16ga.com ~ View topic - the how and why of shotgun stock evolution further explored

On the last thread about double guns and stock styles, we explored and debated about the reason why many older, pre-1920 doubles had more drop to comb and heel than later shotguns. We discussed shotgun evolution from a historic point. We might have drawn the conclusion that stock styles were simply a continuation of rifle stock styles. However, this might not be the right conclusion.

There is evidence that shotgun stocks evolved seperately from rifle stocks after the advent of percussion locks. English percussion fowling pieces and double guns definitely had less drop to heel than some later american breech loading shotgun stocks. There is also evidence that doglegged stocks did not catch on in England. I wonder why.

One constant is always present in how tools and weapons evolve--how they are used. Form always follows function. This begs the question. Was there a difference in how percussion shotguns were shot vs. how later breechloaders were. If there was, then perhaps the different shooting styles required different style stocks. Perhaps we should consider the question from this point of view.

Stocks with more drop began to appear fairly frequently after the advent of choke bored guns. I think there is a connection here. Choke adds range to how far a fellow can shoot effectively and also adds time to how long he has to sight and center the mark before it flys out of range.

Percussion muzzleloaders could not be choke bored, because they had to be loaded from the muzzle with cork, felt, or paper wads. Choke would render the wads useless to seal off the powder gases effectively. This forced the shotgunner to shoot rapidly and instinctively before the quarry flew out of the guns' effective 20 to 30 yard range.

Perhaps before choked bores appeared, the majority of old timers shot with both eyes open, shot instinctively, and quickly because they had to. full choked barrels extend the range which also allows shooters more time to draw a finer bead by closing one eye to see a much clearer bird to bead relationship.

Perhaps two distinct sighting styles resulted in two distinct shooting styles which then would result in a need for two different stock styles. If this hypothesis is correct, historic evidence will support it.

I believe Ms Oakley naturally wingshot with both eyes open. She started hunting game with a muzzleloading shotgun and soon learned to kill the quarry quickly at close range. Her exhibition shooting was always a close range affair too. This is not to say she was a poor shot at long range shooting. Exactly the opposite is true. She placed high in several creedmore rifle events and even beat her closest female exhibition shooting competator at that girl's specialty, long range shooting. However, whether wingshooing with shotgun or rifle, she always shot aerial targets with both eyes open, very quickly, and at close range. Evidence suggests Ms Oakley also perfered stocks with moderate drop to comb and heel.

However, many old time shooters made a distinction between fine and coarse bead aiming and shooting. A coarse bead refers to pointing with the barrel and shooting quickly. Drawing a fine bead refers to shooting with open sights aligned deliberately and precisely to hit the target dead center exactly.

When shooting with a coarse bead, the shooter focuses on the target and not his front or rear sight. He can see his front sight in relation to the target, but not precisely. When shooting with a fine bead, the shooter focuses on the front sight. The target and the rear sight are not focused on. However, the alignment of front and rear sight is more precise, and the front sight should be centered on the target with as much precision as possible.

A shooter usually will take a running deer or other running animal with a coarse bead by swinging through and shooting on the fly with both eyes focused on the mark. The forward lead is figured instinctively and is learned through practice. Standing game is usually taken with a finely sighted, precise and deliberate shot.

Both a rifle and a shotgun can be shot either way. I would have to call my style of wingshooting a coarse bead type. I do not clearly see my barrel in focus during a shot. It appears as a somewhat transparent image superimposed over the target as it swings through the mark I'm focused on. I depend on my swing and my training and practice to tell me when to pull the trigger. Even this pull of the trigger is automatic. My subconscious brain tells my finger its time to twitch the trigger. I am always focused on the target. It happens too fast for me to claim I'm aware I just pulled the trigger until I sense the recoil and see the target smash. This technique is very hard to describe to a new shooter or someone who has never shot with two open eyes. however, its more like throwing a rock or swinging a bat than shooting precisely with a rifle.

Perhaps most American folks who learned to shoot a rifle first by using a fine bead or deliberate and precise aiming technique just naturally gravitated to shooting their choke bored shotguns one-eyed. If so, they might wingshot with a slower, more deliberateor precise technique. This might also explain the overwhealming popularity of full choke bored guns. The average shooter was able to take his targets slower, further out and perhaps more precisely, because of the added range the full choked barrel gave him. This style also might require a bit less practice to master and might be easier to learn initially.

The question is: does a shotgun with more drop to comb and heel lend itself better to shooting with one eye open? If so, then I might be really on to something here.

My style of shooting evolved in England using muzzle loaders with no choke. To be a good shot also meant to be fast and use both eyes to see the target as quickly and clearly as possible. The English traditionaly have always perferred custom stocked guns with less drop to comb and heel. Any preference for guns with doglegged stocks in England seemed to come and go much faster than here in the states. Nor did these guns emerge until after choke bored guns became popular.

We might think it was the fashion of high, Edwardian collars that brought on this short lived taste for shotguns with a lot of drop. Perhaps they might have had a minor amount of influence. However, I suggest there is another reason. Some English shooters might have adopted the American style of one eyed wingshooting, because it allowed then to hit at further ranges with a bit more precision without as much practice.

However, English wingshooting tradition and preferred shooting styles might have rather quickly surpressed one eyed, overly deliberate wingshooting, and it never really caught on there. Today, the move-mount-shoot school of wingshooting prevails in England. Most folks who do so shoot with both eyes open. I also believe they commonly use less choke than full to do it too.

However, stateside, the schools of thought and practice were not as well established as in more tradition bound England. Culturally, Americans have been less bound by tradition and more inovative in their approach to most things. Shooting is certainly one of them. so the typical late 19th century American wingshooter was more free to choose his method.

If what I'm thinking is correct, then it is the way the average American shot his bird gun which might have determined his choice of stock styles and not because guns were just made that way historically as a continuation of old rifle stock designs. Older, pre-choke bored shotguns actually did have straighter stocks.

Since the advent of close range skeet shooting, shotguns have reverted back to being built with straighter stocks much like the old muzzleloading types had. 90% of the very best skeet shooters do so with both eyes open and depend on their swing to break the closer, sharper angled, quickly departing targets like station two high house, station six low house, and both station eight targets. The vastt majority of the best doubles trap shooters also shoot a two eyed swing through style. Same for most good Sporting clays shooters.

Further, most hunters shoot more open choked guns today. Many learned to shoot on a skeet field. There is no doubt that it is both faster and easier to see a game bird through cover and in front of a varied background with both eyes open, even if the shooter squints one eye closed as he brings his gun to bear.

So there lies the second question: do shotguns with less drop to comb and heel lend themselves better to two eued shooting?

Anyway, this is more food for thought and more more material for the pro and con debating teams to argue. Perhaps we might hear from the folks who still shoot these old style vintage guns how they sight when they shoot. Do they shoot one or two eyed. Do they focus only on the target and not clearly see their barrels or do they close one eye to get a more distinct bead to bird relationship and shoot with a more clearly determined lead rather than let their instinct and swing do the job?

Are you ready gentlemen? Then start your engines.

Member Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 3438 Location: Illinois

OK----I'll start,I have shotguns with both dimensions and shoot with both eyes open------The full choke -one eye deal never did work for me --the keyword here is shotgun-and pointing not aiming------and as a skeet shooter with open chokes at close range I wonder if the POI is not more important??????The trap boys like a 60/40 or better while we shoot 50/50---Something else to think about Shocked

I agree. Point of impact is critical to how well we hit the mark. However, none of my shotguns have a lot of drop to comb and heel. Most are stocked like a Remington 1100 or a Citori. about 1- 1/2" to comb and 2" to 2-1/4" at heel. All my field guns hit at 50/50 to 55/45. I'll leave my trap guns out of this since I'm focusing on field guns suitable for typical upland hunting. Since I do not own or shoot any stocks with a lot of drop, I have only a limited amount of experience with them.

HOA, you have both guns with lots of drop to comb and heel as well as some with contemporay field stocks. Is there a difference in how you shoot with them? How about mount? How about POI? Do you shoot with your head held differently from one type to another? Can you shoot well with your head off the stock as someone earlier suggested ? If you do, do you float the target? And how do you maintain a consistant eye to rib relationship?

This is the type of information we need to understand the how and why of these older stock styles. I appreciate any light you might shed on the subject.

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

I don't know if this information means anything or not. Very Happy

Okay, here are the Dates these guns where made, and stock info.
None of these have been restocked or bent to my knowledge.

Date: 1879, DAH-2-3/4” DAC-1-3/4”
Date: 1899, DAH-2-3/4” DAC-1-3/4”
Date: 1878, DAH-2-5/8” DAC- 2”
Date: 1893, DAH-2-7/8” DAC-1-3/4”
Date: 1902, DAH-2-1/2” DAC-1-5/8”
Date: 1892, DAH-2/3/4” DAC-1-3/4”
Date: 1980, DAH-2-1/4” DAC 1-3/8” (Parker Repro)
Date: 1919, DAH-2-7/8” DAC-1-1/2”
Date: 1901, DAH-2-1/2” DAC-1-5/8”
Date: 1918, DAH-2-1/4” DAC-1-3/8”
Date: 1901, DAH-2-1/2” DAC-1-1/2”
These are all American made SxS's

Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 52

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

Kinda like shooting a bow? The location of your anchor point on your cheek, doesn't matter as long as you are consistent. And use the same spot all the time. Wink

But, when you shoot 15 different guns, with 8 different DAC's you have to learn to improvise. Confused

AS TO STOCK EVOLUTION AND EYES OPEN OR SHUT.........

Few things bring out the obstinate nature of the experienced shooter like discussing "shooting technique"! We all in varying degrees hear and also in varying degrees listen......

Have stocks evolved as to dimensions? Yes! Too far? Yes again! I think the early 20th century field gun dimensions were pretty good, but just a tad high for the best overall shooting.... I think Robt. Harris explains it best over thousands of words written for the cheek just touching like a reference point shot to shot; NOT A CRUNCH. But we took good and tried to make it better via our pre-mounted claybird games......

I sense a listening problem already! Many don't realize they have taken "cheeking" WAY TO FAR!!!!!!!!! Perhaps a simple parable will change "hearing" to "listening"........

Think of a beautiful women with soft subtle lips....... She walks by you and just touches your cheek with a warm moist kiss..... The kind of kiss that almost feels electric... The kind of kiss you will remember...
Now invision yourself in a football game.... You are the quarterback and you take too much time...... A 300 pound lineman sacks you, squashes you, and while you can't even move, sneaks a kiss through your face guard with his thick slobbery lips. Your cheek is numb...

Have you listened this time how this experienced shooter uses the comb line?

The best shotgunners I know shoot with both eyes open. A couple fight eye dominance and may squint the dominating eye if it be opposite the eye on the shooting shoulder side.
To even think about "fine" bead, "course" bead, is thinking way TOO MUCH!
The more instinctive we can shoot, the better we shoot! I've never seen this fail with an "experienced" pointer! The bead's only use is to shoot the gun on a pattern plate to see where it prints! Your gun should shot flat!!! DEAD ON FLAT! This "flat" should be exactly where you look as well! DON'T MAKE ME USE ANOTHER PARABLE!!!

16gg, your comments early on about floating rabbits some 6" above your gun tells me your stock is still maybe 1/8" high for you.... 1/8" isn't much you say??? Remember...... That "kiss" needs to be a light one!

Slidehammer

Dave, I first picked up a bow when I was about 9 years old. By the time I was 12, I could hit anything out to about 30 yards with deadly precision and was effective to about 45 on bigger targets. I even learned to shoot on the fly with flu-flu arrows after seeing movie short of Howard Hill picking off thrown asprin tablets. Being just a dumb kid, I learned to hit birds like starlings and pigeons on the rise before some adult told me it was not possible. I took pheasant too If I could get them to flush and they did not veer off left or right too quickly. If they ran or were stupid enough to sit, well, I was a kid with a bow. Wink

I always shot with the arrow shaft as close to my on side eye's line of sight as I could get it. My hold put the end of the nock right on my cheek bone directly under my eye. My right hand was wrapped around the curve of my face. I used a rwo fingered draw with my third just touching the string but not pulling it. My bow was always canted to help this hold. Having that shaft to look down made it a lot easier to line things up. Vertical adjustment was like leading left or right with a shotgun. I just did it from experience and practice. It was rote. I fucused on my mark with both eyes and instinct did the rest. I could gig a frog at 25 yards this way. Shooting at a rising bird was just a matter of swinging my body up from the hip. If the shot was done quickly before the bird flared sharply right or left, I'd hit it.

I also shoot a shotgun best with my eye right down flat on the rib with just a tad of rib visible. If I place my eye too far above the rib, I loose my line and start shooting irratically just like with the bow.

I'm telling you this as a point of reference so we can discuss the matter meaningfully. If I understand you correctly, you shoot your differently stocked guns each a bit differently. If so, what difference is there between shooting a a gun with lots of drop to comb and heel and one wiht a higher and flatter comb line? and thanks for the response.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BoB L.: Welcome to you. You sound a bit cranky today. Crying or Very sad

What's got your tail in a twist? I did read your posts as best I could. They had the same cantankerous tone, and were a bit convoluted, but I think I got the gist of what you were saying through all the foo-fer-arr. Now how about getting your neck hairs to lie down a bit and relax. Pour something soothing into a tumbler if you like.

I realize you did not say anything about face off the stock stuff, but there was a line in there somewhere from someone else. Somehow, someone got the mistaken idea I am against old guns with doglegged stocks and in favor of potting game birds on the ground. I was at ground zero when all the pointed posts, postured replys, and PO'd retorts came flying in. Your posts were among many. Things got a bit like a game of jacks going on in the middle of a fencing match. I was trying to sort out the facts from the foolishness while defending my little pink body as best I could from all the horse manure bweing thrown at me. Rolling Eyes

So now, I figure we'd try it again without all the overheated horse manure and see if we can figure out some facts. Why don't you tell us how you shoot and let all the others speak for themselves. Now don't get all cranky at me again. Its just a suggestion. Take a breath, and another sip of the stuff in the tumbler, then discribe if you would what you see when you do shoot.

Also, What I;'m about to say is not an attack on your style, so just relax. I Shoot with my face firmly on the gun and the gun firmly in my shoulder. My head, body and the gun tend to react as one and all absorb the recoil without being bashed. If I cheek the gun less firmly, the gun seems to get a running start and whacks me in the chops. I' ve tried to shoot several older guns that had lots of drop to comb and heel with my head more erect and my face further up along the comb line so I could see along the rib. However, My cheekbone got pounded. I had a mouse under my eye for days afterwards.

My question is, how do you shoot with your cheek lightly on the stock without getting bashed? I'd appreciate the info. I hope you are feeling a bit more mellow too as your day progresses. Thanks for your input in advance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slidehammer, same advice there buddy. Relax. No one is against you. This is a quest for knowledge, not a wrestling match. I'm having a hard time trying to understand why you have your back up. Perhaps a tumbler of Old Overcoat will settle your nerves a bit too.

I fully realize that each of us experiences shotgunning a bit differently. I'm not against it. All I'm trying to do is understand why a bit better. The different stock styles are just one angle to look at it. I'm sure there is more to it, but I have to start somewhere.

This muse of mine began a long time back. My insight at the gun show just brought it to mind again and so I figured asking the guys on this site would help me understand the why and the how of it. Its not an attack on your right to have your guns stocked the way you wish. there is no need to defend that which is not being attacked. Okay?

Member Joined: 01 Dec 2006 Posts: 524

16GG-I'll tell you what the difference is with me so far as I go back and forth between a citori and a Fox. I shoot the citori fantastic and the fox terrible on trap. With skeet, I shoot the citori great and the fox better than trap, but still no as good as the citori. On five stand, the same comparison as trap. I can shoot the citori all day and never feel any pain to shoulder or cheek. I shot one box of shells on Sunday with the fox and I'm still sore.

While i'd rather carry the fox, it's hard to have confidence with it for very important hunts where you are putting forth maximum effort for fleeting opportunities, which is why I took the citori on my last chukar hunt.
When you work that hard in the pursuit of game you'd like to have the best chance when it comes. I call bullcrap on just going for a walk with a nicely crafted american classic for the aesthetic value. Sure I'm as Norman Rockwell as the next nimrod, but dang! Ever chased wild chukar? Then you know losing is no fun. I read the posts from all the well meaning folks that just say "stcik with it" and I take heart. But so far, the fox with all its funkiness is not my "go to" gun. When i figure out how to practice enough with it without the long recovery time in between, I will let you know my progress. I did have a great time a few weeks ago with a pal. We set up a clay thrower on a cliff and I shot the fox the best I have yet. But I swear, at 16 yard trap, there's nothing coming out of that gun. At the cliff, we were standing even with the machine. And the doubles were thrown fast and wildly left and right so you had to get on number 2 very fast. I managed to get a few doubles with the fox, but not as many as with the citori. Of course I can practice alot more with the citori too.

I doubt that will ever change.

Thanks for the reply Jig. Can you tell us if there is any difference in your sight picture or what you are seeing when you shoulder the two guns? Are you holding them differently? Is your face more firmly on one than the other? any info is helpful.

Member Joined: 01 Dec 2006 Posts: 524

No, I try to shoot them the same and that may be the problem.
I stuck moleskin on the comb of the FOX to raise it. I can see more rib than seems natural on it now. But the thing shot so darn low compared to what I've grown used to. I have definitely had more success after raising the comb. I like to see targets break which was impossible on goin away targets before I raised the comb. The bbls of the Fox are so much shorter than the citori, that the sight picture is altered a bit just by that fact. That said, I'm floating the target right at the top of the muzzle on both, with more rib showing on the fox to be able to accomplish that. With the citori, I can do that without seeing near as much rib. the hardest thing with the fox is keeping those light bbls swinging. It just happens with the citori, but with the fox, its more of a concious effort.

I think I understand you Jig. By adding height to the comb on the Fox, you raise your eye above the rib slightly and therefore the point of impact of the shot pattern or string. I did the same thing with my TMX trap gun so it hits 70-30. I stack my beads like a figure eight. I can see more rib on it than my field guns.

However, it has an adjustable cheek piece so I can not only adjust the height but the left and right of the guns POI. However, the, comb line of the trap gun is a horizontal Monte Carlo style without drop.

How about The butt end of the two guns, does the Fox sit lower in your shoulder pocket than the Citori?

Member Joined: 01 Dec 2006 Posts: 524

Will get back to you on that one tonight. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that the angle of the Fox bbls seem somewhat upward, while the citori bbal seem level, relatively of course. Which leads me to believe that the fox butt sits lower, but need to check. I know it has more drop at heel but don't know right now exactly how I compensate, if in fact, I do.