|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,506
Posts545,603
Members14,419
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 52 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 52 Likes: 1 |
Why do target o/u have a thicker comb. particularly at face? Has any shot one with a sxs comb. Is this convention or is there a reason?
I was looking at myt factory stock on my o/u and my stocks on my sxs there is such a pronounced difference.
I was then reading Michael yardlys book and he mentioned a purdy like comb on a o/u would be ideal.
When I look at the two I see some merrit.
Any experience or opinions
thx
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,826 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,826 Likes: 12 |
Do those guns also have some cast ? My wifes Berettas have the thick comb , but also cast . My sxs's have thinner combs and no cast - so in effect you get the same thing . Paul
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,826 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,826 Likes: 12 |
I haven't read M.Y.'s book , but I can't see why the shape of the comb makes a difference , as long as it fits the person who is shooting the gun . Paul
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,880 Likes: 16
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,880 Likes: 16 |
I think it's more a 'field vs. target' comb shape. People want field guns to be light and target guns to be heavy. Additional wood is one way that's done and most of the target guns have thicker wrist areas as well as more wood around the head to deal with higher volume shooting. Then there's the comfort factor that gets more consideration with a high volume target gun where weight is not as big an issue. That' my theory anyway.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 52 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 52 Likes: 1 |
A thin comb with no cast would put theheel nicely into the shoulder.
The comb would be angled away from the face maybe paralell.
The stock would have more of a ledge like a cheek piece.
I think it would make some sense for a o/u target gun.
As it is you have to put in some decent cast which puts it away from the shoulder unless yoy go adj butt plate, then it does not matter.
which begs the question why so thick. To help balance the gun maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
|