What makes a shotgun perfectly balanced? Is it in the eye of the holder? What feels perfectly balanced to me may not for you? How can you pick up a gun at the Southern and say, wow, this feels great. Then pick up dozens of other shotguns , best guns, and none have the same feel. Wouldn't you expect a Boss or Purdey to have the same feel or is it all just individual?
Subjective for certain but many agree on a few basic things. But just like what makes a lady beautiful is debatable, so to is what makes a gun "perfect". But most seem to have a feel for what they like and many will struggle to explain it when asked. Hand size, arm lengthen, body size, body type, shooting style all need to be balance against what type of shooting is, what the gun weighs, what the balance point is, LOP, barrel length and about five extra things that seem to enter the decision. You sir, have opened a can of worms and I am happy to see the reasoned responses.
That's hogwash. All that to-do about English guns balancing on the cross pin when, if you put two loaded shells in the chambers it will no longer balance at the same spot. What good is it to brag on a gun "balancing at the cross pin" when it's empty?
Empty guns break no clays, nor do they kill birds.
This business of balancing on the pin etc means little. You can balance a gun on the cross pin while hanging ten kilo weights on either end.
I suspect that what most people mean by balance is handling. The main thing there is to have a gun that does not fight you when you move it, ie has most of its mass in the part between the hands. This is not exclusively a best gun feature. In a blind test described in a British magazine a humble Bernardelli Ellio 16g came out as best handling.
Mike, I've owned two English best guns. I still own and hunt with one of them. The gun I've shot the the best with, while hunting, was a lower end Spanish gun. I don't have a good reason why. terc
The wrong pair of shoes will never feel right. Same goes for guns. You can also have a gun that feels "perfect" yet you can not hit with. Never let go of a magic wand.
Interesting comments, wonder how many here has shot a well made English Best?
Don't know about anyone else who posted in reply to you but I have, if Purdeys meet your qualifications. I broke every bird on the station with it, but, I also shot a 100 X 100 last April with a Win. Super X2. It hardly balances on the "cross pin" ............. it doesn't even have one.
Since different makes have different action lengths, I fail to see the value of balancing on the hinge pin. The question is how it works as a dance partner when you and the gun and the bird are in motion. If you struggle to get the gun moving, it is too heavy forward. If you struggle to keep it moving, it is too light forward. The guns that work for me tend to balance about 4.5" ahead of the front trigger for walkup shooting, and 5" for pass shooting, but that's not a hard and fast rule.
Trigger(s), balance, and fit. The stocker is the person to see for two of those.
This subject can be over simplified or made needlessly complex.
I've found a lght gun benefits greatly from a bit of weight distribution towards the ends - thus my preference for a long barrel set and a long pull on a small bore double. It of course would 'balance' the same place as one with a shorter barrel and stock.
Most of it is what you get used to. Many people shoot a K-80 very well and that's about as dead a gun as can be found. Even Kriegoff finally came to their senses and came out with a model with a lighter barrel set.
Yes, I've had the good fortune to shoot a Purdey. I looked stunning behind it in my blue jeans and T-shirt, at least so I was told. It's a gun. I could learn to shoot it.
Same guys who tell me my Model 50 is so butt heavy as to be useless admire a 'lively' Perazzi.
Stan, I like my automatics to balance someplace along the ejection port. That gives me a about a 3" range so I'm never disappointed.
Stan, I like my automatics to balance someplace along the ejection port. That gives me a about a 3" range so I'm never disappointed.
Is that with it loaded or unloaded, and if loaded would that be with ........... 7/8 oz., 1 oz., 1 1/16 oz., 1 1/8 oz., or heavier loads? All that will shift the balance point, don'tcha know?
Same guys who tell me my Model 50 is so butt heavy as to be useless admire a 'lively' Perazzi.
Only time I care what the other guys think about my gun is when it is for sale. Otherwise, it puts birds in the grass or it doesn't.
Of course, but the discussions go on at the clubs as they go on here. It's a big part of the fun.
One very memorable occasion comes to mind. An automotive engineer friend of mine was overly enamored with the Auto-5 pattern shotgun. A particular pride and joy of his was a Remington Model 11 'Sportsman' with a factory Poly-Choke. Larry shot the thing well, just because he was good shooter. I teased him about the ugly 'ducks' on the sides and the pickle on the end and the firewood for a stock... it was all in good fun.
So I'm passing through a gun show and what do I stumble across. A gun identical to Larry's. It's worth the $300 just for the gag. I call and tell him to be sure to bring his Model 11 out to the club for our Thursday shoot because a guy wants to look at it. Larry complies. I put mine in the rack next to his and asked if he would sell his so I could have a composed pair.
It gets better. Dave was there with his DT-10. The three of us shot a line of skeet, and the banter started. Score, Larry 25, me 25, Dave 24. A new DT-10 beaten by not one, but 2 Poly-Choked Remington 11's.
It's the Indian, boys... not the arrow. Gosh that was fun. I haven't seen Dave in years, but I hope he's well and reads this board.
Stan, I like my automatics to balance someplace along the ejection port. That gives me a about a 3" range so I'm never disappointed.
Is that with it loaded or unloaded, and if loaded would that be with ........... 7/8 oz., 1 oz., 1 1/16 oz., 1 1/8 oz., or heavier loads? All that will shift the balance point, don'tcha know?
Balance point changes every shot.
I still have a standard weight A5 with a 30" lightweight barrel that has 3 AA hulls full of #8 shot in front of the magazine spring because I wanted to (get this) shoot some trap doubles with it.
It worked so well i decided to leave it. Stupid is as stupid does...
It is all a sales pitch to sell those over priced £200 or £250 lumps of wood to the man who has everything except common sense. Of course he did not say that some people do like a gun to be slightly barrel heavy and others prefer slightly stock heavy it is all a matter of what is right for the individual. I have found that if the action weight is somewhere central when your hand is in the correct shooting position on the fore end with the other holding the correct place on the grip area is good enough for me. My balancing pivot is a piece of dowel held in a bench vice costing more or less nothing. "A fool and his money are soon parted."
"Interesting comments, wonder how many here has shot a well made English Best?"
I have, lots of them, and also Italian, French, Spanish, Belgian and German high end guns. The best feel in the hands I have come across is in English medium to high quality SINGLE barrel guns from makers like Lang, Midland, and others.
I carried out an experiment one day in a shop that has hundreds of high end guns. After clients mounted best doubles I put the Lang single in their hands. Everyone was impressed with the feel, but no one was willing to forego the second shot.
Something similar happened with the Beretta 304 which is three shot 2 3/4 chambered. It is one of the best handling autos, but it was outsold 5 to 1 by the Beretta 390 with its 4 shot capacity and magnum chamber. The 390 handles like a brick but provides more firepower and that seems to count.
Shotgunlover, I have a Tolley single barrel 12 ga that feels fantastic in the hands. The only gun in my safe that feels better in my hands is the Lindner Daly 20 gauge I picked up last winter. But with a loose forend lug I’ve not shot the Daly 20 yet…..it’s waiting for it’s appointment with CJO. So I can’t tell yet how I shoot it. But I’ll note I also have a short barreled 12 ga Purdey and it feels just okay. But I hit with it.
IIRC member GLS has a couple English single barrel game guns. Since I bought my Tolley about 10 years ago, I’m always on the lookout for another but they are as rare as the proverbial hens teeth up here.
I fancy a nice English single barrel, myself, but haven't begun the search for one yet. I recall great pictures on here of geese taken by Terry Lubzinski with his beautiful single barrel fowlers. I miss Terry and his photographs. Anyone heard from him? I see he hasn't been on this forum since March past.
The 390 handles like a brick but provides more firepower and that seems to count.
They got it pretty much right with the 391. Then of course people started hanging weights all over them.
The 20 gauge Superposed is known to handle well. I nominate a variant thereof as the gun with the best dynamics I've experienced.
The 30" 20ga. Citori XS 'sport' is near to perfect, at least for me, at exactly 7 pounds. If I could put a Krieghoff trigger on that one it would be my ultimate shotgun.
Well I wonder, you think a balanced gun makes you shoot better? If you shoot poorly with a Fox Sterlingworth then I would think you would shoot poorly with a Boss. I think a well balanced gun in the hands make the gun feel almost as it is not in your hands. Shooting poorly is the result of lots of things, poor gun mount, poor gun fit, bad habits in shooting. When you purchased a gun from Purdey or Boss they first did the gun fitting, built the gun and made sure it was properly balanced. Then you left the shop and what results you may of had was a result of yourself. Are we all thinking about this the same way?
I believe it is developing muscle memory with a gun that you shoot well and feel comfortable with. I have several like that and for that reason agree with John E's advice and will never part with them. Karl
"they have not yet learned to shoot", very true but not through a fault of their own.
Shotgun shooting instruction lags behind other sport teaching. The approach that is the most frequently applied is to teach the basics of safety, get the pupil on the stand and let him have a go at full speed clays. The cycling equivalent would be to put someone on a racing bike and let him have his first try in traffic.
If instructors approached shooting in the way that cycling is taught to adult non cyclists, ie start with a balance bike, which lets the pupil discover equilibrium, then move on to slow riding pedal bikes, etc, in other words a layered gradual teaching method, then we would see positive results.
I am convinced that instruction deficiency is partly responsible for the failure to attract new shooters.
I know this will sound like sacrilege to you guys. I used to be a descent shot on ducks, pretty good at ruffed grouse and pheasants were pretty easy. Then I took a 20 years break from hunting. Now, I only hunt pheasants and shoot like shit. I also found out that I don't care. Just being out in the field again, with nature, birds and dogs is all I need. But I do like nice shotguns.
Strange thing is I too love shotguns and shoot them with mediocre results. On the other hand, I shot formal pistol sports for many years with above average results, yet I do not really like pistols, to me they are as attractive as wrenches. Go figure.
I had a shooting buddy who was a legit top 10-15 shooter in his sport. He became obsessed with equipment being his next step that he never got any better. In fact he quickly regressed and in two years was about top 50. Did he return to basics and refine his game? Nope, went from gun to gun, accessories to accessories and became a shooter who was never a serious top shot. Went on that way for 30 years. It was never the gun but always the man.
Perfect gun is not a definable thing. If you are happy I am happy for you. I like shooting different guns and would be sad if I found only one which worked for me.
You would be surprised at how good you can still get.
If you shoot presentations that mimic your typical wild game for the summer, with any reasonable frequency, all of your standard presentations in the fall become pretty easy. Especially pheasants over grass.
Dropping ducks in the hole? Practice!
Etc. etc. etc.
FWIW, I quit jump shooting mallards for exactly that reason. Too easy, and the first bird up is always a young hen.
If you don’t want to, that’s cool too, and the used gun market needs people that jump from gun to gun without practicing.
Shotgunjones' story about the venerable Model 11 reminded me that I have one, a family keepsake made in 1919 and purchased by my wife's great uncle after his return from The Great War. A giant of a man, he toted that 8.5# cannon all over the West Slope from 1919 until his death in 1971. We acquired it upon my father in law's death in 1995, and I still take it out for a shoot now and again for old times' sake.
Just out of idle curiosity, I laid it across my finger and found that it balances 4.5" ahead of the trigger (unloaded). The receiver was milled from a block of steel and, with the butt, nicely balances the 28" heavy barrel and the 4-shot magazine. The old gun actually shoots pretty well, if the shooter is strong enough to carry it and can shoot "head up" to see over the receiver.
They aren't pretty to my eye. One of the local sporting clays shooters ported the barrel on his to annoy the gun snobs. That didn't help its looks.
You got me curious, so I dug the M11 'Sportsman' out. Never weighed it or checked the balance point. Nothing that I can do about it anyway..
8 pounds, 7 oz. balances 1/4" in front of the ejection port bolt closed, unloaded. The weight is quite centralized, and it actually swings pretty quickly.
Remington's finish process circa 1947 was very nice. This one retains essentially all the blue. The trigger is fair, and better than some modern production stuff.
I doubt the average American hunter of the day gave much thought to balance point.
Balance point, in conjunction with hand placement, tells you how the gun's weight is distributed between your hands (% of weight in the right and % of weight in the left). And that is all it tells you. Different shooters have different levels of sensitivity to this factor (balance). There is no one best/optimum location for the balance point. Balance point is the center of gravity (CG) of the gun and is useful in other factors.
The factors in gun handling are weight, balance point, swing effort unmounted and swing effort mounted. Each of these four factors can have an objective (numerical) value associated with it. There are no magic/secret combination(s) of the factors that are best. And, there is no one summative number; you have to have all four.
About those best work guns - - - yes I have, yes I do, and, yes, I plan to continue.
If anyone wants to talk more in depth, so post and we can extend this conversation --- gladly.
Here is a comment from Peter Powell, gunmaker, re balance of sidelocks and boxlocks:
"What are the merits of the two: A Boxlock lasts as long as a Sidelock and some would argue that it is a lot more reliable. Due to its short stubby 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 its action and locks over almost twice the area of a Boxlock, hence it feels more alive in your hands."
With the above in mind look at modern high end boxlocks in profile and you will notice that the makers have brought the trigger group forward nearer the receiver. The internal action tends to promote this layout, the sears are hinged on an axle at the back of the action thus allowing a forward m ove of the triggers. The sidelock design puts the sears and hence the triggers further back. One Italian maker told me that in his opinion having the triggers, and therefore the hand, closer to the action body aids handling. I have my doubts. It is not all about concentrating the weight in the smallest area possible. There is more at play here.
What Powell said "the Sidelock spreads its action and locks over almost twice the area of a Boxlock, hence it feels more alive in your hands.", does not jive with how I understand what Don Amos explained, concerning the moment of inertia, to me. I equate "alive in the hands" with the ability to move the gun easily about, at will, almost as if there was nothing in your hands and you were just pointing a finger, so to speak. This is accomplished by doing exactly the opposite of what Powell suggested. Concentrating the mass of the gun nearer the balance point has the effect of taking mass away from the extremities of the gun. It creates less resistance to the muscles moving the gun. In extreme cases it can lead to what one person may call "whippiness", or the quality that may cause one to wave the muzzles all about before they settle down on target.
The opposite scenario, lessening the mass at the balance point and moving it towards the ends (the muzzles and the butt), causes the gun to have greater resistance to moving from a static state, or changing direction. This can be a bad thing ........... or a good thing. I have a little 28" barreled .410 S X S that only weighs 4 - 14. Ordinarily one would assume it would be nearly impossible to shoot well, yet I found I could shoot it very well. I was a bit puzzled until Don (Rocketman) spun it for me on his turntable device and did some measurements. He told me that it even surprised him that the MOI was what it turned out to be, and that it was very close to that of a 12 ga. English game gun that would weigh considerably more. This was accomplished by using an aluminum alloy for the action frame, which lessened the mass near the balance point, and by leaving the barrels thicker nearer the muzzles, and also by stocking it for a full sized man, at roughly 14 3/4" LOP ............. thus shifting much of the mass from the center (balance point) towards the ends (muzzles and butt).
There is no disputing the numbers. The physics of this are not up for correction. The problem, IMO, comes when we try to assign terminology to how a gun feels. "Alive", "lively", "whippy", "quick", "alive in the hands" ........... as opposed to "sluggish", "heavy", "clumsy", "dead". Two people may never be able to agree on the proper adjectives to describe gun handling characteristics (because no two persons have the same muscle memory with shotguns), but to argue that dynamics are not greatly affected by internal weight distribution is akin to denying the sunrise. I consider my time spent with Don, and his MOI machine, at the top of the most enlightening times I have ever had in understanding gun handling. I've shot lots of shotguns in my life, at targets and game, including English best. I can find nothing "exclusive" about the way an English "best" handles, nor does it break targets or kill game any better than another make of gun. If beauty is where you find it, then I would advance that the perfect match for any one person, in a gun, is where you find it, too. Understanding the numbers can help you narrow that search, but ultimately it is how well you bond with that gun, and how much you shoot it. Once that "pearl" is located, one would be well advised to sell off whatever is necessary to acquire it, and then never let it go. The more you shoot it, the better the gun will "become".
Powell is referring to the distribution of the mass of the action in the area between the hands, not to moving weight to the extremities of the gun as a whole. He specifically mentions guns of equal weight having a different feel due the action types involved.
In my experience Powell's observations are manifested in guns such as the Darne and Dickson Round Action, which handle well and, like sidelocks, distribute the weight of their action over a longer axis than A&D boxlocks. The extensive lockwork in both types is located well behind the standing breech but forward of the stock gripping hand.
Exactly correct in all points Stan, and very well presented.
Well said.
I wish i had the opportunity to shoot more but I'm on the road all the time. And being on the road allows me the funds to buy guns and go on hunting trips. Kind of a catch 22
Shotgunlover, I used the .410 as an extreme example when I said "moving it to the ends". But the principle doesn't change. When you begin to move it away from the balance point any at all it changes the handling, and begins to move the characteristic away from "liveliness" towards "sluggishness". He said exactly the opposite.
As I said before, this is physics, not some vague or ephemeral concept.
It would be interesting to see comparative figures from Rocketman's POI meter for the Darne, Dickson, a well made sidelock, a stubby modern boxlock and the Baby Bretton. All with equal barrel and stock lengths if possible. I mention the Bretton since its major mass, the receiver, is compact and near the trigger hand like most boxlocks, while it has light aluminum barrels and a hollow stock.
I do not read Powell's comment as a denial of the physics at all. He is saying that the distribution of the gun's major mass, the action, between the hands affects its handling. He is always referring to the distribution of that particular mass, the action, not the weight of the whole gun. Powell is talking from the point of view of the craftsman who has to make good handling guns to make a living, which he did.
What Powell might be trying to express instead of 'feels more alive in your hands' could be 'feels more alive when mounted'.
There's a difference. If the weight is moved aft so the gun is muzzle light and butt heavy it will indeed be more 'lively', as in easier to move to the target.
This would be Don's 'mounted swing effort' as I understand it.
I think I know a little about shotgun handling, but I won't beat my drum here. However, let me give you an example. The 3200 Remington has been described for decades as a heavy, ill balanced, eight and three quarter pound slug of a gun. However, in a game that requires the ultimate in gun handling, International Skeet, the 3200 was used to win the 1984 Olympic Gold Medal in International Skeet by an American shooter using this gun, straight out of the box. This shooter could shoot any gun on this planet, but he chose the 3200. There is a lot that can be done to change the balance of a "slug of a shotgun", but changing the position of the off hand on the forend is number one. Nothing else can be done unless you change the gun you are shooting. This winner of the Gold Medal probably didn't even think about changing shotguns. He went to the store and spent $400 on a standard 3200 skeet, just as I did when I became serious about International Skeet. Some guns feel better than others for various purposes, but there are many purposes, and bird hunting for quail and grouse is only one purpose. Dove or duck hunting from a blind is another purpose. However, as I have stated before, learning to shoot is the biggest factor in gun balance.
My good friend Stan and I agree that a multitude of guns is the preferred method for successful shotgunning, but, in the absence of a bunch of guns, hand position on the forearm is another way to change the balance of your gun. Neither Stan or I need Ed's assistance in adding to our stash of shotguns.
Yes, the position of the hands is important, it is through the hands that feel is transferred to the body.
What Powell is apparently implying is that the right hand has a role in the perception of feel and gun types that put the gripping hand (right hand for right handers) a little further back improve the feel. By contrast gun designs that have the right hand closer to the action body give a less lively feel. Action types with lock work behind the action body, ie sidelocks, trigger plate locks, sliding breeches, by necessity put the triggers and the gripping hand a little further back.
I will add a personal observation: boxlocks with a longer rearward placement of the triggers, seem to handle a little better than boxlocks with the triggers closer to the action. Compare a Westley Richards boxlock double trigger with one with a single trigger for instance.
The problem is to get one of each of the above types of actions in the same place at the same time and compare. I have handled them all, but one at a time. If there is a lucky soul that has one of each they can compare and tell us.
Except that the right hand really can't 'go' back. Pull length is determined by the geometry of the shooter within reason. What would seem to occur with weight spread out as you describe would be the action mass going forward. = deader gun, not livlier.
I'd disagree with Mr. Powell as I have found SLE and BLE balance points over quite a wide range and with general overlap. Not definitive, but indicative, data shows shooters can generally , after some "calibration" and sensitivity training, detect 1/4" change in point of balance.
Remember that shooters are each unique in size, strength, muscle reaction speed, hand-eye coordination, and a bunch of psychological factors.
The four handling factors must be separated for the shooter to understand the gun. Interested shooters need a weigh scale and a balance fulcrum to get started. Knowing weight and balance, you can concentrate on unmounted swing and mounted swing separately. It is not helpful to try to understand/feel the four factors all at the same time.
Weight tells you the amount of physical effort expended in lifting, holding, and carrying the gun. Balance, along with hand placement, tells you the % of weight in each hand. Note that the closer the hand center is to the balance point the more of the weight it will hold. Ever see a guy pick up an unfamiliar gun and slide his forward hand back and forth trying to get comfortable with the gun? This little exercise tells you that the gun's balance point does not suit him. He will place his hands in his "natural" locations and, not being comfortable with the feel, start trying to correct by repositioning his front hand.
Swing efforts tell you the effort you will expend to point the gun in a different direction. The unmounted gun will naturally wish to swing about the balance point unless extra effort is expended to force it to swing about a different point. Unmounted swing is considerably less than mounted. Why? Because mounted forces the gun to swing about the axis represented by the shooter's spine. We can estimate this factor (normalize it to remove the shooter's influence) by calculating the swing effort about the gun's butt.
I will add to shotgunlover’s statement regarding round action lockwork mass being farther back in the stock,which is absolutely correct. Note also that the mass is lower in the action as well and feels, to me, “racy” in the hand. The closest analogue would be a race car with the engine placed as low as possible in the engine bay to improve handling.
"Except that the right hand really can't 'go' back."
The hand goes back when moving from front to rear trigger in double trigger guns. It is permanently positioned a little further back in single trigger guns. In the Westley Richards single triggers the trigger is at about the same spot as the rear trigger of a double trigger model. These details affect both stock length and the placement of the left hand on the forend. Stock makers presumably take these details into account in bespoke guns.
Rocketman's comment "Balance, along with hand placement, tells you the % of weight in each hand." is probably what Powell is trying to say.
"What makes a shotgun perfectly balanced? Is it in the eye of the holder? What feels perfectly balanced to me may not for you? How can you pick up a gun at the Southern and say, wow, this feels great. Then pick up dozens of other shotguns , best guns, and none have the same feel. Wouldn't you expect a Boss or Purdey to have the same feel or is it all just individual?"
consider...that choosing a new shotgun, is similar to choosing a new woman...the first thing that catches your attention, is phyical appearance...shes gotta be ah looker, or you just pass her by...next you get ah little closer an see how she feels...at this point, you either fall in love or walk away...
Eddie, what in the Blue Bonnet Blazes does sex appeal have to do with how a shotgun feels and handles when mounted--?? It is what comes out the muzzle end when you pull the trigger that counts. I can move by left hand slightly to compensate for the "balance feel" when I go from 1 12 gauge Model 12 to another in my "working collection"-- Ditto with my side-by-sides- a smattering of 12 gauge L.C. Smiths, with one Fox Sterlingworth 20 gauge, and a field grade M21 in 12 gauge. Being a serious varmint shooter and target pistol fellow, trigger pull on a shotgun, no matter the configuration and design, is my "key" to good wingshooting, right along with gun fit. RWTF
After examining thousands of shotguns of all types, including the top makes of every nation, I found that there are some common characteristics in what contributes to good handling. With the shotgun taken down pick up each part and hold it from the point you hold it when mounting. So you hold the barrels where your hand would go when picking up the assembled gun, hold the stock and action assembly from the grip and so on.
The more pronounced the tendency of each individual part to swing towards the center, the better the handling of the assembled gun will prove. Conversely the more sluggish, or absent, this tendency the more likely it is to handle indifferently. This test has proven more reliable than balancing at some point of the assembled gun. Any gun will balance at some point along its length, this in itself does not say much for the handling in practice.
As for the finest handling gun I have come acrosss, it is a single barrel 12 gauge sidelock Lang. Yes single barrel sidelock, it has one lock on one side and an escutcheon on the other. You can see it here:
SGJ, what is it about the Lang single bbl that prompts your feeling of fine handling quality? Light/heavy weight? Balance point from trigger? Short/long bbl? Light/heavy stock? How does its handling compare to a typical Brit game gun? Typical Brit game gun has the following handling characteristics: 6 1/2# weight, 4 1/2" balance to (front) trigger, unmounted swing of 1.45, and mounted swing of 6.4 (average of 60 some guns).
It is both possible and practical to sum the parts/assemblies of a gun to see where the swing characteristics are coming from. For example, measuring the weight, balance, and MOI at balance for a set of barrels and forearm (assembly) and for a stocked action would give a "which was causing what" for that gun. I have now two positive experiences of specing the restorative work on quality "orphaneds." Per Dig Haddoke's theory of restoring best work guns to usefulness and owning a best work gun for about 20% of new, I have tried one with high quality barrel sleeving and another with a restock. In both cases I got what I wanted for what I could afford. I'm convinced that it is possible to spec a gun for handling provided you actually know what you want. That is to say replicate the handling of one gun to another.
Interesting, Don. I would think that, for a multiple gun shooter, having the specs of all of them very near matching would do more for your shooting than seeking one magic set of numbers. As long as the guns were reasonably well suited in MOI and swing effort, and barring extreme weight differences, muscle memory would have a much easier time of it, and you would (should) shoot them all with pretty much the same degree of effectiveness.
Caveat ..........as long as you could keep the "thinking side of it" to a minimum.
" what is it about the Lang single bbl that prompts your feeling of fine handling quality?"
It lets me feel that I am in control of the gun, rather than the other way round. A prime example of a gun that would not let me control it is the Blaser F16 Sporting with that brick like stock comb and its muzzle heavy feel. By accident the Lang's stock dimensions happen to suit me just right, as does the stock shape, a factor not often discussed.
The Lang has a 30 inch barrel, yet it feels in my hands more like a Churchill XXV. The pointability is partly due to the weight distribution, but mostly I think due to the single barrel construction. The left hand, the one that points, is as near to the barrel axis as you can get. Note also the short forend which most likely works well with the right hand placement due to the sidelock form. The mass of the guns is definitely between the hands. That feel in combination with the longer barrel contributes to the sense of control over the gun.
It is not a light gun. Though single the barrel walls have plenty of metal in them, if I recall thickness is about 40 thou before the choke cone. I figure the weight at about 6 lbs. I do not recall the balance point. What is noticeable is that the barrel, due to the generous amount of metal at the breech, snaps back when held at the the point just before the forend. The breech walls are about 4mm thick.
This Lang is not super unique. Most of the quality English singles, usually hammer guns, display the same general characteristics. This Lang happens to suit me best. Second comes a 16 gauge peninsula lock hammer single from Midland Gun Company.
Singles, regardless of quality, are not going to displace doubles or autos. However, these quality singles are useful tools for comparison of this thing we call handling.
An aside. I read somewhere that these quality singles were known as "vicar's guns" because clergymen needed a respectable yet affordable gun to attend invitation shoots.
interesting comment re sidelock handling and balance, by two English gun experts discussing four London bests, Purdey, Holland, Boss and Woodward.
"even distribution of weight over the whole gun so that it feels effortless to use" is an intriguing comment by the Holt's man who handles best guns all day every day. His opinion sounds close to what Powell had written.
even distribution of weight over the whole gun so that it feels effortless to use" is an intriguing comment by the Holt's man who handles best guns all day every day. His opinion sounds close to what Powell had written.
That perfectly describes the William Powell and Son that I picked up. I just got back from 3 hours in the pheasant field and the thought occurred to me that I never noticed I had a gun in my hands the whole time. I got it at the Southern . Picked it up as an afterthought, sandwiched between 2 other guns I was looking at. As soon as I picked it up ,it was wow. This feels like no more than 6 lbs. I spent the next 2 days comparing it's feel to Boss, Purdey, H& H, guns out of mv price range, and none felt as good. I went back repeatedly to compare. When I had a feeling of dread ,thinking it might be gone,I bought it. Apparently it felt better to me than everyone else.
ksauers, that gun sounds very much like a sidelock JP Sauer & Son 12 bore with 30” barrels I own. It is perfectly balanced and I have no way to describe it. You just instantly know it when thrown to the shoulder. It feels very light and impression is much shorter barrels. Yet it weighs 7 pounds. Beats anything I have in my stable by a country mile.
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.
Don ( Rocketman) , As usual you are spot on and talking a lot of sense . It really is all about comfort to shoot and our own personal 'feel' . I am now in my 'later' years and beginning to find mobility slow and cumbersome ( as well as sometimes breathless). Recently I have suffered a loss of shooting form at clays and all the 'experts' have expressed their opinion that I am too old and too short to weild my faithful 32" barrelled shotgun , listening and taking heed of their self opinionated expert advice I have taken out both a 28" barrelled gun and a 30" barrelled gun that years ago did suit me perfectly as I made my progression through my dealers shotgun stock ,at the expense of my wallet . I am glad to report that the 'experts' can keep their opinions to themselves , there is little wrong with my 'long gun' it is just the lazy user. On another note last week upon meeting a friend at a shoot he bemoaned that he maybe had made the wrong decision in hastily buying himself a new Beretta DT11 Carbon Black . " Why what's wrong? " I asked , he replied that although lighter than his usual DT11 due to the substitution of various carbon fibre components the gun felt 'DEAD'. I asked to try , and yes it was heavy and unresponsive . He then volunteered the knowledge that using the factory supplied weighting system he had removed 30 grams of weights from out of the buttstock, I noted that the gun was very muzzle heavy and weighted well forward of the hinge pin . With his permission I removed the two most forward barrel weights from under the forend weighing a total of 20 grams . Very unscientific I know but we can only try when our backs are to the wall . The owner tried the gun and instantly was beaming from ear to ear the gun in his words " Was transformed, I love it ." Now let us not get carried away , it is not always that easy and I suggested that when he got home he should fit ALL the standard supplied weights ( 30 grams back in the stock etc.) Then check the weight and balance carefully and make INFORMED decisions which way to go . If it involves reducing all weights and balancing on or around the hinge pin , between the hands or what ever , so be it . Remember most 'Pigs on a Shovel ' can be catered for .
Well done, Salopian! I'm covered up with "must dos" for a couple of days. I'll get back to you with some analysis of what you did and suggestions of how to go forward . A gun with movable/variable weights is a fine place to experiment with individual weight, balance, and swing efforts. That is a lucky guy to have you coaching/fitting.
James, I'm pretty sure there was an article about Don and his MOI turntable in a Shooting Sportsman a long time ago. I believe you could build your own. I've been considering doing that myself. Knowing Don I think he would be flattered. If Don sees this maybe he will know which issue it was. I likely still have it, and could copy and send it to you.
Time for one short point today. Balance (teeter-totter point/Center of Gravity) can be related (measured to) any other point in the universe. However, the most relevant point is distance from the front trigger. Since the (front) trigger dictates back hand placement, measuring CG to trigger and center of each hand's placement to trigger allows a quick and easy calculation of % of gun's weight in each hand. Some shooters are surprisingly sensitive to this factor. Example: CG to trigger = 4", Trigger to back hand = 6", and trigger to center of front hand = 9". Hand spread = 15". Back (trigger) hand % weight is calculated from 9" / 15" = 0.6 = 60%. Front hand distance divided by over all hand-to-hand is correct for the rear hand (the closer the hand center to the gun CG the higher % of weight it holds). So, front hand has 6"/15" = 0.4 = 40% = 100% - 60% . For a 6 1/2# game gun the back hand holds 0.6 X 6 1/2# = 3.9# (3# 14.4 oz) and the front hand holds 0.4 X 6 = 2.6# (2.6# = 2# 9.6 oz).
The difference in weight per hand is linear as the CG and/or hand placements change. The change in MOI is a square function (1X1 = 1, 2X2 = 4, 3X3 = 9, etc.) of mass X radius about/around the CG of the mass (lowest possible) any other defined point. Lengthening the radius by 3 has an effect of 9 times on the MOI.
Pivot pin has been the go-to location for "balance" for a long time. The truth is that there is so much variation among guns for trigger to pivot pin length that it simply is not a useful measurement.
Stan, that’s a very interesting idea I hadn’t considered. And was totally unaware SS had done a story on Don. If you do come across the article I would definitely be interested in a copy. Thank you.
I'm working on finding out which issue it was in before I start looking, James. If I wasn't such a disorganized soul I'd have a notation somewhere about it. It's no undue effort for me though, as I'd like to read the article myself again.
