16ga.com ~ View topic - Old shotguns, old stocks, and old hunting styles

I went to the Marlboro Gun Show in MA this last Saturday. While there, I made it a point to handle and sight down as many old classic shotguns as possible. One thing stuck out like a sore thumb. The vast majority of guns made prior to 1930 or so had stocks with lots and lots of drop to comb and heel. Even many made in the early 1940's did too.

If I could wing shoot any of them long drop to comb old classics, I would, but its hard to hit anything with either my cheek off the stock to see down the barrels or with my right eye buried behind the block. I always used to wonder how in hell the old timers did it. However, some of the history I've absorbed over the years began to click in. I finally realized a simple truth.

The truth is, most old time pre-WWII small game and field hunters did not do a lot of wingshooting. For one thing, shot shells were relatively expensive, even for the average country dweller or farm dweller who could afford a basic well made double like a Trojan or a Sterlingworth. For small game, a shotgun was a far more sure gun to hit with than a .22 rifle. Deer were jump shot with buck shot and dogs where they were still common enough to hunt. Skeet had yet to be invented. Trap was an upper middle class game for doctors, lawyers, and the rich. Live bird shooting was for only the really wealthy. Trap and live bird guns were relatively rare and had stocks suitable for wingshooting. They had less drop.

Hunting shotguns were commonly used for both fur and feathered game, much of which was taken on the ground either as it sat, or as it flushed and ran away. Squirrels and birds were potted out of trees. Ground birds were taken as they sat or ran. So guns were stocked to shoot a bit low for better downward shooting at closer in running game at ground level. for higher targets sitting in trees, the shooter had time to adjust his hold to compensate.

Wingshooting was for experts who could afford the shells to learn how. Those folks used guns with higher combs and less drop just like we do today. However, such double guns were specialty items back then. We tend to forget that skeet had not been invented. So the majority of surviving old doubles reflect this, and most have stocks with a lot of drop to comb and heel.

For the average hunter, ground sluicing was just a normal thing to do and many a bird got potted on the ground. Covey birds like quail were also ground sluiced. The more taken, the better the supper was. This was a time before the average hunter even thought about conservation. Except in the northeast and around heavily settled urban areas, small game laws either did not exist, or were ignored. The most common game available was the rabbit and the squirrel.

Waterfowling was different. Ducks and geese had already been decimated by market hunting. Waterfowling was a controlled hunting sport in the areas where it was still commonly practiced. Repeaters like pumps and autos had already replaced many of the old waterfowling double guns. Stocks on duck guns tended to have less drop to comb and heel. They were meant for incoming, overhead or deeked birds. Also, these guns were already having an influence on shotgun stock designs by this time. However, most of these guns are pretty well used up. Water and salt have taken their toll. The survivors usually are rusted over junkers few folks handle at shows. however, if you wereto shoulder one, you'll realize most have a much flatter comb line and aren't all that different than today's repeaters.

Skeet caught on and became popular during the mid to late 30's and really took off after WWII. Even the earliest skeet guns had modern style stocks meant for wingshooting much like field guns of today. In fact, skeet has had a tremendous influence on modern field gun stock design.

So the next time you pick up an old classic American double gun with the a dog's leg stock style, realize why it was made so and don't expect to wing shoot with it as it is. It wasn't designed for it. The ones that were are few and far between.

.......always wondered 'bout that, thanks for the info....I've been bending 'em up a bit, and then they start to work for stuff in the air..... and work well
Smile

b'gun

Member Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 1545 Location: Michigan

I don't know, I've always been told they used to shoot with a more head up style of shooting. If you look at older pictures, you can see this. I'm so used to the drop now, I can't shoot a gun with modern dimensions.

Member Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 1545 Location: Michigan

What choice did they have Dave. Darned few folks could afford the time or money to even learn proper wingshooting, let alone to have the time and money to have a proper stock made for that purpose. Most local folks just bought what was available or ordered one out of a grain store catalog and learned to make do. Truth is, its the same today if you think about it. Its just that modern shotgun stocks reflect how they are commonly used today as much as they did back then.

Prior to WWI, urban gentlemen commonly wore high starched collars. Some probably shot while wearing one. But this still does not explain the great perponderance of double guns with lots of drop. I'm certain damned few rural farm and country folks would go hunting in anything but rugged work clothes. I'm also willing to bet most of the field guns sold were sold to folks who had the time and place to use them. Few urbanites did.

It's also true that all of the better double gun makers offered custom dimensioned stocks at no extra charge or for a nominal fee. However, how many folks could afford the time to get fitted for a stock. Even more importantly, how many local folks could even have it done properly? There just weren't too many trap shooting clubs or knowledgable fitters around for the average rural shotgun hunter. Most trap clubs were for the upper middle class or wealthy and were located just outside city limits.

Sportsmen's clubs with skeet or trap ranges for the average hunter were few and far between until past the late 30's and after WWII. Very rarely did a pre-war local fur, fin, and feather club have a trap field. Skeet did not exist yet. Those clubs that existed were generally made up of a small group of local fellows who hunted together after harvest time in the late fall and winter and fished the local waters together during summer evenings and on Sunday after chores and church.

Very few hourly workers or self employed shop owners could afford the time to hunt even if they had the money. The 40 hour work week was adopted nationally in the late 30's with the passing of the Taft-Hartley Act, but was still decades away from being adopted and obeyed in many parts of the country away from the Northern unionized urban plants.

Any rural clay target shooting was probably done in one of the back fields occasionally with hand thrown targets by the few locals who could hit them flying. In fact, if a fellow was a decent wingshooter in his area, you could bet he was a local celebrity and probably had a gun with a stock to suit because he knew how to as well as what stock type made it easier. The truth is, wingshooting, and good wingshooters are far more common today than before WWII. Shotgun stocks from then and now reflect this.

I have two LC Smith's and they both have a drop at heel of 2 1/2", the same as my A-5's. I have no trouble shooting either one's at birds. Any less and I have a problem.

Brit, I'm willing to bet that most of the better English double game guns were designed for wingshooting and incoming driven birds more than anything else. Further, bird hunting is or was just not done by the average lower middle class or working class Brit before WWII. Only the families of country gentlemen and their wealthy urbanite guests did so. Working class folks did not bird hunt unless they were employed as gamekeepers or professional pigeon shooters. However, I'm just not that up on bird hunting in Britain today

I do know that the Miroku O/U shotgun is the most popular sporting shotgun in England today. They have stocks very similar to American Browning Citori models. In fact, the 325, 425, 525 series have British style sporting clays stocks with a bit less drop to comb, a bit more more drop to heel and a bit longer LOP. I have a slightly shortened 325 that puts my eye right at the correct height for me to hit very well with it.

You are right. On both the LC Smiths and the A-5 16 gauges, the drop at comb is within an 1/8"The 12 gauge a-5's are different. I never shoot them anyway.

Member Joined: 01 Dec 2006 Posts: 524

yeah, I read once where it was influenced by those doglegged muskets too.
They ahd to have an erect head to avoid the powder blast.

But those stiff collars are often cited too as the head erect cause.
Whatever caused it isnt so much as important as that it is indeed a fact that the old classics were made with a lot of drop, which was counter productive to hitting flying targets.

The comb on my Sterlingworth had to be raised with moleskin in order for me to shoot it well. It wasnt so much the drop at heel (as 16GAguy point out) but the drop at face, or comb. Placing my cheek on that stock as is, gave me a very low shooting proposition indeed. That caused me to raise my head to see the right amount of rib, then get slapped mightily in the top of the root of my canine, or eye tooth. Building up that comb was absolutely a necessity for me. Guess I wouldve been a really bad wingshot back in the old days with that stiff collar. either that, or very sore all the time. Thank God those days are over.

Member Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posts: 781

That's an interesting hypothesis but I don't think it stands up. Certainly there was a lot of ground sluiced game but to make the supposition that early gun fit was designed to shoot low is a stretch. The literature and artwork of the period (Shooting Flying etc.) describes gun fit, mount etc and the prevailing wisdom at the time was that this technique was effective on flying game.

I've also got books full of pictures of my great grandfather wingshooting grouse right after the turn of the century. He shot a Baker Batavia Leader, an inexpensive gun. He was not a man of high means. He and his friends shot birds on the wing, over pointing dogs. Thier posture was erect and necks straight and they hit birds. They shot rising game so seeing a lot of rib was good.

Their style and gun dimensions fit each other. Their technique was archaic but worked, but was nowhere as effective as modern techniques and stock configurations. Technique AND dimensions evolved together, getting more effective over time.

His Baker is:

DAC: 2 1/2"
QAH: 3 3/4"
LOP: 14 1/4"

It's a horrid gun to shoot, I'm too rooted in a more modern style to shoot this gun worth a toot.

This evolution of style and equipment overtime is no different than flycasting, the style of casting evolved right along with the equipment, The casting stroke the my grandfather taught me worked ok with bamboo and lancewood rods, but sucks with graphite, and the modern casting stroke wont work with bamboo.

JMHO,

Jeff

So gentlemen, what is your prefered stock measurement?

Are most of us in that 1 1/2" comb and 2 1/2" heel area? How about adding length of pull to it? I am 6'2" and like 14 1/2" to 15"....now, some of that variation comes with half pistol grip single trigger vs straight stock double trigger, etc etc, but that's the general LOP "window" for me.... how about you?

b'gun

Member Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 1545 Location: Michigan

Britgun,
I'm more along with you. I have one Parker Repro. and when I get the wood refinished on this gun, I'll have the stock bent down to be more representitive of my older Parkers. It might be okay if I was a trap shooter.