Question on the older American made doubles....

Ahsan Ahmed

Ahsan Ahmed

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
156   0   0
What was the reason for too much Drop (on the stock) that is generally visible on the SxS shotguns produced in this continent?
 
It is my understanding in what I have read in discussions about this, is that during that time period people's shooting stance was far more erect and shoulders square to the target line with the cheek not welded to the comb. More modern shooting stances have us leaning forward in direction of the intended shot with our upper bodies and shoulders more on a diagonal to the target line with the cheek glued to the comb.
Try standing sideways in front of a mirror with any shotgun handy. Take your stance as straightly erect as you can, don't move your head or upper body forward and bring the gun to shoulder as perpendicular to the line of your shoulders. Looking out the corner of your eye, you will most likely find your cheek way farther back and not likely touching the comb because the drop is too shallow of an angle to meet your cheek.
Taking a modern stance with the shoulders not perpendicular to the target line, leaning into the shot you will also move your head forward and rotated chin up to have your cheek now far more forward on the comb. This needs a less steep drop at comb to heel.

That's my take on how the difference is.

Tim.
 
Of course, much earlier British doubles, and British and many European doubles in general didn't tend to have the drop of these American guns. There were Belgian guns made to the American taste.
 
I'm not so sure about any of this. While I agree with Planemaker's assertion that earlier shooters used a more "heads up" stance, I believe that was true of both European and American shooters. However it is not universally so. Early Fox guns often had rather modern stock dimensions while even later Tobins kept the large drop at heel. At the same time I have an H&H hammer gun from the 1890's with 3 inches of drop and a Scottish gun from 20 years earlier with "modern" dimensions.

While the shooting stance did evolve it seems to have taken a long time to be accepted universally, and I am not sure that it made much difference which side of the ocean you were on.


Sharptail
 
I wonder if a purpose of such stock dimension may have been to assist better in terms of pass shooting and/or long overhead attempts?
 
I have heard that the straighter stocked British guns were done in that manner for shooting driven birds. Coming straight at you and passing over your head at a high speed.
 
The English stock, in such circumstance, I understand well enough . :) However, I was thinking more from a perspective of the "no cheek weld" requirement in those scenarios....must've helped.
 
I also want to know since I like guns with very little drop in heel and almost a straight comb, I find a lot of old doubles just beats my face up.
 
I've financed an unpublished investigation into this phenomenon. Operatives code-named Giraffe and Noneck were assigned to the project. They filed independent reports that came to the same conclusion; that some guns were stocked correctly and some were ill-fitting back when, as they continue to be. :p

Seriously, though, some of us freaks need a lot of drop.
 
straightshooter said:
I've financed an unpublished investigation into this phenomenon. Operatives code-named Giraffe and Noneck were assigned to the project. They filed independent reports that came to the same conclusion; that some guns were stocked correctly and some were ill-fitting back when, as they continue to be. :p

Seriously, though, some of us freaks need a lot of drop.
Click to expand...

LOL! Kidding aside though, it is easy to imagine a few perhaps designed as such (as regular production guns) to perhaps fit individuals who may have out of ordinary physique. However, it appears to me that some brands offered those dimensions as standard across the board?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom