Shooting Times & Country Magazine
Taking stock of gun design
It is a subject that provokes much debate, but it is ultimately a matter of personal choice. Simon Reinhold charts the history of gunfit
an aimed shot at a static bird, so not an instinctive shot.
It wasn’t until the French aristocracy looked down their noses and decided that shooting birds on the ground was beneath them — in more ways than one — and that a good use of a servant was to get him to drive game out of coverts, that the sport of shooting flying birds began to develop and with that the shape of a gunstock.
As this fashion grew, some interested English onlookers had time on their hands while they waited in exile for the political conditions to be right for the return of their patron, Charles II, to his English throne.
With the resignation of Cromwell’s ineffectual son, Richard, who inherited the title of Lord Protector but none of his father’s political, administrative or military acumen, the political and financial tide shifted in favour of these courtiers.
With the restoration of Charles II and the orgy of patronage and aggrandisement that followed, they brought back with them the new fashion for shooting flying birds and no doubt some different-looking guns designed to be shouldered, not as before held under the armpit as the face came down to the stock.
The new king was less interested in matters of state than he was in his prodigious record with his mistresses and the hedonistic pleasures of sport. Hunting flying birds with muzzleloading shotguns was on the rise to such an extent that, in 1671, new laws were issued limiting the taking of game to those with a landed income of at least £100 a year.
Grace and comfort
To connect consistently with a flying bird, the shape of a gunstock needed to accomplish three things. First, when the stock was brought to the shoulder, it needed to enable a nobleman to hit a bird at 20 or 30 yards without any conscious correction for alignment. Secondly, it should allow the nobleman to shoot in comfort, without any bruising to either his face or his shoulder. Lastly, it should look graceful, as any fashionable, courtly pastime needed to be undertaken with a certain élan. These are broadly the three categories that still matter today in gunfit.
Guns of this early period are notably shorter-stocked than we are used to today for a variety of reasons, including that people are now generally taller and longer-limbed. As an example, Charles II struggled to disguise himself for his escape to exile because, at 6ft, he was unusually tall for the period.
“Gunfit was barely considered before we adopted the habit of shooting flying birds”
Barrels of these early hunting guns were also far longer than we are used to today. An early treatise on the subject recommended a gun with a barrel 3ft (36in) in length as a good all-rounder.
The French continued to exert an influence, and in the 1730s, French
sporting guns arrived in England with the addition of a second barrel beside the first. Though these early sideby-sides were derided by some, who picked out their French origin as part of “a great many other foolish things”, some British gunmakers took note.
Sixty years later, the great Joseph Manton had perfected the design and shape of the gunstock for a doublebarrelled muzzle-loader for shooting flying birds. His apprentices, who included James Purdey, Thomas
Boss, William Greener and Charles Lancaster, would carry on shaping French walnut (there they are again) the same way into the modern era.
Changing times
When another Frenchman, Casimir Lefaucheux, ushered in a whirlwind of invention with his radical patent breechloader, gunfit became more of a refined art as part of the melting pot of ideas and energy in the latter half of the 19th century.
At the end of the period, the London trade began to offer overand-unders and existing clients were surprised to discover that the gunmakers insisted on remeasuring them for fit. The inherent stiffness of over-and-unders means they are less prone to muzzle-flip so they shoot higher than a side-by-side. To counteract this, stockers would increase what they then termed ‘bend’, more commonly ‘drop at comb’ and ‘drop at heel’ these days.
Another development in gunfit came out of high-stakes shooting matches behind the Casino de Monte Carlo. Fortunes were made and lost in the live pigeon shooting ring, the forerunner of trap shooting.
Developed by Webley & Scott, a Monte Carlo stock has its comb raised higher and a dip down to the heel of the buttpad. It enabled the
“Gunfit is entirely dependent on what is comfortable for you and your body shape”
gun to come to the cheek quicker as the pigeon was released, allowing an earlier and closer shot to be taken, with a higher chance of success. When this translated into winning big cash, competitors asked their gunmakers to provide these stock shapes.
At about the same time, Edward, Prince of Wales, was making a specific request of James Purdey & Sons to provide a more open radiused grip for his side-by-sides, so that his hand could stay located on the grip with the wrist not cocked, as with a full pistol grip. His style of shooting was to move his front hand depending on the bird.
Grip shape is one of those aspects that has become more prominent in modern gunfit, especially with modern reliable single triggers that dominate on over-and-unders where there is no need for the hand to move between the first and second shot.
There is a modern trend towards buttplates with almost no pitch (the difference in angle between the heel and toe) or shape to them (compare a Beretta pad with a Longthorne). I don’t believe this is a positive step, but gunfit is a moveable feast.
Giovanni Pellielo, one of the best trap shooters in the world, has what many would consider too short a stock and his eye over the thumb of his grip hand. Conversely, Kimberly Rhode, the American double trap and skeet shooter, appears to prefer a stock that looks far too long, but with three Olympic gold medals, no one can deny that it works for her.
Personal style
There is a modern trend for hard and fast rules. Some say that the stocks from the gunmakers of old are not suitable in the modern era. For me, it is hard to ignore the time, effort and expertise from successive generations of pre-war gunmakers.
Once you have established a personal style of shooting, gunfit is entirely dependent on what is comfortable for you, your body shape and the type of shooting in which you are engaged.