with 2-3/4" or even more drop at heel (and shorter stocks) have been badly maligned in recent years because of the target shooting mentality, wherein you know where the bird is coming from and get ready for it while on the station. And thus..... if your gun doesn't have < 2-1/2" or so drop you might as well leave it at home leaning next to grandpa's old picture.

All this is just my opinion for whatever it's worth. Silvers

Adam - I have tried shoot guns with lower drops and it just doesn't work for me. I have a longish neck but was fitted for a very flat stock (1 5/16" x 2 3/16") and a long LOP.

When shooting clays, I can adjust to a gun with lower drops, but in the field I really prefer to see the bird about the rib.

I admire the guys who can shoot a safe full of guns with varying drops well - that ain't me . . . .



Gunman - I would if this can be attributed at least in part to the fact that in general people are taller today that 100+ years ago. Of course, that would also suggest that shooters today would be looking for more drop, absent a change in shooting styles.

Point about taller people is true ,I used this as an example . But pick up a lot of percussion guns and you see many with a lot more drop than now . This could be that they were a hang over from flint days when to "shoot flying" was an achievement , most game was shot sitting so a more rifle stance was taken. Gun makers were a traditional lot so that it took time to adapt to the newer guns and the abilities of the shooters with them .
Men who built guns in 1890 could well have served there time on percussion guns so they were schooled in that style . Guns stocked to specific requirement are another thing .
Plus the simple fact that you got makers who made guns as they thought you should have them and you should shoot as they thought you should . I'm sure all this must be in book somewhere.

Interesting images, and an article provided by Researcher, here
https://docs.google.com/document/preview?id=1c7UkkNyMTZ9NAztILpzjSLKvgIneAw5i7eqkZ3d3Eno

Stan's Missouri cousin (a bit removed) on the line

That's a good one, Drew. (Might be more truth to it than fiction, tho')

SRH

For the past month, I've been shooting a Lefever from about 1886 with drops of 1 7/8" X 3 1/4". It has worked pretty well for me on sporting clays and I have almost kept up with my shooting buddy and his Browning superposed. I mount the old Lefever to my "teeth", so to speak, and stand fairly straight up during the mount. If I'm shooting a high dimension gun, I mount to my cheekbone, instead of my teeth, and lean more into the gun. Switching from high to low dimensions or vice versa, I have to practice the "new" mount in my living room for about a week. This seems to get my cat excited, but works when I go out to shoot. I used to try all different kinds of comb risers to give a low dimension gun high dimensions, but they are a pain in the neck and ugly. I have found that it is more fun to vary my mount to match the gun, instead of varying my gun to match my mount. It works and you are enjoying the gun the way it was made to be shot.

And Richard after woodcock c. 1886



Note mounting the gun lower on the face moves the eye to the right (for a righty) ie. effective cast off.

the placement of your off hand on the forend and even up under the barrels can affect how a gun fits. i have a parker with a 4" drop at heel. by holding up under the barrels, i can make the gun fit me.

notice the placement of richards' left hand, forward of the forend and under the barrels...

Also see how he is standing or rather squatting ,totally the opposite to the way we are taught today , which adds weight to my earlier comments regarding shooting styles . I assume here we have a pot shooter rather than a sportsman .

Drew, You caught me on Candid Camera! Very interesting point you make about increased"effective cast off" with a low dimension "to the teeth" mount. I do generally have my left hand a head of the forend like that too, and I even bet I do a crouch like that once in a while!

naw, us pot shooters use a surpressed, scoped 22, wid ah flash lite tached fur nite shootin...

course, hits kinda hard to hit dem pin raised birds wid ah rifle, like da ones you anglanders kill flyin wid yo fancy shot gons... ceptin win de is still in der pins, dat is.

say, what is a pot shooter anyway?

did a google search and found nuttin, dont cha know!

Hey I figured out this big drop stock shooting style. It requires a dress shirt with a separate starched high collar and a necktie! Couldn't lower their heads to the stock without cutting off blood flow to the brain, which was already diminished by the collar and tie. As for the painting of the shooter squatting, the artist painted out the real scene as this guy was caught with his pants down when the woodcock flushed. If you look close his pants are still unbuttoned. ;-)

I shoot best with a lot of drop. Give me a gun with 2-1/2" of drop and I'll proceed with a string of misses that make me weep.

ED its not shooting pots! Shooting for the pot ,food . Hence the term a "pot shot" a shot at a game bird or animal ,to provide a meal .According to my dictionary .

Drew,
Excellent research and great pictures. Captain A.H.Bogardus,[Champion shot of the world 1875] makes the following comment on stock drop."I choose a stock of moderate length,and one that is rather crooked-one with a drop of about 3 inches.This sort of gun comes even with the shoulder of most men,and you do not have to crook your neck much in taking aim with it."
For many years I owned a splendid Scott S.L.E circa 1893 with 3 3/8 drop,Even though I prized this gun I could never shoot well with it.After many trials I found 2 3/8 drop was the best for me.

I prefer 2 1/2-3" drop also, and I'm average sized. I don't understand why so many new guns have only 2 1/4" drop. All I see is rib and barrels. No thanks.

Google "pot hunter"

ah so...pot hunter, one who kills anything and everything that will help to fill has bag; also, a hunter who shoots game for the table or for the market.

sounds like all ethical hunters are pot hunters...otherwise, one who kills for just the pleasure of it, is what we call a game hog or ego driven butcher, with little regard or respect for the other wonderful creatures that inhabit this planet.

We've chewed this cabbage many times and every time tons of empirical evidence, pages of testimony as to personal preference for this drop or that, this time an exhaustive historical and pictorial review of how to get the wood on the wood and the eye on top of the rib. So what's the conclusion? It all works for somebody somewhere sometime? I don't put much stock in the teeth or jaw on the comb business. I think somewhere in all this gobblygook is hidden the observation that vertical distance top of shoulder to eye was the original determinant for the choice of very crooked stocks. I think that's probably the largest truth in this mess. Everything points to it: 1) the Monte Carlo with parallel comb, 2) the "rational" stock, 3) Morgan adjustable pads offset an inch below the toe of the stock. Every manjack who's ever lived can shrug his shoulders up and crawl his head forward to take up some of that verticality except he's wearing a celluloid collar or has C7 arthritis. I shoot a Remmy '89 with 2 7/8 drop at heel. It has a lace on comb riser. For me lower gum to comb has never worked. The way they put distance vision in progressive lenses, I need to be a bullethead just to find the correct area of correction.

jack