Indians For Guns

Which design is preferred? It seems to me an O/U is better as you have sights on one barrel instead of nestling in between two.But do you have to aim higher to take the shot that leaves the lower barrel?

Thoughts?

Would take over/ under over side by side but this debate is never settled, as you're about to see now. Here we go 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

The following links have more answers than you need which may be a bit confusing but will educate us.

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1013

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?t=6330&f=11

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtop ... 12&start=0


Best-
Vikram

Hammerhead, what are your reasons?

Skyman wrote:Which design is preferred? It seems to me an O/U is better as you have sights on one barrel instead of nestling in between two.But do you have to aim higher to take the shot that leaves the lower barrel?

Thoughts?

The barrels of an O/U are aligned to have a common point of impact at a specified distance, usually around forty yards. Just as the barrels of a SxS are.

The O/U of identical weight and stock fit as a SxS has a slight advantage in felt recoil, especially from the lower barrel; the SXS having a sideways component to felt recoil. So for shooting a lot of repetitive shots, an O/U tends to be a bit less tiring.

Which design is preferred ? That's entirely up to the shooter.

Design advantage?. The O/U lends itself better to machine production, i.e. modern manufacturing methods.

Some folks who shoot from blinds prefer the SxS. When the O/U is broken to load, it must break at much more of an angle to access the lower barrel. This can be awkward if the blind doesn't have a lot of room.

timmy wrote:Some folks who shoot from blinds prefer the SxS. When the O/U is broken to load, it must break at much more of an angle to access the lower barrel. This can be awkward if the blind doesn't have a lot of room.

Very true. That also makes it a bit slower, and that's most likely why the O/U is not catching on for dangerous game. As for tight blinds and canoes...Darne.

Darne it, I'd love to have one!

As I understand it, the preferred guns for British blind shooting are SxS with under lug-only locking. This means no doll's heads, rib extensions, rotary bolts, etc. The underlug only many not be the strongest locking system, but it allows a totally flat breech so His Lordship's gamekeeper or whatever he's called can be unloading and loading extractor guns and passing them to HIs Lordship quickly. As I understand it, the process can involve several guns being juggled all at the same time.

This sort of hunting may not be what anyone else is doing in any other place, although someone might be doing something similar. There are all sorts of shotguns for all sorts of shooting, and I'm not sure a "which design is preferred" question is even pertinent. For instance, are we talking about trap, skeet, sporting clays, upland dove, pheasant, waterfowl, or just what kind of hunting? It seems to me that there are plenty of different kinds of shotgun-appropriate hunting and plenty of different kinds of hunters to support both SxS and O/U.

I think that the question should be more use-specific.

Most shooting from blinds in the UK is for pigeon shooting ..... and there are very few people who use SxSs. The only other shooting from blinds that I can think of would be for wildfowling - and I`d guess that semi-autos are the single most popular type of gun used. It`s a matter of economics and availability - expensive guns have never been popular for wildfowling because of the wet conditions. 3 1/2" chambered 12-Bore semi-autos are commonly available and inexpensive.
The maximum number of guns in used in driven bird shooting would have been three - and a loader would have been used. Even then, the juggling required when using three guns meant that trios were never common. Without a loader having a pair or trio of guns is pointless as it`s quicker to reload a single gun if you have to do it yourself. The `nobs` didn`t engage in shooting pigeons - pigeons are vermin, not game.
I suspect that what you`re talking about are grouse butts when a loader would have been used. Nowadays everyone would be thrilled to need two ( or three ) guns for grouse shooting
Third bites of all types were found to be totally unnecessary hence their disappearance from British guns ( and rib or breech extensions made no difference to the height of a guns action anyway.) The same applies to side bolsters and side clips. When bolsters are used nowadays their function is purely decorative.