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

Once more for the record, I clearly made the distinction between sport hunting and subsitance hunting not once but several times in this thread. If you would both suspend your indignance for a bit, and review the thread again, I think you will find this to be true.

Some rural folks from the mid 1880's on through to the early 1940's needed to hunt and could not afford to use their ammo for sport shooting. Even further, these folks could not afford to be without a gun to suppliment the diets of their families. Nor could they afford a fancy one, but could not do without a reliable one. They often had to buy the best used one or use a hand me down. These folks were the very ones who had to learn to shoot whatever they could obtain and be grateful they had it.

Those folks who could afford both the time and the money to hunt for sport had to be financially better off and more than likely lived in the cities, emerging suburbs, and growng towns in the East where subsitance hunting had all but disappeared for over a century. These folks were more than likely, professional men like doctors, lawyers, bankers, and businessmen.

Sport hunting for birds was pretty much imported into the States from Europe and particularly, from England. With it came the same upper class snobbery so typical of English "gents" with their English "best" guns and their Victorian dress and social ideas.

Anglophilia was common to upper class Eastern Americans. they adored all things English as they climbed the social ladder. There was a certain upper class snobbery adopted by American upper class sport hunters towards those who subsistance hunted for meat since the late 1880's. This tendency continues today and seems to sometimes raise its ugly head in our own discussions. I think I'm detecting a bit of it here. You two might not even realize it, but your indignance at the idea that some of our forefathers killed birds on the ground is evidence enough.

Often enough, it was those same snobs who thought those who were less financially fortunate were beneath them in all ways and deserved their lots as poorer subsistance farmers and wage earners who slaved at the mills for 12 and 16 hour days for pennies. Often as not, the wealth these upper class snobs made was on the backs of the lower classes. This was how it was in Victorian England, and here in the states too until after the Depression. Fair wages and reasonable working hours came about through the "New Deal" in the mid 1930's and after. It was often a bitterly fought and bloody battle. However, it is entirely obvious that our standard of living is far better off for it by and large. Far more folks can afford to sport shoot and sport hunt today than at any time prior to WWII.

Conservation and game laws started in the very late 19th century and were not fully accepted nationally until after WWII. They have become a very necessary part of our society for several reasons not the least of is our burgeoning population and the resulting destruction of habitat for wildlife.

Today, very few folks subsistance hunt. I myself would no sooner shoot a grouse on the ground than steal food from an infant. However, If the only way I could feed an infant was shoot a grouse on the ground, I'd not think twice and certainly feel no shame for having done so in spite of any upper class snobbery and indifference to my needs.

As for old guns and old shooting styles, I think much of the reality of how it was done was probably more varied that some folks here would allow. I've seen early movies of Ms Oakley in action. She hardly shot bolt upright with head held high. She was very fluid and precise with head and gun firmly together as she shot aerial targets. However, these movies do not show her breaking long fast crossers or low skimming game birds. They show her rapidly spot shooting hand thrown vertically rising targets both with rifle and shotgun. The target presentation dictated that she address them vertically. So her head and shoulders were naturally more erect. I'd have loved to see a movie of her market hunting like she did as a girl to feed herself and her family. I wonder if she took a few on the ground if she needed to. i'd say it was likely. Especially when she was first learning. we all do what we must to live.

I've also seen pictures of the 16 ga. double trap guns Ms Oakley used to defeat Engand's best doubles shooter at his own game. She had a matched pair and both had fairly straight combs without a lot of drop to heel. They look very modern in that way. Most older trap guns do. I can't ever remember seeing even a very old trap gun with a dogleg stock.

I think sometimes our own perceptions of how things were done are mostly an illusion caused by our lack of understanding of the how and the why. We see only fragments of how things were. I also think we too often see the past through rose colored glasses. I do know that many of today's professional shooters are tha best the world has ever seen. This is due to far better equipment and ammo, as well as more evolved shooting methods. After all, wingshooting with a shotgun has only been around since the early 19th century. Before then percussion guns did not exist. Flinters required a whole different approach and wingshooting as practical way of taking game was not widely practiced.

Since that time, our collective understanding of the how and the why has evolved along with the guns and ammo we use. To say that the old timers were better at it is hardly more than opinion and not very well supported opinion given the sport shooting records being broken and rebroken year in, year out. Except for some of the older games like American skeet, shotgun games have become far more difficult and demanding, not easier.

Mr. Harris and I seem to agree on one point. I think corporate interests infiltrated our domestic wingshooting games years ago. the effects have not been all positive, and some have been downright destructive. I perfer low gun skeet and have said so often enough.

However, I'll choose a shotgun without too much drop to comb and heel everytime over a gun with 1-3/4 inches of drop to comb and 3 inches or more to heel. I simply hate shooting them. they do not allow me to consistantly handle any target presentation I'm faced with, nor are they comfortable to shoot. To me, they kick like the very wrath of god. I've tried them. They ain't for me. I shoot quite well with my modern shotguns thank you very much.

All I have been doing is speculating on why these stock styles with lots of drop emerged in the later 19th century. I do not know and perhaps I never will. Its fun to speculate and ponder why. I also see no problem if the next guy likes them. If he shoots a gun stocked this way better, then more power to him. Who am I to look down my nose it him. I'm no gun snob, nor social snob either. My ancestery is as common as the soil I stand on.

Once more for the record, I clearly made the distinction between sport hunting and subsitance hunting not once but several times in this thread. If you would both suspend your indignance for a bit, and review the thread again, I think you will find this to be true.

I don't know if you are refering to me. I'm not a trapshooter, never enjoyed it. I hunt birds because I enjoy it and I love to watch dogs work. I wish I good explain my position better. I don't care if the guns have become straighter. I like my guns. 2 1/2" drop at heel, that's it. As far as my father not shooting birds on the ground. My father and his brothers grew up in North Dakota during the depression. They lost the farm and moved to minnesota. The particular hunt we were on was when all my uncles were home on leave after the war. My grandmother told me stories about my dad and uncles having to go done to the railroad siding and throw rocks at the railroad crew as they were filling the trains with water. The crew would then return with throwing coal at my dad and his brothers. This is what they used to heat there house. They lost the farm. My grandpa gave up and died when I was just a baby. I still have the shotgun, bought from sears, a pump, this is the gun my dad used on there farm in North Dakota and on the hunt in Minnesota. You can argue as to why the drop has changed on shotguns, but not, to me anyway that men that grew up having to hunt to eat were not sportsmen. The only thing I regret is that all of those gentlemen are gone now. I just wish I could have them all here to hunt behind my dog I have now. You can debate as to why the drop at comb and the drop at heel has changed, but do not put all of the people in that era in one mold. Sorry about this. Now I think I'll take the liitle pup out for a walk in the woods.

Old Hunter, I never put folks all in one basket. I think you have gathered that. I'm also betting that old pump you cherish has a lot less drop at comb and heel than the double guns I'm referring to. Pump guns evolved as practical and affordable alternatives to the higher priced and more delicate double guns. Every one made after 1915 has a fairly modern stock line. I can shoot any one of them fine with a bit of familiarity. they are also a heck of a lot easier on my jaw too. They were and still are the gun of the common man. They suit me just fine.

Believe me, I come from common stock. On one side is some Native American blood. These folks lost a hell of a lot more than a farm. On the other side, my great grandfather came out of the Blackpool district of Cork, Ireland not long after the great Irish famine. He did so out of sheer necessity. There was a price on his head for defying the people who were systematically starving his country to death. He settled in Boston, MA and made a living as a rag picker for the first year of his new American life. At that time, Boston was a city run by the WASP Brahmen and the Irish were not welcome. He literally beat his way to success as a newspaper distributer with his fists and an iron will to survive and succeed. My family owes him our start here. I never knew him, but I'm told he was both a man of his word, and had a marvelous sense of humor. He was also one of the toughest, most resilient men in Boston. I aspire to be as much like him as I can be.

I understand poverty, desperation, and the need to do what one has to to survive. It runs through my family's history. I am most fortunate not to have suffered anything worse than the occasional night without supper for misbehaving as a boy. As a child, I was far from materially rich but also far from poor. I am the benificiary of the efforts and suffering of many people, most who I do not know. So many of us are.

I've lived my whole life in a time of almost unimaginable prosperity. I've had it incredibly lucky and very easy. I know this. Trust me when I say I never put all folks in one basket. I will never whine about little misfortunes either. I have no right to. I've been lucky all my life. Most of us in post- WWII America have. Keep your family's old gun oiled and polished. Keep the faith with what they've done for you. I'll do the same.

Member Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posts: 781

Here are some facts to help support that at least one well regarded shooter was using "modern" stock dimensions.

One of the good guys over at the PGCA got me the dimensions to a gun ordered by Frank Butler for Annie Oakley in 1900...here goes:

DH, 12 gauge, 28" barrels, 2-1/4"DAH, 1-1/2" DAC, 13-7/8" LOP, no safety, Right barrel slight choke, Left full.

So, not much drop and a short length of pull for the little lady.

Jeff

Thanks for that insight Jeff. Just from experience alone, I had a hunch Ms Oakley's personal guns were stocked much like ours today. I have a couple of modern doubles with very similar drops to comb and heel. I shoot them very well and can cover just about any target presention I'm faced with. These dimensions are neutral ones good for any type of shooting.

Ms Oakley was rather small of stature. The lop migt seem a bit long for a woman of her size at first. Here again, my own experience tells me this gun was for hunting. A stock a bit on the long side of a person's range helps bring it to bear from low gun a split second quicker. The butt hits the shoulder pocket just as te gun is raised to bring the comb to face. The shoulder brought into the gun rather than bringing the gun to the shoulder. As this is being done, the cheek naturally slides up on the comb to the right spot which puts the eye dead down the center of the rib at exactly the right place.

Mounting in this way aligns the face, eye, and shoulder with the center line of the gun in a smooth rapid move. This is referred to as coming forward into the gun during the swing. If our feet are already in the right position to allow us to swing through the mark, our eyes are locked on, and we have been swinging the muzzle along the line of the mark, we should be just about dead on the target and ready to execute the shot as we swing through it.

Ms Oakley had to be a master of this shotgunner's move to hit her marks as consistantly and as masterfully as she did. Some refer to this method as move-mount-shoot. For purposes of learning it, a shooter might need to break it down into a sequence, but he should be striving to meld those sequences into just one quick and prercise move to the mark when he practices it. The move should also be practiced at home with an unloaded gun and with the eyes closed. Opening the eyes will tell him all he needs to know about his progress in lining himself up with the gun while swinging it.

The more a shooter practices and perfects this move to and through the target, the more it will become apparent whether his stock is too long, too short, or just right. More practiced shooters tend to add more LOP as they perfect coming into the gun. The increased speed they execute the move causes them to overshoot the spot on the comb where their eye is in line with the rib and at the right height if the LOP is too short. So a bit extra LOP can be helpful and should be added a bit at a time with spacers if needed.With time and practice, a shooter will know when everything about his stock dimensions is exactly right for him. Practice will make perfect.

Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 52

Let me see if I have this straight………

The older, shotgun stocks with excessive heel drop MAY have originated from the early Kentucky rifles (no argument from me there, as that sounds plausible)…. which, you say, also happened to be most suitable for the ground-swatting propensities of po’ folks trying to conserve shells while out subsistence hunting……. Right?

AND conversely, the more advanced shooter of that time (read: well-heeled, city-bred sportsmen/exhibition shooter) who knew ‘ANYthing’ about wing-shooting saw the wisdom of using a straighter-stocked gun for his or her ‘aerial’ targets…….. rightfully shunning both this greater heel drop (Important point: AND its associated technique) for a more efficient stock design!

AND FURTHER, We know this to be so, because it’s common knowledge that a low comb-and-heel results in a lower-shooting arm mostly suited for stationary/ground game….

“Hey, Wait a minute…..NOT on that last one, anyway!” …..and I’ll get to that in a moment!

I’m having a bit of friendly fun with you on this one, Brad, but I don’t see it being quite that easy to ‘pigeon-hole’ shooters back then anymore than we can today…….as we are all out there plying our own ‘styles’ for the most part, just like they did a century ago. BUT, if we do allow ourselves to generalize for a moment, I think we would agree that mainstream shooters over the past century have gravitated toward straighter stocks that require a much different style/technique than would be employed with a stock having, say, 3 inches of drop. Are we ‘okay’ to that point? Well, at least Dave M. and myself ‘are’ to that point, as he alluded to in his original post to this thread…..

And, can we allow that there are some individuals that can/do/even prefer to shoot those older dimensions today by employing that same old ‘heads-up’ style of wing-shooting with very positive results? Again: refer to Dave M.’s favorable comments.

Maybe with even better results, I dare say, in some of the more difficult coverts that hold woodcock and grouse, where seeing ‘over’ the gun as well as is humanly possible becomes critical in order to make that quick, instinctive, point-shoot effort….. that will earn the practitioner more than the guy whose busy squinching his head down onto the comb. I believe some of the very best grouse/market hunters of that day shot this ‘antiquated’ heads-up way to the detriment of early bird populations. I think they wanted a gun that shot right ‘where they looked’! By that, I mean, throwing a 50/50, dead-nuts’-on pattern to absolutely center climbing/diving/flat-flying/whatever-may-come marks in heavy cover. That is what your “dawg-leg” stock can still do today with a ‘heads-up’ style of shooting; and something hunters with a vintage gun should at least contemplate before running to their stock makers looking for a replacement.

Compare this to most of today’s 'sports' who have become convinced by contemporary outdoor writers that they need a ‘high-patterning’ gun (say, 60/40, 70/30, or even upward) so’s they can “see” their bird whilst shooting it! Rest assured that the old gunners “saw” their birds too. If simply because they weren’t ratcheted down on the comb line when the shot was taken. I believe their stocks were configured to hit ‘spot-on’ with their heads more or less upright and seeing exactly what they were shooting at…..much to the bird’s chagrin. Were this not so, they’d be looking at the back of the gun’s frame, as I pointed out in my original post.

Is 3” or more of heel drop necessary for everybody today? Certainly not, but it may be conducive to some individuals efforts when using the old vintage stuff the way it was meant to be used. Should people try to learn this style?…..Only if they’ve a strong desire to do so, IMO…..and they’d possibly be better off sticking to the more moderate field dimensions hovering near 1-1/2” DAC, 2-1/2” DAH, what, with their shifting back and forth between a safe full of different guns…..again, in contrast to early-day shooters who were just thrilled to have 'one' gun. Is the old style hard to learn? Not at all, as that “dawg-leg” tool pretty much teaches you to do it the correct way over time with a natural stance and decisive gun movement. In short, much of the ‘unnatural’ head-dropping, elbow-raising, deep knee-bending movements that we all see at times, become just so much extra baggage for just pointing the bird out and killing it, that you’ll find it gets discarded. Obviously, there are a lot of shooting styles that ‘work’, this just happens to be one that works ‘better’ perhaps with the old guns that sport the older (lower) dimensions.

Like a lot of what gets written here….it’s just opinion. And I’ll offer a bit more in saying that the more modern, deliberate (read: grooved-in) shooting styles that continue to develop around straighter stocks and the ever-increasing adoption of pre-mounted gun rules has NOT done shooters any favors for venturing into the fields and coverts.

How many of us have stood watching a 5-stand event, where a shooter with a pre-mounted gun has failed to even see the target as it transits the field beneath his barrel(s)?……which, of course, requires a “do-over”. How many have seen a tight window (as through vegetation), true-pair requiring a swift, coordinated gun mount that the deliberate shooter with his 32” tubed, 8-1/2 # gun hasn’t “quite worked out” yet. (These sorts will tell you that the ‘shot’ didn’t have time to ‘develop’ to where the birds were even breakable. They’ll also call these very bird-like presentations-“poke-and-pray” shots in an effort to dismiss them.) Truth is, they are very make-able with the right gun and technique.

Remember that those jinking grouse who live beyond the first season don’t afford us the time for the “shot to develop”’ either …..and that is exactly where, I believe, all of this so-called 20th-century “progress” in latest stock dimensions (to include high combs, target weights, radically-curved pistol grips, and ultra-long barrels) is taking us. Which is AWAY from the ability to pick up a gun, almost any average gun at times, and shoot passably well with it in a VARIETY of situations that includes both bird and clay. To me, it is no great wonder that many struggle to shoot a more traditionally-dimensioned field gun on an intermittent basis, all the while believing that their redemption lies in reverting back to their ‘dedicated’ clays gun. Well, of course it BECOMES their redemption, because that is what they shoot 95% of the time. And thus, the old saying of “What you don’t use, you lose!” has never had a more correct application than in the use of the old classics!

To paraphrase a good friend on this topic of ‘subsistence vs. sporting’, and the guns they may have used: He felt that although the conservation of ammunition in those hard-pressed times was of much importance……. That most men of that early era were steeped with enough character to where they’d observe some sense of ‘fair chase’ when possible. And that once a fellow took his first bird in flight, he likely attempted to repeat the experience – even if his stomach were gnawing on him a bit - if for no other reason than the simple joy it brings. Not every time for some perhaps, but enough so that the sport of wing-shooting was slowly perpetuated. And I don’t find much argument with that, myself.

I don’t know about most of you, but even when times were leaner in my youth, I could forgo what I thought were certain ‘necessities’ of the day in order to keep shells in my game vest……much like an addicted ‘smoker’, finding himself on food stamps, is seldom without his ‘fags’.

I think I’ve said all I’ve got to say on this, Brad, and will remind you to not pass up some nice, old Sterlingworth with a 2-7/8”DAH should you come across one………because it’s a born killer of birds, just the way it’s stocked.

From the last of the ‘dinosaurs’, apparently.....

Robert

Member Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 123 Location: Oregon

Maybe the reason stocks have gotten straighter over the years has just to do with the new 2 3/4" Winchester Super-X that was introduced around 1925. Not only was it cracking some of the more light weight Flues frames, but it was probably also knocking the snot out of a lot of shooters.

Could it be just that simple? Stocks evolving to handle the stiffer recoil from the more powerful shells? I hope not. It's much more fun thinking that maybe they knew something we didn't or vice versa depending on your perspective.

Larry

Well, a fellow could come at that one from a different angle. If a straighter stock limits felt recoil with harder recoiling loads, it should be even better and more comfortable to shoot moderate loads...which in fact, it is.

Mr. Harris, can you explain to me why the vast majority of International skeet shooters and FITAC clays gravitate towards straighter, more modern stocks? Now I suppose you could try to convert these guys to your style of shooting with your doglegged old guns, but I'm betting you'd get a lot of funny looks, chuckles, snorts, and not much else. These guys are the best shooters in the world. I'll bet any grouse that is unfortunate enough to fly up in front of any of these guys would be very dead meat while you or I are still fumbling to get our safeties off. Quick to the mark does not do justice to how fast and accurately these folks shoot.

BTW, I shoot all skeet, 5 stand, and SC targets low gun. I also use a Browning 325 with its fairly straight original factory stock with a slightly shortened LOP to fit my frame for 5 stand and SC. I do not feel handicapped in the least and regularly outsahoot quite a few of the gun up guys.

I use whatever bird gun I feel like for low gun skeet. I do just fine with any of them. However, all of my guns have a moderate drop to comb and heel. I have adjusted the Lop so I am dead in line with the rib and comfortable with all of them. I hunt snipe and woodcock with a factory stocked Browning Citori Superlight .410 and don't miss too many. Pheasant do not phase me. I cut my wingshooting teeth on Florida quail and doves with a Winchester 101 20, then a Charles Daly Miroku 28. Both had relatively straight stocks too. I also hunt SE New England grouse with an identiclally stocked Citori Superlight 28 and usually will do quite well considering just how spooky these birds can be. I've also hunted the same species in Northern NH and in Vermont. Different bird it seems. Far less spooky and far easier to hit. Those more Northern birds hold well enough for me to usually get in range before they explode upwards. The last time I did so, I killed about 90%.

50% is more like it for Cape Cod grouse on a good day. They see more hunters and dogs, and don't hold worth a darn. They will flush if a sparrow farts and will not give you a shot unless you shoot right through the cover at where they might be headed. I've killed more of them and not seen the hit than those that I've been able to mark down. Thanks to my old Hiedi dog, I was able to recover nearly all the ones I did hit blind. Its shocking how well my grooved swing works on a fast departing bird through cover if I just trust it and stay in the gun rather than lift my head to see the bird better overthe barrel. Quite frankly, I'd need a periscope to see the bird over the typical cover I find Grouse in on the Cape and in the SE MA. cedar swamps.

Further, can you explain Why Ms. Oakley prefered a stock with quite modern dimensions? I suppose that you could suppose that Ms. Oakley wasn't aware of the benifits of shotguns with dogleg stocks. I'd hate to be the one to break the news to her that she did not really understand what she was doing. However, I'd like to be a fly on the wall if you were to try.

You also seem to have a real problem that some less affluent folks who subsistance hunted with a shotgun during the last third of the 19th century and on through the depression and the dustbowl era took their quarry on the ground if they could. I suppose watching their wives and kids go hungry and malnurished was more acceptable than adopting the artificial rules of the sport hunters who were well enough off to buy enough food for their families as well as be able to spend their money and spare time shooting flying birds for sport with newly purchased, finely made double guns and whole cases of freshly purchased ammo. I would have liked to see you explain to these folks just how wrong they were in doing so.

You are entirely welcome to hunt and shoot with your old dogleg stocked guns if you want. However, please don't feel offended if most of us have moved on to more moderately stocked shotguns and more evolved shooting styles.

I occasionally like to play with my percussion rifles. However, I would not waste my time trying to convince anyone they are better than a good center fire rifle, nor would I get upset if anyone pointed out that percussion rifles and patched round balls are more limited in range and power to a 30-06. I already know it and accept it. I love history, but I'm not stuck in it.

Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 52

I stand in true 'awe', Sir, of your reported gunning skills, your assumed knowledge, the sweeping conclusions you draw, AND proven verbosity over some 1900 + posts. You 'win'! Crying or Very sad

Robert

Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 23

I think we may be hearing some sour grapes from folks who own (or wish to own) and shoot some really fine old classic shotguns and can't hit anything with them because the "old school" drop is all wrong for them and their well schooled modern technique. Restocking and stock bending (and cracking) is the only solution for these folks...or else shoot modern guns. Nothing wrong with that mind you, just not my idea of fun.

I know what I like and I know what I shoot best and it may be wrong for everyone including Annie Oakley. After shooting shotguns on and off for the last 36 years of my life, I recently found and fell absolutely head over heals in love with a well worn 1922 Fox SW, because I shoot it better than any other shotgun I have ever owned.

I must naturally shoot the way old fashioned way. Now that may be the wrong way. Maybe I could hit even better with another shotgun shooting the "right way". But if shooting the right way meant the old Fox was wrong for me, that would be a shame. I think I will shoot wrong, and hit with my Fox. Or to paraphrase a song, "if shooting the old gun well is wrong, I don't want to be right."

Now that I can agree on. I want the shotgun to point and shoot where my eyes are looking. Not have to make sure my eyes are following the shotgun. Rather the shotgun follows my eyes.I'm sure not going to change the stocks on my LC Smiths. Haven't tried the one I just purchased, but the one I have used sure shoots where I'm looking.

Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 23

Sidehammer-

That photo is a treasure! Thanks, I feel better about shooting the wrong way.

Doug

Member Joined: 01 Feb 2006 Posts: 450 Location: Indiana

How ever they shot them I am greatful. They helped get the shooting sport started that we have today. But one thing I was wandering. It seems to me that most of the shooting clubs that we enjoy today were founded between the late 1930's thru the early 1960's. I myself do not know of any clubs that were started after that. I know of several that have tried but the locals would never let them get started in the counties. Back in the 30's 40's & 50's it seemed that every little community had one.

So just remember that if you want to keep your favorite club going please support it. Like the old saying once you lose something you will probably never get it back.

Anyone got any thaughts on that.