You haven't heard that before? Pretty common expression among those justifying why they don't like O/U.
Different strokes for different folks. I know what I like and I'm glad not everyone else does. Too much competition for the gems!
The rise of the over under and a history lesson in fashionable shotguns
- Thread starter Big Bad
- Start date
You haven't heard that before? Pretty common expression among those justifying why they don't like O/U.
Different strokes for different folks. I know what I like and I'm glad not everyone else does. Too much competition for the gems!
Yup they have had it there for a while.
I am a SxS guy when it comes down to it for hunting , and only shoot skeet and trap these past many years to keep in shape for birds, so usually shoot a SxS on those courses. If I were competing again , it would be with an O/U.
My son is a confirmed O/U fanatic however.....
Cat
Licensed to kill
CGN Regular
- Location
- Peace Country Alberta
I would not say that I "hate" O/U's, just that I think they are ugly and I have no desire to own one. However, it is EXTREMELY important to note that I started my post with "To each his own", followed up with "For me......." and about half way through "IMO". As far as my "tongue in cheek" comment about having eyes one atop the other, IMO, that is what an O/U looks like TO ME. While I voiced my opinion (and that is ALL it is) here in a generic fashion, I would NEVER look at someone else gun and make such comments unless I was specifically asked what I thought. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I have never formed opinions on what I like based on what OTHERS like. I am not a "serious competitor" and even if I was, I would not base my choice of gun on what everyone else likes. I have a friend that I shoot skeet with from time to time. He uses both sxs and O/U but shoots the O/U more often (always 28GA). He has VERY nice guns always with extra Horney wood (I think he has had all of his guns restocked in the most highly figured wood he can find). When he (or anyone else) shows me one of his O/U's, I look at them and remark how lovely the wood is, how impressive the wood to metal fit is and how overall well put together the gun is. I NEVER voice my opinion on how I think it looks aesthetically as an overall shotgun because it doesn't matter what I think in that regard and if I was pushed the most I would say is that "I'm not a fan of O/U's but that is one nice shotgun". I'll end this post like I started the last one, "to each his own".
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I see, so you only criticize the choices of others when your safely behind your keyboard... got it. Thanks for clarifying.
Licensed to kill
CGN Regular
- Location
- Peace Country Alberta
Well, if that is what you "got" from my post, either you have a reading comprehension problem or I have a problem making my point in script. Feel free to put me on ignore (in fact I encourage it). I don't really need people misrepresenting my posts regardless of whether the reason is your inability to objectively read and understand them or my inability to make my point more clearly.
P.S, to be clear, it is not uncommon for me to make a post and have it completely misinterpreted. In fact, my online posts have become much longer than they used to be years ago in an attempt to include more detail to try to ensure that my point can not be misinterpreted but, as evidenced by your response, my point still goes right over the heads of some. I will leave it at that but, again, please feel free to put me on ignore.
I totally agree. I do own an old auto5 I hate the big tall flat hump back and the recoil pulse. That said I keep it for what it is
Also they can be a tad heavy to hunt upland with.A good friend once remarked that the only thing "lite" about his A5 lite was the color of the wood!LOL
Cat
I prefer the look and feel of a fine sxs over that of an ou. For a clay competition gun an ou is often built heavier and has a straighter recoil pulse thus being arguably better for clays. For hunting and casual clay games I much prefer a sxs. The faster handling and lower opening angle are pluses for me. The sightplane issue has confused me as I don't notice a difference. I focus on the target and only aware of the barrels in my perifial vision. Another plus for the sxs is shooting in high winds the sxs barrels slice the wind where as a ou is like a sail.
Duck hunt in a kayak or waist deep water an ou sucks on loading unless you don't mind the barrels in the water. Even when hunting in snow the same issue arises.
A sxs with 2 triggers carrys 2 choke options and 2 load options.
That's my opinion based on my experiences. I own both and shoot both equally well. The ou guns I own. Fit me perfectly which helps me shoot them well. The number of sxs guns I have are all different and require a much more focused stance to shoot them well as my head and mount change as well as my grip depending on the foreends style. Tis the joy of enjoying different styles
Duck hunt in a kayak or waist deep water an ou sucks on loading unless you don't mind the barrels in the water. Even when hunting in snow the same issue arises.
A sxs with 2 triggers carrys 2 choke options and 2 load options.
That's my opinion based on my experiences. I own both and shoot both equally well. The ou guns I own. Fit me perfectly which helps me shoot them well. The number of sxs guns I have are all different and require a much more focused stance to shoot them well as my head and mount change as well as my grip depending on the foreends style. Tis the joy of enjoying different styles
Agreed. The over/under excels in pre mounted disciplines and is at it’s best for more deliberate shooting. And because it’s usually heavier with more weight forward distribution it is less punishing on the body over a heavy day of shooting. A fine double SxS is more evenly balanced, more fluid, more suited to instinctive shooting such as hunting. I mostly shoot targets with an over/ under, never hunt with one any more. I hunt exclusively with my side by sides, only shoot them on targets a little for pre hunting season tune up. Tried ‘em all ways, settled on this combination as best for me years ago.
On The other hand put one of them competition guys in a field hunting birds and they don’t do quite so well hitting live targets.
I have a small frame ou 20ga with 26" barrels and it handles surprisingly well and fits like it was custom made for me. Rarely ever do I shoot below a 23 on the skeet field with it and pheasants and doves don't have much of a chance when I take it afield yet it still doesn't match my straight stocked sxs 20ga in the field
The best wingshooters that I have hunted with, were also good skeet/sporting clays shooters. Contrary to what some people want to believe, live or dead, a target is a target, and the principles for shooting them are the same. The people that only shoot trap didn't do as well on birds as Skeet/sporting clays shooters, and one good friend (trap shooter) shot birds in the field much better after he started shooting sporting clays with us.
I dunno, I have never seen it myself, every person I have ever hunted birds with - and I hunted with many ( upland and waterfowl ) that was a registered ATA or NSSA member and shot regular registered targets was a crazy accurate shot on birds.Interesting as well is that many of them shot sub gauge guns for upland and many shot sub gauge when puddle jumping ducks as well. None BTW, shot a SxS back in the day, most either shot an O/U, a Wingmaster, Model12, or an A5 - yeah, I'm old LOL!
Cat
Thanks to Big Bad for posting the article. The key word is 'fashionable.' Sporting guns have always gone through periods of fashion, sometimes led by technological innovation, sometimes by cost, and sometimes 'just cause.' The side-by-side held sway the longest, but that doesn't make it better than the rest for the job it is built to accomplish. Tastes change over time, maybe we're hard-wired to yearn for something different. You can only invent so many different versions, so as with clothing fashion, gun fashion will probably go in cycles, assuming of course that societal changes will nevertheless allow our sport to continue. I want hammer guns to come back to the mainstream.
I prefer the looks and proportions of a 19th- and 20th-century side-by-side over that of an over/under. I probably shoot as well with one as the other. I'm not convinced the actual differences in balance, recoil, flex, etc., would actually stand up to scientific rigour, despite what we convince ourselves of. Curiously, I might even shoot best with Val Browning's Double Auto, the solution to a problem no one ever had. And I can still admire that ugly duckling, the A-5, as a fine killer of game. The abrupt departure in style of John Browning's A-5, starting around 1903, is similar in horridness to when Joseph Needham came out with his hammerless bolt-action needle-fire gun in 1852 (based on a Belgian invention), which the sporting gun community thought was seriously butt-ugly and an offence against all sensibilities. It had its fan-boy supporters, and the needle-fire gave the pin-fire and the first central-fire a run for their money, only to disappear in due course. Here is a Needham needle-fire: (auction photo, I don't own one...yet)
I prefer the looks and proportions of a 19th- and 20th-century side-by-side over that of an over/under. I probably shoot as well with one as the other. I'm not convinced the actual differences in balance, recoil, flex, etc., would actually stand up to scientific rigour, despite what we convince ourselves of. Curiously, I might even shoot best with Val Browning's Double Auto, the solution to a problem no one ever had. And I can still admire that ugly duckling, the A-5, as a fine killer of game. The abrupt departure in style of John Browning's A-5, starting around 1903, is similar in horridness to when Joseph Needham came out with his hammerless bolt-action needle-fire gun in 1852 (based on a Belgian invention), which the sporting gun community thought was seriously butt-ugly and an offence against all sensibilities. It had its fan-boy supporters, and the needle-fire gave the pin-fire and the first central-fire a run for their money, only to disappear in due course. Here is a Needham needle-fire: (auction photo, I don't own one...yet)
Licensed to kill
CGN Regular
- Location
- Peace Country Alberta
Agreed, it was a very interesting article and an enjoyable read.
I prefer the looks and proportions of a 19th- and 20th-century side-by-side over that of an over/under. I probably shoot as well with one as the other. I'm not convinced the actual differences in balance, recoil, flex, etc., would actually stand up to scientific rigour, despite what we convince ourselves of. [/quote]
I don't know about that. I have heard that many serious and top of the game shooters shoot the bottom barrel first because that barrel is more in line with the shoulder and produces less muzzle jump than the top. I've heard similar claims that a sis recoils different from barrel to barrel because they are not inline with the stock but mounted slightly outboard. These subtle difference would not make ANY difference with me but I can see these subtle differences showing for those at the top of the game. I watched a trap shooter at the range years ago practicing by himself. He was shooting a VERY expensive single shot trap gun. He had a routine that he stuck to religiously. He would take out a shell from his vest, put it in the chamber, close the chamber, shoulder the gun and call for the bird. If it was a "dead bird" he would not just call for another (like I would), he would open the action, pull out the loaded shell, put it in his pocket, pull out another put it in the gun close, shoulder, call. for the bird EXACTLY as if he had shot the previous round. Routine. I had asked a friend that was a competitive trap shooter about this and he said "yup, it's all about rhythm and routine. In fact, he told me that the a shooter is doing well and another shooter wants to throw them off their game, they wood hesitate go call their bird throwing off the rhythm on the line and that would rattle some shooters and cause a miss. I understand why some shooters prefer the O/U for it DOES have some functional advantages for the finely tuned shooter. NONE of that would affect my shooting one way or the other.
Historically, when cap locks became the rage there was a certain contingent that simply would NOT give up their flintlocks and some even challenged cap lock shooters claiming that the flint was faster and more reliable. While I would personally take a sxs flint over a sxs percussion every time, I am under no illusion that they are MORE reliable than a cap, I just prefer them. Some people (like me), just don't adapt to change well. I read not too long ago of a well know shooter that took offence to to advent of hammerless shotguns stating "A gun without hammers is as natural and attractive as a spaniel without ears" or something to that effect. To each his own.Curiously, I might even shoot best with Val Browning's Double Auto, the solution to a problem no one ever had. And I can still admire that ugly duckling, the A-5, as a fine killer of game. The abrupt departure in style of John Browning's A-5, starting around 1903, is similar in horridness to when Joseph Needham came out with his hammerless bolt-action needle-fire gun in 1852 (based on a Belgian invention), which the sporting gun community thought was seriously butt-ugly and an offence against all sensibilities. It had its fan-boy supporters, and the needle-fire gave the pin-fire and the first central-fire a run for their money, only to disappear in due course. Here is a Needham needle-fire: (auction photo, I don't own one...yet)
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I'm sure that's the case with some people but not the the norm in my experience and I've seen it the other way around too.
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Last edited:
So you're seen me shoot clays, I guess?
