shotgun weight

[islandgun]

I thought that perhaps this might be of some interest to someone, i recently read that W W Greener noted that for a shotgun to last and be comfortable it should weigh no less than 96 times heavier than the weight of shot fired through it, Which makes for a charge of an ounce the gun should weigh 6lb, 2oz 12lb, i wondered how this stacked up with modern 3/12 inch 12 bores.

[theshootist]

Well I think my browning gold weighs something like 7lb 6-8oz. I tried some 3.5" 2.25oz lead shells. I would describe the recoil as being "very fierce". Its to be expected when firing an 8 bore load from a 12.

 

I also used to have a nice J F Smythe boxlock 20 bore. It was certainly much closer to 5lb than 6lb. 28 gram shells made it a real handful and not something I would want to shoot 100 clays with! I think Mr Greener knew his eggs!

[figgy]

Sounds right for standard guns, semi autos are different.

 

Some modern guns with multiple bites and lock ups and made with better metal alloys will be fine with heavier loads.

 

Figgy

[Hamster]

I thought that perhaps this might be of some interest to someone, i recently read that W W Greener noted that for a shotgun to last and be comfortable it should weigh no less than 96 times heavier than the weight of shot fired through it, Which makes for a charge of an ounce the gun should weigh 6lb, 2oz 12lb, i wondered how this stacked up with modern 3/12 inch 12 bores.

 

This is possibly one of the best examples of why every generation should at least question what was written before. To say the statement is dated is putting it mildly, even clay shooters who generally fire no more than 1oz loads are pretty emphatically agreed that a gun needs to weight a minimum 8 lbs + to be a serious tool.

[wymberley]

 

This is possibly one of the best examples of why every generation should at least question what was written before. To say the statement is dated is putting it mildly, even clay shooters who generally fire no more than 1oz loads are pretty emphatically agreed that a gun needs to weight a minimum 8 lbs + to be a serious tool.

Before it can be questioned, though, it has to be read, seen or done and it seems that that is not happening any more. It should be noted that the good Mr Greener was talking game guns in an era which did not generally shoot the currently essential stratospherically high birds and the 1oz Impax did everything that was needed.

[Hamster]

Before it can be questioned, though, it has to be read, seen or done and it seems that that is not happening any more. It should be noted that the good Mr Greener was talking game guns in an era which did not generally shoot the currently essential stratospherically high birds and the 1oz Impax did everything that was needed.

 

If the ole shoot records are anything to go by approaching a thousand head of game was the norm, some individuals patently shot that in a day and assuming the odd miss it's reasonable to assume at the days end they must have known recoil hurts. Frankly it's beyond me how Greener came to arrive at this particular set of sums !

[wymberley]

 

If the ole shoot records are anything to go by approaching a thousand head of game was the norm, some individuals patently shot that in a day and assuming the odd miss it's reasonable to assume at the days end they must have known recoil hurts. Frankly it's beyond me how Greener came to arrive at this particular set of sums !

Yep, hear what you say but have you ever tried to pull (I'm sorry I don't know the correct term - there's bound to be one) a proper English longbow or a fired a couple of hundred rounds from the British Army standard rifle of the 1880s - the Lee Enfield 303 was for wimps. Now, I'm not saying they were right, but we have to look at the situation in context with the conditions prevailing at the time that things were said or done.

[HDAV]

Yep, hear what you say but have you ever tried to pull (I'm sorry I don't know the correct term - there's bound to be one) a proper English longbow or a fired a couple of hundred rounds from the British Army standard rifle of the 1880s - the Lee Enfield 303 was for wimps. Now, I'm not saying they were right, but we have to look at the situation in context with the conditions prevailing at the time that things were said or done.

 

In the days when mining was done done a mile underground with picks and shovels i think the amount of recoil that was acceptable is probably different to today where our cars and increasingly our women are fitted with air bags!

[JohnfromUK]

 

This is possibly one of the best examples of why every generation should at least question what was written before. To say the statement is dated is putting it mildly, even clay shooters who generally fire no more than 1oz loads are pretty emphatically agreed that a gun needs to weight a minimum 8 lbs + to be a serious tool.

I wouldn't want a gun weighing 8 lbs plus for general use.

 

I shoot 21, 26, 28, 30 or 32 grammes through my 6 3/4 lb gun (12 bore). I have no recoil problems. 32 grammes is 'lively', but all the others are fine for 50 to 100 shots in a day anyway. I rarely do more. If the gun fits OK, 96 : 1 shouldn't be a problem. The key thing is that the gun should fit properly. I also have a 6 1/4 lb gun and again, with 28 grammes or less - its just fine.

 

I do own an 8 lbs gun and its too heavy to use anywhere where there is a bit of ground to be covered.

 

Just my opinion.

[CaptainBeaky]

You mean"draw" a longbow or strictly, a warbow.

And yes, you're right, most people can't draw a proper warbow, with a 120 lb plus draw weight. I know I can't!

[subsonicnat]

Materials have moved on since this equation, most modern guns have a fair bit of chrome in them, making them a lot tougher cookie..

[Hamster]

You mean"draw" a longbow or strictly, a warbow.

And yes, you're right, most people can't draw a proper warbow, with a 120 lb plus draw weight. I know I can't!

 

It's well documented that bowmen gradually developed muscle and mass in the right areas which coupled to repetition and acquired knack and skill allowed them to fire off arrows at a good rate. One imagines there must have been trainer bows that were used to start trainees off on, the idea that yesterdays men were just innately more powerful is extremely unlikely. In fact what is also well documented is the fact that human beings have been gradually getting bigger, taller and stronger not least due to superior diets.

 

I'm afraid recoil is recoil and it was then what it is now, you'd have to search high and low to even find a gunmaker now who would sell you a 6 lbs 2oz shot gun designed to fire 28 gram loads which must tell us something.

[JohnfromUK]

 

I'm afraid recoil is recoil and it was then what it is now, you'd have to search high and low to even find a gunmaker now who would sell you a 6 lbs 2oz shot gun designed to fire 28 gram loads which must tell us something.

 

But most English makers will sell you a gun weighing about 6 3/4 to 7 lbs to shoot a 30 or 32 gramme load

[Hamster]

 

But most English makers will sell you a gun weighing about 6 3/4 to 7 lbs to shoot a 30 or 32 gramme load

 

Not many experienced shooters will bite though I can assure you.

 

You do have a point though, not quite sure what it is the English makers haven't quite grasped yet about weight and recoil seeing as Isaac made a revelation or two a good while back.

[JohnfromUK]

 

Not many experienced shooters will bite though I can assure you.

 

You do have a point though, not quite sure what it is the English makers haven't quite grasped yet about weight and recoil seeing as Isaac made a revelation or two a good while back.

The answer is - what suits the user.

 

For shooting a large number of clays with little walking - a heavy gun is just fine. However, much of my shooting involves a lot of walking with the gun for relatively few shots - so I like a light gun. I have (when younger) carried my 8+ lbs Italian o/u and it gets very heavy towards the end of a long day!

 

If you feel you need to shoot heavy or high velocity loads (e.g. 36 grammes and more) - you will definitely need a heavy gun.

 

But my light(ish) gun (which is fitted) doesn't kick like a mule. In fact its very pleasant to shoot - and I happily use up to 30 or 32 grammes of normal velocity cartridges with no worries - and 100 such shots causes me no discomfort when I do shoot some clays through it. In my view therefore - the old rule of 96:1 for a general purpose gun shooting standard velocity loads is still perfectly valid. It probably needs tweaking for special applications such as heavy loads, or large volumes of cartridges at clays.

Edited February 5, 2014 by JohnfromUK

[CaptainBeaky]

You are correct, Mr Hamster, the only way to use a bow of that draw weight is to start low and work up to it, both in strength and more importantly, technique. I can't manage more than about 100 lb these days, as my elbows won't take it any more. If you Google got warbow, you will see videos of folks who shoot bows up to 180 lb. Not delicate lads, but no bigger or presumably stronger than the archers from the Mary Rose.

Ok, something of a digression, but to return to the point (at last), what is considered the norm, and therefore acceptable, changes over time, such as the example above of shooting big loads at birds almost in orbit, or shooting huge loads of steel at geese because of it's inferior performance compared to lead. I doubt Mr Greener ever considered that lead shoot would be banned. Times change, and we change with them. Mr Greener's rule of thumb may have been applicable then, but not so much now.

[islandgun]

Very interesting replies, i had in mind an example, for instance a Yildiz SbS 12bore 3.5 chamber weighing approx 8lb firing 21/4oz load, 1/3 lighter than than the recommendation of 96-1 are we tougher than then or not as bright.

 

Well I think my browning gold weighs something like 7lb 6-8oz. I tried some 3.5" 2.25oz lead shells. I would describe the recoil as being "very fierce". Its to be expected when firing an 8 bore load from a 12.

 

I also used to have a nice J F Smythe boxlock 20 bore. It was certainly much closer to 5lb than 6lb. 28 gram shells made it a real handful and not something I would want to shoot 100 clays with! I think Mr Greener knew his eggs!

[theshootist]

 

Not many experienced shooters will bite though I can assure you.

 

You do have a point though, not quite sure what it is the English makers haven't quite grasped yet about weight and recoil seeing as Isaac made a revelation or two a good while back.

I think English makers have always grasped physics, Greener was talking about a game gun to carry and writing in a time when fashion was pushing to lighter and lighter guns. He was setting out what he thought should be ideal. If you look at the live pigeon guns designed to shoot heavy loads and not be carried, they are all much heavier.

[Hamster]

I think English makers have always grasped physics, Greener was talking about a game gun to carry and writing in a time when fashion was pushing to lighter and lighter guns. He was setting out what he thought should be ideal. If you look at the live pigeon guns designed to shoot heavy loads and not be carried, they are all much heavier.

 

A gun is a gun, Greeners' guns were still meant to be shot whilst standing on a peg firing who knows maybe as many as 50 shots in half an hour.

 

The only concession that can be made is regarding the cartridges available at the time; it is possible the velocities back then were somewhat lower (say around 200 fps) which makes the recoil implications somewhat less serious. That makes the 96-1 formula merely flawed as opposed to plain wrong.

[wymberley]

You mean"draw" a longbow or strictly, a warbow.

And yes, you're right, most people can't draw a proper warbow, with a 120 lb plus draw weight. I know I can't!

Ah, "draw", of course - my brain is dieing. As an aside, I've just seen/read something - it may have been an archaeology programme - that suggests because of the forces required to use the bow, the archers' body could well have developed into what we would probably call, 'disfigured'. Would that be correct?

 

PS I'm still confused about the other 2oz.

Edited February 6, 2014 by wymberley

[JohnfromUK]

I don’t believe Greener’s 96:1 ratio was flawed when he published it – and I believe it remains completely valid today – for what he intended.

The key thing is that shooting is a broad spectrum of activities and generally ‘one size fits all’ doesn’t work very well. Let me give some examples;

For walked up game and rough shooting where a gun is carried a lot, but fired relatively little, a light gun (say around 6 ¼ to 6 ¾ lbs) that fits well firing 1 to 1 1/8 oz works well. Light to carry and recoil easily managed. Many older English guns fall in this range, almost always side by sides. Above average recoil is acceptable because few shots are fired. The 96:1 guide works OK and these guns shoot lighter ¾ or 7/8 oz loads very nicely for a go at the clays.

For driven game where sometimes many shots are fired and walking is limited, a gun perhaps 6 ¾ lbs to 7 ½ lbs firing 1 to 1 1/8 oz is suitable – and again many English and ‘game’ Continental guns fit here, both o/u and s/s. O/u guns tend to be towards the top of the weight range and recoil is ‘moderate’. The 96:1 guide works OK as a minimum, but a higher ratio is more common.

For clays (generalisation) – the tendency a few years ago was to use 1 1/8 ounce loads. Guns weighed typically around 8 lbs or more with long barrelled guns (30 or 32”) for ‘trap’ and shorter (26”) more popular for skeet, sporting in between at 28 or 30”. No walking is done, and a lot of cartridges may be fired in a short time. More recently 1 oz loads have become the norm, but gun weights have tended to remain much the same, which gives a ‘light’ recoil. The a higher ratio would suit better.

I’m not a wildfowler, but as I understand it, relatively few heavy to very heavy loads are fired – and there may be difficult walking, so a balance is needed where a medium weight gun firing few heavy loads with high recoil is acceptable. The ratio may well be acceptable at under 96:1 due to the need to balance a ‘carryable’ gun with the heavy loads needed.

Finally, for those who consistently shoot game near the limit of range and feel they need a really heavy load – and will shoot a lot of cartridges over a whole day, a heavy gun will be needed to avoid punishing recoil build up. Note that a 1 ½ oz load (42g) will at 96:1 need a 9 lb gun. This is 96:1 working again – and probably close to the truth again.

Gun fit (and correct mount) is vital to having an acceptable level of perceived recoil. I appreciate Newton’s laws are the same, but recoil properly transferred into the correct part of the shoulder is very much less noticeable than recoil experienced at the face from the comb. Two guns with the same weight firing the same cartridges can have VERY different ‘perceived’ levels of recoil – and feel quite different to different people.

[islandgun]

 

 

PS I'm still confused about the other 2oz.

I think I should have worded it better 1oz = 6lb gun

2oz = 12lb

[Hamster]

For walked up game and rough shooting where a gun is carried a lot, but fired relatively little, a light gun (say around 6 ¼ to 6 ¾ lbs) that fits well firing 1 to 1 1/8 oz works well. Light to carry and recoil easily managed. Many older English guns fall in this range, almost always side by sides. Above average recoil is acceptable because few shots are fired. The 96:1 guide works OK and these guns shoot lighter ¾ or 7/8 oz loads very nicely for a go at the clays.

 

 

Two guns with the same weight firing the same cartridges can have VERY different ‘perceived’ levels of recoil – and feel quite different to different people.

 

 

So you agree such a gun would by definition have above average recoil ! A gun that is light to carry and is fired infrequently is today and no doubt back then, in such a niche area of use that that itself makes a mockery of even coming up with a 96-1 formula. Why not go the whole hog and come up with a Hamster Formula that says a camping gun intended as last resort bear defence or starvation prevention should weight no more than 5.5 lbs ? I mean who could argue with that ?

 

The point is nobody even makes a so called General Purpose (whatever that is) 12 gauge that weights 6 lbs 2 oz because it would smack the user regardless of fit. Fit and recoil are two entirely different subjects incidentally. Yes I agree it is a contributory factor which will dial out many a recoil related problem but it is no magical cure for insufficient weight. The most hideously poor fitting gun imaginable will have very acceptable recoil characteristics if it weighted 30 lbs for instance, likewise a gun fitted by the worlds most knowledgeable fitter to the nth degree will be useless if it weighted 5 lbs.

 

I agree with your final point but we'll have to disagree on the main subject of the Greener formula as there is next to no evidence anyone takes it seriously today.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Hamster

[Guest cookoff013]

i shoot most shells or whatever. i really dont go for the 3.5s exclusively, but i have shot them.

 

the older days of yesteryear the loads were really slow, the 3 dram loads were about 1200maX OR 1100fps on a good day, very different from the shells of today.

infact the american lead shells are virtually unchanged. at 1100fps or 1200fps, most loads are great loads, lowish recoil, big shot, big shotcharges 1,1/8 - 1,1/2 oz/ unfortunately the added speed of modern ammunition really punishes, older guns and shooters.

 

i still run subsonics in my sxs, big lead, and is a dream to shoot. its about 2.5-2-3/4 dram equivalents. still abit on the light side for "penultimate load" but i can do the volume easily.

[JohnfromUK]

 

So you agree such a gun would by definition have above average recoil ! A gun that is light to carry and is fired infrequently is today and no doubt back then, in such a niche area of use that that itself makes a mockery of even coming up with a 96-1 formula. Why not go the whole hog and come up with a Hamster Formula that says a camping gun intended as last resort bear defence or starvation prevention should weight no more than 5.5 lbs ? I mean who could argue with that ?

 

The point is nobody even makes a so called General Purpose (whatever that is) 12 gauge that weights 6 lbs 2 oz because it would smack the user regardless of fit. Fit and recoil are two entirely different subjects incidentally. Yes I agree it is a contributory factor which will dial out many a recoil related problem but it is no magical cure for insufficient weight. The most hideously poor fitting gun imaginable will have very acceptable recoil characteristics if it weighted 30 lbs for instance, likewise a gun fitted by the worlds most knowledgeable fitter to the nth degree will be useless if it weighted 5 lbs.

 

I agree with your final point but we'll have to disagree on the main subject of the Greener formula as there is next to no evidence anyone takes it seriously today.

6 ¼ lbs firing 1 1/8 oz will have ‘above average’ recoil, yes, but I hardly think that walked up and rough shooting is a ‘niche area’! No more so than say trap shooting is a ‘niche area’!

I agree that 6 lbs 2 oz is not a ‘general purpose’ gun.

 

A ‘general purpose’ gun would be something that could reasonably be used for rough shooting, pigeon shooting, a few rounds of clays, a driven day when invited etc. In other words the sort of mixed sport and shooting that I guess many on here enjoy. You wouldn’t expect to get top scores at clays disciplines etc, but you would be able to enjoy taking part.

 

A general purpose s/s gun such as an AyA No 2 would weigh around 6 ¾ lbs and be chambered for 2 ¾” ammunition and suited to shoot ‘up to 1 ¼ oz’. I suspect most owners (and it was the UK’s best selling s/s) would typically shoot 1 oz or 1 1/16 oz (28 or 32 g). Recoil would be below average on 1 oz to above average on 1 ¼ oz.

 

A general purpose o/u might be a Beretta/Browning or similar that weighs between 7 and 8 lbs and would be happy with loads up to (and probably over) 1 ¼ oz. It would have light recoil with a typical 1 oz clays load.

 

As you say, we are not going to agree(!) – as I happen to think that the guide of 96:1 is a good guide and as relevant today as when it was mentioned by Greener and later by Gough Thomas. On that basis - we will have to agree to differ, but its been an ineresting discussion..

 

What figure would you propose to offer instead of 96 as a guide to the ratio between gun and shot load for your preferred use, or do you disagree with the concept of a relationship between a gun’s weight and the shot payload ?