doublegunshop.com - home
So the earlier thread has peeked my curiosity, just wondering what other thought.
Well, I may be biased but I would say yes, a box lock can be a best gun. laugh
What constitutes "best" is a matter of opinion, so I don't think there is a wrong answer. For me, and considering a shotgun only, it would have to be a sidelock and never an over/under or single barrel. But were we talking about rifles that would change.

I don't think of American guns ever being "best" which is not a reflection on their quality but simply their being Yank guns and not Brit guns.

If someone thinks differently, I have no objection.
1906 William Read & Sons Catalogue for comparison

“Highest Quality” Westley Richards with single trigger - $595
W.W. Greener G70 “Imperial” - $500
W&C Scott “Premier” - $375
W&C Scott “Imperial Premier” - price on application
Purdey - 89 pounds 5 shillings sterling - about $446
Joseph Lang & Son “Highest Quality” sidelock ejector - 65 guineas
Parker Bros. AAHE - net price of $318.75
Lefever Optimus - $280
A "best gun' is a gun that was built to the highest standards a maker could achieve. That gun was their best. It didn't matter what the action type. Usually, the best that a maker could achieve was of extremely high quality and workmanship. Certainly, a box lock can be a best gun, IMO.

SRH
Originally Posted By: Stan
A "best gun' is a gun that was built to the highest standards a maker could achieve. That gun was their best. It didn't matter what the action type. Usually, the best that a maker could achieve was of extremely high quality and workmanship. Certainly, a box lock can be a best gun, IMO.

SRH


Totally agree!
Sight unseen, wouldn't an Imperial grade Greener or a droplock Westley Richards be considered best guns?
It's a British marketing term.

No more, no less.

People get all caught up in the terminology as if it means something.
`Best` does indeed mean something but it can be judged by several factors ,not all obvious to the casual observer ! As others have already said it can apply to any design of gun and indeed has been. Counting pins in lockplates ,disc set strikers,etc,etc are not particularly indicators as many seem to assume ,`Best` workmanship is the determining factor.
In English yes, in American no.
In my opinion a best gun is the gun you favor not the gun you seek approval of from the so called experts.
My 'best' gun is a CSMC M21-6. It will do for me.
I didn't include the Remington Hammerless Model of 1894 "Special" in the price comparisons. This is from Dave's 1902 catalog. $750 would be about $23,000 today



Interestingly, it is listed with "nickel-steel" rather than Ordnance Steel barrels and I have no idea if Remington produced the billets or sourced them from one of Winchester's suppliers
Most folks don’t consider it possible for a boxlock to be considered a ‘Best’, but W. & C. Scott must have thought it possible as I used to own ( and foolishly sold) a Scott ‘ Premier’ boxlock 12 gauge double that was probably finished better than any of the sidelock Premiers I own or have seen. It had all the trademark Premier features such as the Premier barrel address and the gold shield in the hand , diamond grip, 14 animals and full scroll, etc. The front lump also did not go through the floorplate , which is a sure sign of a best vs. second quality. John Crawford said he told Pat Whatley, the Mgr. of Scott in the late 1980’s, about this gun and Mr. Whatley told him Scott had never built anything like that, but I can assure anyone, it was entirely correct. Regards, Sandlapper
Can a SXS with the hinge pin machined from the solid, (as found in some boxlocks), be considered best?

Machining from the solid leaves no front support for the hinge pin (cross pin in English terminology). If the barrels come off face a solid pin cannot be replaced.

From an engineering point of view, the answer is no. But several makers offered "best" guns with solid cross pins. Which tends to show that best is not a matter of individual features, it was a marketing term more than a technical one.
Originally Posted By: Shotgunlover
Can a SXS with the hinge pin machined from the solid, (as found in some boxlocks), be considered best?

Machining from the solid leaves no front support for the hinge pin (cross pin in English terminology). If the barrels come off face a solid pin cannot be replaced.

From an engineering point of view, the answer is no. But several makers offered "best" guns with solid cross pins. Which tends to show that best is not a matter of individual features, it was a marketing term more than a technical one.


As Stan enunciated, there is a generally agreed upon definition of a "best" gun. The fact that some makers applied that label to some guns that, whether by design or by workmanship, don't measure up doesn't relegate the term entirely to mere marketing. I would suggest that from a marketing perspective the word "London" had as much or greater impact on price realized by the maker than the word "best". Now THAT is marketing.
Objective engineering offers a way out of the "best" impasse. Using that yardstick many boxlocks come out on top of many sidelocks.

A BSA boxlock is demonstrably better engineered than most, but I do not know anyone who would call it best. Which for those of us without the "best" bug is good, it keeps BSA prices affordable.

Renato Zanotti improved sidelock engineering by strengthening the rear bite, and by making the lock rebounding. Faced with a comparison between an Italian Zanotti pattern sidelock and a celebrated English non-rebounding most would opt for the second considering it "best". Doing a favor to those value good engineering at affordable prices.
I think more has been read into the term than was originally intended, and the industry itself has relished that.

Thus 'best work' has morphed to 'best gun'.

The order sheet would say 'best', and since this originally started in London, with orders for sidelock guns, the idea spread that it only applied to these types.

Much ado about nothing.
It really seems to be important that the word 'gun' is actually used or implied. There is an assumption that the gun configuration has a classic appearance. I believe there can also be a best bolt action sporter, or a best rook rifle, but not a best pump or lever action that's generally acknowledged.

Enginnering differences seem to turn to descriptive terms and other academic discussions, but "best" seems to be related to execution. It's only opinion, but there are some AR and bench rifle builders easily doing best work.
Look at a Shiloh rifle sometime.

The wood to metal fit cannot be improved.

Perfect is perfect.
Originally Posted By: Shotgunlover
Objective engineering offers a way out of the "best" impasse. Using that yardstick many boxlocks come out on top of many sidelocks.

A BSA boxlock is demonstrably better engineered than most, but I do not know anyone who would call it best. Which for those of us without the "best" bug is good, it keeps BSA prices affordable.


Funny thing, everytime I shoot this BSA I seem to get a whif of "best gun"...Geo

One gets to a point, eventually, where the yardstick for the argument for most of the participants seems to be the one that hangs out of their fly at the urinal. The “measurements” seem specious unless you can convert them to performance on the field.
If you have the depth of pockets to carry a gun that took several very skilled men most of a year to build, but, can’t hit the broad side of a barn while standing inside of it, it still is a best, just somebody else’s best.

Best,
Ted

I would think this is pretty close to a best grade box lock. Agree, disagree?

I agree...Geo
SXS40,
I certainly agree. I would believe that a best gun would be described as a makers best whether a boxlock or sidelock.
Here is what I believe to be a Churchill best boxlock. According to Don Masters, Churchill only placed his monogram to his best work.
Karl


Originally Posted By: Ted Schefelbein
One gets to a point, eventually, where the yardstick for the argument for most of the participants seems to be the one that hangs out of their fly at the urinal. The “measurements” seem specious unless you can convert them to performance on the field.
If you have the depth of pockets to carry a gun that took several very skilled men most of a year to build, but, can’t hit the broad side of a barn while standing inside of it, it still is a best, just somebody else’s best.


Best,
Ted


Amen brother, amen.
So there is definitely different schools of thought on the subject. For me I always thought “Best” was the best fit and finish not necessary prettiest wood or over embellishments of engravings. Good to hear from you guys!
Is there such a thing as a "best" Crescent or how about a "best" pump Mossberg?

"Best" is a pretty ill-defined term that doesnt mean much to me.
i notice many sellers who consider whatever they're offering to be best guns...
"the best handmade, reliable shooting gun ever manufactured"



"The Best Low-price Guns Made"



"The Best Gun For The Least Money"

I don't see why a boxlock shotgun, or a rifle or revolver for that matter, could not be considered to be a Best Quality gun. But the term seems to have a very loose definition.

To me, a Best Quality gun would be a gun composed of the best available wood and steel, utilizing the epitome of engineering and design, aesthetically and perfectly finished internally and externally by the finest available craftsmen and engravers. Everything about it should be top notch, including heat treating, blue, and stock finish.

The silly question posed above by BrentD, asking if there is such a thing as a "Best" Crescent is totally devoid of rational thought. A Crescent was and is an inexpensive working man's gun that was mass produced to be a cheap and somewhat reliable firearm. Nothing more.

Here's another observation... could the Churchill boxlock pictured above really be considered "Best Quality" with such poor grain layout through the wrist... no matter how nice the figure, checkering, inletting, or finish may be? Best Quality is best in all regards. Nothing more and nothing less. No snobbery involved in these thoughts because I do not own any "Best Quality" guns. But I know the difference between reality and marketing.
From what I have read, a Best Gun" has intercepting sears. Why that matters is beyond me.
The author Dallas wrote a book about an eccentric that commissioned many best guns based on obsolete mechanisms. But, they did seem recognizable as classic game guns and rifles.
A best gun on any given day is the gun I prefer on that day: a high-condition Sterly, Elsie, A&N, Parker, SKB, Francotte, Sauer. Each has interesting provenance/memories. To own a London Best would be pure affectation; not me, my gunning buddies would know II was losing my mind. And the notion of sparing any shotgun from a rainy day, storing them in a vault, makes no sense to me. Takes all kinds, eh?
The nicest gun I own is a boxlock - a 1960s Wesley Richards with full coverage scroll engraving and a scalloped back. Looks like a droplock, but it's not. At least for me, it's a best gun.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
A best gun on any given day is the gun I prefer on that day: a high-condition Sterly, Elsie, A&N, Parker, SKB, Francotte, Sauer. Each has interesting provenance/memories. To own a London Best would be pure affectation; not me, my gunning buddies would know II was losing my mind. And the notion of sparing any shotgun from a rainy day, storing them in a vault, makes no sense to me. Takes all kinds, eh?


Exactly my sentiments, KB.

I was granted the privilege of shooting a line of skeet with a Purdey. It was a great handling gun, the triggers were excellent, and I looked oh so stylish behind it.

It also would sell for about what my truck did when it was new, and this gun was made in the 1930's. I was pretty careful to not drop it on the concrete.

It's a world that would take a Power Ball winner to enter, and of course I would... but I can't imagine not getting bored with such a thing and returning to my 1100's and Berettas for variety.
Hey King, what's wrong with the salt wood auto-5 that's cased with the scuba gear?
Mental Inertia, a term coined by the late Gough Thomas, British gun editor for the Shooting Times (UK) is incompatible with "best". He was also a professional engineer.

He had pointed out that panels and points, a sidelock feature, are totally useless and aesthetically discordant on a boxlock. He illustrated the point using photos of boxlocks with and without them.

Interesting to see how many "best" guns incorporate features indicative of Mental Inertia. If "best" means best workmanship and material, maybe it should also include best design and aesthetics too.
Some (here included, it seems) obviously cannot, or refuse to, grasp the reality of what a "Best" gun originally meant, even though it has been explained more than once in this thread. As aforementioned, when this is discussed, one should go back to the original meaning of the term, which is synonymous with "London best"( because that is where the whole concept began). Certainly it was marketing, with a bit of braggadocio mingled in. But, the quality was there to back up the claim. There were wealthy individuals who could afford to own the "best" that Woodward, Boss, H & H or Purdey could produce, and that's what they wanted.

To attempt to ascribe the characteristics of a "Best gun" to mass produced guns is ludicrous. To even refer to mass produced guns in a thread where the title clearly, and obviously, was referring to the original meaning of the term is ill conceived.

A Browning, a SKB, Sterlingworth or Crescent may be your best gun. That gun may also be the gun with which you can take a limit without a miss, or outshoot the competition with their high $$ guns. And, you may look upon it with fondness, appreciation for what it can do, or sentimentality. It may well be your best gun, but it can never be a "Best", unless it is a "Best gun".

SRH

















Might not be best by some standards, but it ain't squalid either.

Curl
Yes, there is such a thing as a best work gun. Yes, a boxlock can be of best work.

We in the USA live(d) in a socioeconomic system that promoted mass produced goods of a somewhat narrow range of quality whereas the Brits live(d) in a socioeconomic system that promoted handmade goods varying widely in quality.

All Brit vendors of guns could get out a best work gun. Because the gun trade supported many makers/workers (outworkers) to the trade. Price for services rendered determined quality of work.

Best work guns were and remain fearsomely expensive. The upper levels of Brit culture were fearsomely wealthy. Best work guns were only one of many best work goods available and needed to maintain place in society.

Brit guns are for the most part true to the grade they were built for. That is, they have grade harmony of wood quality, engraving quality, fit and finish, design, and materials. You rarely see, say, high grade wood on a pedestrian grade gun.

A London style sidelock of best work is both a quality statement and a fashion statement. On the other hand, a boxlock of best work is a quality statement only.
Rocketman,
That is a very good explanation of it.
Karl
Originally Posted By: Karl Graebner
Rocketman,
That is a very good explanation of it.
Karl

I agree as well
A Dickson round action is a fashion statement if ever I saw one.
"Best work guns were and remain fearsomely expensive."

In the 1920s a best London sidelock retailed for 100 pounds. At that time a Royal Navy captain earned about 450 pounds annually. Ordering a London best was not beyond the ability of the non wealthy.

Today the same gun costs twice the annual salary of a Royal Navy captain. There are other factors at work here.

And a personal experience. In the early 1960s a H&H Royal cost about 1500 pounds. It was about the same price as a regular small English car. Our local butcher bought one. He could afford it. Then came the 1970s and the inflation era, followed by the 1980s engraving madness and the scene changed drastically.
A best gun is the best gun made by a gunmaker . There are some makers who make very expensive guns that would be considers "best ". There are cheaply made guns that have shot thousands of rounds without any problem .There are watches that cost thousands yet my £45.00 watch I bought nearly 20 years ago works well and keeps excellent time . My small car is great in the town and on narrow country lanes so a best Rolls or Bugatti would be less good for my needs .
Basically you can talk as much as you like as to which is best but it all come down to what you like , what you can afford and what you use it for and what you dream about .
Gunman, a Rolls, with all that highly skilled hand work going into the hand polished facia and the leather seats etc, costs 150 dollars per kilo.

A London best goes for about 40 000 dollars per kilo.

No way I will accept that are are more valuable materials or more skilled handwork in a shotgun than in a Rolls, or Ferrari.
Originally Posted By: Shotgunlover
Gunman, a Rolls, with all that highly skilled hand work going into the hand polished facia and the leather seats etc, costs 150 dollars per kilo.

A London best goes for about 40 000 dollars per kilo.

No way I will accept that are are more valuable materials or more skilled handwork in a shotgun than in a Rolls, or Ferrari.


False analogy. Comparative weight is immaterial. It is hours spent to craft the item and the cost of materials used.
I don’t think it matters much what a ‘Best’ gun costs today. The so called golden age of gun making corresponded with the golden age of the British empire. The market for sporting guns was probably much more vigorous, and the class system might have made best features a requirement to various degrees and not a luxury.

I think there can be subjective thoughts of best guns and features, but there seems to be enough understood qualities in common that British best guns can universally discussed.
"False analogy. Comparative weight is immaterial. It is hours spent to craft the item and the cost of materials used. "

Well, I have watched skilled car mechanics assemble V12 engines single handed. I would rate the cost of the materials pretty high, higher than the lock parts of a sidelock anyway, and the skill at least equal to that of an actioner. And it takes a long time to assemble a blue printed V12. I would venture that it takes longer than regulating a lock. Yet replacing a lock on a London best costs more than a brand new V12 engine.


We refuse to accept the obvious: guns are a passion and some people are milking this passion to the full.
Can a boxlock be a "Best Gun"?

One word

ABSOLUTELY
tigertrout, spot on!

And if the design distributes the action area weight properly, the boxlock is the BETTER best gun.

See comments by gunmaker Peter Powell on weight distribution at www.williampowell.com.
Where within the site above is the Peter Powell comment? I failed to find it first try.

DDA
"A Boxlock lasts as long as a Sidelock and some would argue that it is a lot more reliable. Due to ita€™s short a€?stubbya€™ action length, it tends to feel heavier when finished to the same weight as a Sidelock. The feel of the best gun is all about weight distribution and the Sidelock spreads ita€™s action and locks over almost twice the area of a Boxlock, hence it feels more alive in your hands."

This is the relevant quote that I saved to my documents some years ago. The site may have changed content since then.

Interesting in view of the above comment is the tendency of modern boxlock designs that bring the triggers ever closer to the action body, ie shortening the weight dristibution axis, inorder to improve the balance. But balance is not always the same as feel.
Afraid I'll Have to disagree with the gun dynamics part of this statement. The gun making trade failed pretty miserably at understanding gun handling dynamics.

Following is the science of the issue.

Weight is measured with a weight scale and is felt in lift, hold, and carry.

Balance (the teeter-totter kind, not the magical kind that sums up handling in one factor but can't be measured or defined) is the point of the gun where it will balance over a fulcrum, pencil, or finger. It determines how the weight is divided between the hands.

Swing effort is an expression for moment of inertia about some point of the gun. Center of gravity/balance point is the lowest effort for any given gun. It indicates the effort required to point the gun in a different direction when not mounted; for convenience referred to as unmounted swing effort. If the the butt is assumed to be the pivot point then we have an expression for mounted swing effort.

A calculation involving the gun's weight and the unmounted swing effort produces a fifth factor called half weight radius which is an expression of the gun's compactness.

The above five factors characterize individual gun's handling. Weight, balance, and unmounted swing effort are easily measured. Mounted swing effort and half weight radius are easily calculated from the first three.

I have measured and compared a large enough sample of sidelocks and boxlocks to state that action type is of trivial concern as related to handling.

Questions or opinions?

DDA





Originally Posted By: Rocketman
....The above five factors characterize individual gun's handling. Weight, balance, and unmounted swing effort are easily measured. Mounted swing effort and half weight radius are easily calculated from the first three....

If factors four and five are calculations and not derived from additional information taken from the given gun, why are they needed?

What are the average or typical gun handling dynamic measurements, and what standard do they fail against? Just curious.
Having handled thousands of shotguns over the years, I have come to a less scientific view, but one that is born out by experience. A well handling gun will have most of the mass of each and every part towards the middle of the assembled gun.

To make it clearer. Find a gun that handles, well, one that does not resist your movements when you shoulder it. Disasemble it and hold each part, ie barrels, action and forend at the places where the hands normally go when the gun is assembled. Held in such a way each part will tip towards the centre of the gun when assembled.

I have tried this with hundreds of guns and it has proven true.

I think we are talking about the same thing though not in the same terms.

And yes, the action type is not a main factor in handling. Though I do understand what Powell is getting at.

The best handling shotguns I have come across are quality British single barrels, mostly hammer, though there have been a couple of one sided sidelocks. I thought the handling might be due to thinness of the barrels, but all had barrel wall thickness over 35 thou and all had barrel length of over 28 inches.
As always, the best handling shotgun is the one you use all the time and your body has adjusted to it. My opinion anyhow...Geo

But where's he fun in that?
I agree that we are talking about the same thing. However, I think it worthwhile to clear up some differences.

Guns are fixed objects and do not change their shapes. So, their dynamics are also fixed. Each and every gun will have a weight, balance point, unmounted swing effort (the relation between the amount of effort expended by the shooter and the change in direction the gun points while the gun is held between the two hands), mounted swing effort is the same as unmounted except that the gun is mounted to the shoulder and point of rotation is now near the butt. The fifth factor, compactness, is predictive of the relationship between the guns weight and it's swing efforts.

Each part of the gun contributes to weight and each part's weight plus its location determine how much the part contributes to the gun's swing effort.

Balance is determined by the linear equation of weight times location. Swing effort (moment of inertia) is weight times location squared. Weight distribution is much more important in swing effort than in balance.

DDA
Originally Posted By: Rocketman
....Guns are fixed objects and do not change their shapes. So, their dynamics are also fixed....

....mounted swing effort is the same as unmounted except that the gun is mounted to the shoulder and point of rotation is now near the butt. The fifth factor, compactness, is predictive of the relationship between the guns weight and it's swing efforts....

If a gun can be weighed to with in a standard of say an ounce, or a balance point measured to say within a quarter inch, is it accurate enough to say mounted swing effort is near the butt?

Will different shooter builds, shooting styles and target presentations have the potential to significantly change the mounted point of rotation in a consistent way for some shooters and in a variable way for other shooters and situations?

There are probably ways to measure a gun, but are there predictable ways to determine how it will be guided through space by a human, meaning are fixed dynamics a predictor for a successful wing shot?
craig, you may want to translate that for us. Especially that last paragraph/sentence/question.

I think it does not take much imagination to consider what it would be like to swing a yard stick with two lead weights taped to each end, and then to swing it with the two weights taped to the 18" mark. What Rocketman says makes great sense. Unfortunately, there are no easily made standard measurements that could be used to characterize each gun so that they could be included in an auction description.
I and Rocketman, I thought, were understanding that the butt was the rotation point. What if a body type makes your yardstick 38 inches or 34 inches? Does everyone grip a forearm the same? Does a straight extended heavy off arm and forward leaning stance change the effective weight and distribution, a pivot point around the waist change things? Now the shooter hands the same gun dynamics to his petite wife and she leans back to counter the relatively heavy weight for her round of shooting? Do you see the the same numbers on paper?
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: Rocketman
....Guns are fixed objects and do not change their shapes. So, their dynamics are also fixed....

....mounted swing effort is the same as unmounted except that the gun is mounted to the shoulder and point of rotation is now near the butt. The fifth factor, compactness, is predictive of the relationship between the guns weight and it's swing efforts....

If a gun can be weighed to with in a standard of say an ounce, or a balance point measured to say within a quarter inch, is it accurate enough to say mounted swing effort is near the butt?

Will different shooter builds, shooting styles and target presentations have the potential to significantly change the mounted point of rotation in a consistent way for some shooters and in a variable way for other shooters and situations?

There are probably ways to measure a gun, but are there predictable ways to determine how it will be guided through space by a human, meaning are fixed dynamics a predictor for a successful wing shot?


Craig, I'll respond this way.

My career was involved with sporting goods. Particularly golf hardgoods, tennis and footwear. I started in the 1970's when raquets and golf clubs were made the same way they had been made for 60 years, and left those industries at the end of the 1990's, when the transformation of racquet and golf club construction was essentially complete. A move from very traditional methods of construction and materials to as advanced as one can imagine. And like a shot gun, both a racquet and a golf club are swung and consistencey of movement is paramount. They measure freaking everything and the application of scienctific analysis to the materials, to stresses, to movement to everything has created profound change and improvement....for all players, not just the best.

If you don't think Nike analyzed everything imaginable when they decided to enter the golf club business, you don't know how it works.

Shotguns and shotgun owners remind me of golfers from the early 1970's, clinging to tradition and embodying a refusal to understand how real analysis as opposed to subjective assessment of "feel" might improve the tool and their own abilities.
I believe Greener’s top of the line best gun, at the turn of the last century, was the self acting ejector, a box lock gun. He did produce side lock guns at the same time, and they cost less than that model.
My opinion only, but, the part of building a best that is often missed is the effort put into keeping the design serviceable by even a partially skilled gunsmith. I look at the Holland Royals as being better in that regard then the Beesley patent Purdey’s. But, it is almost never brought up.

Best,
Ted
Originally Posted By: canvasback
....Craig, I'll respond this way....

....Shotguns and shotgun owners remind me of golfers from the early 1970's, clinging to tradition and embodying a refusal to understand how real analysis as opposed to subjective assessment of "feel" might improve the tool and their own abilities.

cback, I can understand development and scientific analysis, what you did not say, was that club and racket makers failed miserably.

I asked how five factors could be crucial, when two of them are mathematically derived from the other three. I asked what the dynamic goal was, how far off was traditional from desireability. I guess I could add, have the tradtional or any side by side makers learned their lesson and improved the dynamics? Keep in mind, I hope we aren't thinking, yes we have learned and it's called the over under, not coincidentally paralleling the golf time frame scenario?
Originally Posted By: craigd
I could add, have the tradtional or any side by side makers learned their lesson and improved the dynamics?


Constantly.

Guns are purpose built.

A pigeon gun has different dynamics than an upland gun.

I would submit that 'subjective assessment of feel' is the same as 'real analysis'.

Quantifying this while interesting and explanatory serves no real purpose in improvement of state of the art.

The only way you find out what you shoot best is to (drum roll) shoot.
Originally Posted By: Shotgunjones
....Quantifying this while interesting and explanatory serves no real purpose in improvement of state of the art....

What if state of the art is not necessary. Quantifying could give a number and location of where to shift a few ounces that makes a difference on a modest gun, but where are we headed?
It's easy to overthink this.

A decade and a half ago the Beretta 391 was all rage.

Nice aluminum alloy frame gun, light, splendid dynamics.... for most.

The target shooters got a hold of these and of course they knew better than Beretta and their years of experience and testing.

They started to hang weights all over them, defeating the design entirely. Even Beretta eventually developed a buttstock weight that was standard in some models. It sold.

No scientific testing was done on this, they just dorked around until they got something that THEY THOUGHT played well for them individually.

Shooters are sometimes not the brightest bunch, and I include myself in that demographic. They are going to modify and customize. It's just part of the hobby. A great deal of this business is simply in your head.

You can quantify and write equations all you want, it's not going penetrate a real shooter's skull.
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: canvasback
....Craig, I'll respond this way....

....Shotguns and shotgun owners remind me of golfers from the early 1970's, clinging to tradition and embodying a refusal to understand how real analysis as opposed to subjective assessment of "feel" might improve the tool and their own abilities.

cback, I can understand development and scientific analysis, what you did not say, was that club and racket makers failed miserably.

I asked how five factors could be crucial, when two of them are mathematically derived from the other three. I asked what the dynamic goal was, how far off was traditional from desireability. I guess I could add, have the tradtional or any side by side makers learned their lesson and improved the dynamics? Keep in mind, I hope we aren't thinking, yes we have learned and it's called the over under, not coincidentally paralleling the golf time frame scenario?


LOL Failed misrably eh? Clearly you neither play tennis or golf. Or if you have in the last 20 years, you never played seriously with wood racquets or traditionally made forged head golf clubs prior.
Not by choice, turns out I have an allergy to both. Is it bad form to say that the lady golfers look more dynamic on TV, than a few of the dudes that swing a racket in the womens tournaments?
Originally Posted By: Shotgunjones
Having handled thousands of shotguns over the years, I have come to a less scientific view, but one that is born out by experience. A well handling gun will have most of the mass of each and every part towards the middle of the assembled gun.

To make it clearer. Find a gun that handles, well, one that does not resist your movements when you shoulder it. Disasemble it and hold each part, ie barrels, action and forend at the places where the hands normally go when the gun is assembled. Held in such a way each part will tip towards the centre of the gun when assembled.


Evidently you never handled one of my little .410 S x Ss. It has an alloy action, 28" barrels and fairly dense wood in the buttstock, which is generous in it's LOP. Rocketman measured, weighed, and spun it years ago on his MOI turntable to get the numbers for me and his database. I had commented that the little lightweight was easy for me to shoot well, contrary to what most people find to be the case with very lightweight guns. It weighs 4 lb. 14 oz. When he finished his determinations he explained to me why it was easy to shoot well, despite it's featherweight. It has more of it's mass concentrated on the ends, as opposed to in the action body. This gives the gun the "feel" of a heavier double with more traditional weight distribution characteristics.

Total gun weight is not the end all characteristic so many shooters think it is. Where that weight is concentrated is, and not all guns are "heavy in the middle". At least one is just the opposite. And, I'm willing to bet it's not the only one.

SRH


Yogi musta said that because it wasn't me.

I'm with you there though Stan. My little Rizzini 20ga. is similar. The long barrel set and long pull make the 5lb, 14oz gun handle like a slightly heavier gun.

When Krieghoff decided they wanted some of the Italian market they went to a lighter barrel set and took weight out of the front end. It's a fairly simple concept like why we try to avoid weight in the ends of a sailboat, but it works both ways.
Originally Posted By: Shotgunjones
Yogi musta said that because it wasn't me.


Huh? So, you didn't mean it when you said it, on p. 6 of this thread?

SRH
Different guy. Similar moniker.

Not to worry.
Good questions!

Scales are available that will weigh within a small fraction of an ounce. MY experiments say most shooters can detect a 4 ounce change in weight; thus, 1 ounce accuracy is acceptable. Balance point is detectable for most at 1/4" variation and can be measured to a smaller fraction. Saying mounted swing effort is "near" the butt does not account for the distance from mount point to spinal axis (the real axis of rotation). Ignoring spine to shoulder width means we will not be able to have an absolute number, but the gun's contribution is captured.

Q#2 - Yes. However, the point of balance is the point of rotation that requires the minimum force to accelerate rotation. Note that an object "flung" through the air will rotate about its balance point. Most shooters will rotate the gun held between the hands very near to balance point.

Q#3 - For each shooter there is a set of stock measurements that will make for the highest % of successful shots. However, purpose of the shot may well require differing sets of dimensions; skeet gun vs trap gun. Like wise, sets of dynamic factors will/may vary for differing shot purposes.

DDA
Originally Posted By: Shotgunjones
Different guy. Similar moniker.

Not to worry.


No, same guy. Weird.

SRH
Originally Posted By: Shotgunlover
Having handled thousands of shotguns over the years, I have come to a less scientific view, but one that is born out by experience. A well handling gun will have most of the mass of each and every part towards the middle of the assembled gun.

To make it clearer. Find a gun that handles, well, one that does not resist your movements when you shoulder it. Disasemble it and hold each part, ie barrels, action and forend at the places where the hands normally go when the gun is assembled. Held in such a way each part will tip towards the centre of the gun when assembled.

I have tried this with hundreds of guns and it has proven true.

I think we are talking about the same thing though not in the same terms.

And yes, the action type is not a main factor in handling. Though I do understand what Powell is getting at.

The best handling shotguns I have come across are quality British single barrels, mostly hammer, though there have been a couple of one sided sidelocks. I thought the handling might be due to thinness of the barrels, but all had barrel wall thickness over 35 thou and all had barrel length of over 28 inches.




Must be a computer thing.
Originally Posted By: Shotgunjones
It's a British marketing term.

No more, no less.

People get all caught up in the terminology as if it means something.



This...precisely. It doesn't relate to any generally accepted standard. It was just a marketing term.

Imagine 100 years from now a guy is showing his 2020-vintage BMW to someone, and the other says, "What was it that made this car so great back then?" And the guy responds, "Well, it was the ultimate driving machine."

That's literally what we're talking about. A marketing term adopted to get 'men of means' to dig deeper into their pocket...so they could proudly tell their mates they "bought the best."

NDG
Originally Posted By: Shotgunjones
Originally Posted By: Shotgunlover
Having handled thousands of shotguns over the years, I have come to a less scientific view, but one that is born out by experience. A well handling gun will have most of the mass of each and every part towards the middle of the assembled gun.

To make it clearer. Find a gun that handles, well, one that does not resist your movements when you shoulder it. Disasemble it and hold each part, ie barrels, action and forend at the places where the hands normally go when the gun is assembled. Held in such a way each part will tip towards the centre of the gun when assembled.

I have tried this with hundreds of guns and it has proven true.

I think we are talking about the same thing though not in the same terms.

And yes, the action type is not a main factor in handling. Though I do understand what Powell is getting at.

The best handling shotguns I have come across are quality British single barrels, mostly hammer, though there have been a couple of one sided sidelocks. I thought the handling might be due to thinness of the barrels, but all had barrel wall thickness over 35 thou and all had barrel length of over 28 inches.




Must be a computer thing.


No, it's a senior moment thing. Even when you corrected me I still didn't see it. My apologies to you. Thanks for your patience.

Best, SRH
Never a problem. We actually agree on the point in question.

Threads do tend to drift, and this one rather got off topic.

Hope you have a splendid dove season Stan.
Originally Posted By: Shotgunjones
Never a problem. We actually agree on the point in question.

Threads do tend to drift, and this one rather got off topic.

Hope you have a splendid dove season Stan.


Thanks, my friend.

39 days and a wake-up!

SRH
© The DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com