The Project Gutenberg eBook of The American shotgun
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The American shotgun
Author: Charles Askins
Release date: August 31, 2026 [eBook #79480]
Language: English
Original publication: New York: Outing Publishing Company, 1910
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/79480
Credits: deaurider and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE AMERICAN SHOTGUN ***
_The_
American Shotgun
By Charles Askins
_Copiously illustrated with halftones from
photographs and diagrammatic drawings
by the author._
[Illustration]
NEW YORK
OUTING PUBLISHING COMPANY
MCMX
COPYRIGHT, 1910, BY
OUTING PUBLISHING COMPANY
ENTERED AT STATIONERS’ HALL, LONDON, ENGLAND
_All rights reserved_
CONTENTS
PART I
I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON ARMS PAST AND PRESENT 17
II. CONSTRUCTION OF SHOTGUNS 25
III. THE FRAME 35
IV. GUN STOCKS 51
V. TRIGGERS AND TRIGGER PULL AND THE SINGLE TRIGGER 61
VI. THE MATTER OF ENGRAVING 73
VII. GRADES AND PRICES 84
VIII. REPEATING AND AUTOMATIC SHOTGUNS 105
IX. FITTING THE GUN TO THE MAN 114
X. GAUGES AND CHARGES 130
XI. CHOKES, PATTERNS AND VELOCITIES 154
XII. THE CARE OF THE GUN 179
PART II SCIENCE OF WING-SHOOTING
I. WING-SHOOTING PROBLEMS 191
II. AIMING 202
III. SNAP-SHOOTING--DELIBERATE SWING--RAPID SWING 220
IV. PRIMARY LESSONS 235
V. SOME SHOOTING PSYCHOLOGY 249
VI. SPEED OF FLIGHT--WHERE TO HOLD--JUDGING DISTANCES 265
VII. HINTS ON SHOOTING DIFFERENT GAME BIRDS 281
VIII. FIELD ETIQUETTE 308
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Drawings Showing Bolting Mechanisms 20
Drawings of Quintuple Fastening and of Rotary Cross-bolt 21
Stevens Compressed Steel Barrels 30
Ithaca Bolting Mechanism 39
Sideplate Lock 42
Tumbler Safety 46
The Snap Fore-end 55
The Parker Ejector and the Ithaca Ejector 57
The Hunter Single Trigger 66
The Infallible Single Trigger 67
Wealth of Ornamentation on The Sauer Gun 74
Style of Engraving of the Winchester Company 77
The Diamond Daly--German Style of Engraving 80
The Baker Brush; Smith Knockabout; Stevens Field Grade 87
The Fox “Sterlingworth” 90
The B. Grade, Fox 92
The Parker Knockabout 93
Smith Field and Trap Ejector 94
Baker Paragon Grade 95
Parker $100 Grade 96
The Stevens Field and Trap and the Baker Expert 98
The $750 Grade L. C. Smith 99
The Highest Grade Sauer 100
The $400 Grade Ithaca 101
The $500 Diamond Daly 102
The $500 Fox 103
The Winchester, Remington and Stevens Repeating Shotguns 106
Gunstock Measuring 115
The Monte Carlo Comb 120
Measurements of Stock for Single Trigger 125
The 16-Gauge Sauer 142
The 16-Gauge Marlin and the 20-Gauge Parker 147
An Idealized Pattern of a Modified Choke 161
Method of Analyzing a Pattern 163
Size of Circles in Which Various Degrees of Choke Will Throw
Their Patterns 165
Pattern Showing the Futility of Shooting Large Shot in Small
Gauges, Open Bored 177
Binocular Shooting, or Gun Pointing 208
Gun Pointing--Both Eyes Open 212
Targets With Rifle, Showing the Result of Gun Pointing Without
Sights 219
Diagram Showing Rough Snap, Semi-snap, and Rapid Swing 221
The Difference in Lead Between a Snap Shot and a Swinging Shot 229
Estimating a Bird’s Distance by His Apparent Size and the
Plainness of his Markings 275
Estimating the Distance to Hold Ahead in Lengths of the Bird 278
Turning on Him. (From photograph.) 284
Shooting High for a Rising Bird. (From photograph.) 289
Shooting an Incomer. (From photograph.) 304
Right Way to Carry a Gun Afield. (From photograph.) 319
Proper Position in Waiting for a Shot. (From photograph.) 320
PREFACE
A preface can be considered a word of apology, an explanation, or a
bit of spice to smell good and tempt the jaded appetite into eating
a concoction. No apology should be required for writing a book on
shotguns at this time, and now if ever the sportsman’s appetite ought
to be keen for just such a work.
However cleverly written, an essay on guns soon becomes old and
valueless. Changes and improvements in fire arms have taken place so
rapidly that a treatise on such weapons dated twenty-five years ago
might as well have been restricted to the muzzle-loader. Probably it
will be the same in the future, though we of to-day are prone to think
that little further improvement in double guns is possible.
Clever magazine articles on sporting arms appear from time to time, but
in book form nothing of note on shotguns has issued from an American
press in the last generation. Such works as we have on the subject are
from English authorities, and, unfortunately, are merely more or less
carefully disguised advertisements of some particular make of English
arm. Reading one of these volumes, the conclusion would be unavoidable
that there is really only one country that can build a shotgun worth
owning, England, and but one weapon there that is quite worth while,
the particular arm to which the book is devoted. Other British guns are
known to the author apparently, but are so generally inferior to the
author’s favorite that simply mentioning their names would be a waste
of valuable space. All this despite the fact that the books purport to
treat of British guns in general.
The author is a strong believer in American guns. He holds that we can
not only build a better gun for the money than any country, but as good
a weapon as can be purchased anywhere, for any amount of money.
He hopes to show in the pages that follow a spirit of fairness and
justice toward all our gunbuilders, without fear or partiality or
prejudice. Where he has ventured to criticise it has been in the
interest of the reader as tending to future improvements. Neither has
he considered it necessary to proclaim that America alone makes fine
guns. What he is willing to affirm is that in model and mechanics our
shotguns are superior and that the system of manufacture developed here
permits our factories to put more value into a gun than is possible
elsewhere, except in such grade of arms as to make the cost of no
consideration.
The information and ideas contained in the succeeding chapters are
mostly the results of a personal study of fire arms. Perhaps it is not
a graceful thing to say, but the author can acknowledge himself little
indebted to any gunbuilder for inside or technical information. Such
facts as in the nature of things would be known only to the builders
have generally been withheld under the plea that they are trade secrets.
For instance, no manufacturer would give the inside diameter of the
bore of one of his barrels at all points, under the apparent belief
that this would betray his system of boring. This is rather absurd
on the face of it since any gunsmith could take the measurements at
will. Perhaps one of the builders puts the matter fairly from their
standpoint when he states that, “there are a good many things which the
general public is fully as well off without knowing.” Notwithstanding
this, the writer, not believing in the ignorance is bliss foolishness,
has given all the conclusions at which he could arrive by a close study
of the subject.
Care has been taken in this book not to give special mention to
any make of arm, but all our prominent gunbuilders will be found
well represented in the illustrations. Many of the latter are from
photographs taken expressly for this book, and never before appearing
in print.
In the wing-shooting department of the book the writer has found
himself obliged to blaze a path of his own. With such text books as
might have been available he was unable to agree for the most part.
The system of wing-shooting here set forth is his own, and if it tells
anything will add to the sum of what has been said before because it is
different.
Thirty years of active life afield have given him convictions that for
himself personally, to put it in a Rooseveltian way, outweighed the
conclusions of others at such points as we failed to agree. If the
writer is to acknowledge himself indebted to any source for theories
and shooting principles, it is not to books, but to the many expert
shots who have tramped cover and field with him in the course of many
long shooting days. If the book is anything it is practical, and where
theories have been advanced they have been proved in practice or cast
aside.
In writing on this subject the author discovered fresh fields and
coverts untouched. Since the days of Frank Forester, Lewis, and Thos.
Alexander little has been written of the art of wing-shooting that
merits long life or much consideration. Pigeon and trap work have been
well handled, and others have confined themselves to wild-fowling, but
nothing has been written of a general nature on the principles and
science of wing-shooting.
CHAS. ASKINS.
Ames, Oklahoma, August 16th, 1910.
CHAPTER I
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON ARMS PAST AND PRESENT
It has been the custom of writers when treating of shotguns to begin
at the beginning, tracing the evolution of the weapon down from the
crossbow to the invention of gunpowder, through the successive stages
of firelock, wheel-lock, arquebus, flintlock, percussion lock, the
French Lefeucheux breechloader, with locking lever under the fore-end,
the English under grip with lever under the guard, the top lever hammer
gun with a bolt through lugs under the barrels, the extension rib gun
that was finally bolted through this extension, and finally to the most
modern hammerless.
A treatise on oldtime and obsolete weapons is all interesting enough to
the student of gun development, but everybody cannot be a specialist
on this subject, many having other business in life. Of course where
a man has an expert knowledge on any subject there is a temptation
to display it, but the author means to show a consideration for his
readers that will not keep them cracking away at the ancient arquebus
before getting at the kernel of the modern breechloader.
We can safely ignore the muzzle-loader to-day, though not so many years
since it was considered a weapon good enough for any man. Indeed, the
hammer breechloader scarcely deserves a mention, for their use is
steadily becoming restricted to the very cheapest output, and it is
hardly conceivable that anyone would purchase a hammer gun from choice
though he might continue to carry some old favorite which had become
endeared through years of successful use.
We might note, in passing, that every improvement of the gun from
its very invention to the present day has been steadily fought by
the conservative. Military authorities very positively decided that
the clumsy firelock was inferior as a weapon of war to the long bow.
Experienced sportsmen of their day were outspoken in the belief that
the percussion lock was not so well adapted to heavy loads as the
flintlock, besides it entailed extra expense and trouble in the way
of procuring and handling caps. The veteran gunner would have none of
the breechloader when it first appeared, declaring it inferior to the
muzzle-loader both in pattern and penetration, in addition to quickly
becoming shaky and generally worthless.
Then the hammerless had a long and hot fight for a foothold. It was
pronounced a most dangerous invention of the devil, this arm that must
be carried around at full cock with even the owner unable to perceive
whether the hammers were up or down.
By and by, when extension ribs came, the conservative gunmakers took a
hand, declaring that the arm was strong enough and handsomer without
the useless, ugly extension. To this day a few of the old English
gunsmiths persist in refusing to build a gun with the rib extending
into the breech. Moreover, when these ribs were at last bolted through,
or wedge-bolted from the rear, this entailed further contention, and
one of our most popular manufacturers still absolutely refuses to bolt
through the rib of his gun, though, in the nature of things, he will
have to yield finally to the demands of his patrons.
[Illustration: (1) Single lug bolt; (2) double fastening, lug bolt, and
dollshead extension rib; (3) triple bolted, two lug bolts and rib bolt;
(4) quadruple fastening, two lug bolts and dollshead extension rib with
rear wedge bite.]
The latest and strongest models of American guns have omitted the bolts
through the lugs under the barrels, and it is the belief of the writer
that all gunmakers will in the end discard them as so much useless
machinery. A multiplicity of bolts that can only accomplish the work of
one are not to be defended upon mechanical grounds, yet one man will be
slow to see what another observes at a glance.
Even choke boring had its enemies who maintained that such a system
of boring caused stringing of the shot, that the missiles crossed and
would not fly straight, that this style of boring tore up the game
at short range and would not pattern closer at the long ranges than a
cylinder. They asked how a gun could be supposed to show an increased
velocity when the charge was jammed and checked in its passage through
the muzzle.
[Illustration: (5) Quintuple fastening, double bolts in lugs, extension
rib with shoulder bearing, and through cross-bolt, Purdey side-clips;
(6) rotary cross-bolt.]
Self-ejection has not yet won the position it should occupy, many
clinging to the extractor because it is simple and good enough. Yet it
need not be doubted that all double guns with any pretense to quality
will at last be made self-ejecting and the arm without this improvement
will only be out of date the earlier.
Strangely enough as shotguns have gone on steadily and even rapidly
improving with the march of time, they have nevertheless become more
reasonable in price, grade for grade. The Old Joe Manton muzzle-loader
cost up into the hundreds of dollars for a strong, plain gun. A
better weapon could be purchased to-day for a ten-dollar bill, and
at the price of the ancient weapon the modern breechloader would
be incomparably superior, especially in fit, balance, and artistic
appearance. The youth of to-day fails to appreciate his good fortune in
being able to purchase a sterling arm at a trifling cost.
I can well remember the first breechloader that I bought myself. I put
all the money into it that I had and it was supposed to contain all the
improvements that heart could desire. The hammers, when down, stood
above the frame like mules’ ears, but the dealer dwelt upon the fact
that they were pretty well below the line of sight when the piece was
cocked. The arm had a very well finished stock and was line engraved,
but it shot to pieces in two years and was thereafter constantly on a
visit to the gunsmith to be tightened up. When the hammerless appeared,
I laid it aside without regret, though I never had a better shooting
gun or one that I could handle more effectively.
American gunbuilders have developed more rapidly than other armorers
in the matter of constructing strong, serviceable arms at a moderate
cost. This is partly due to universal progress in gunbuilding, partly
to replacing the old, costly damascus and twist combinations of iron
and steel with plain compressed steel, but it is more the result of
ingeniously devised machinery which takes the place of laborious hand
processes. Then, too, our builders have so systematized their work that
every artisan is not a gunsmith, _per se_, but is an expert at some
recognized and defined division of the work. One man is an adept at
putting barrels together; another has a national reputation as a barrel
borer; while a third man may have put in a lifetime in finishing locks
and bolts. Possibly one mechanic may never have touched tool to gun
except in finishing gun stocks; and indeed the selection of wood in the
rough from which these stocks are made is a trade of itself. And so it
goes through every department of the work from breech to muzzle.
The result of a general use of machinery and a specialization in
mechanics is that guns can be turned out at a small percentage of what
they once cost, the arm at the same time being a stronger and better
weapon, which would be true even without late inventions that bring the
piece to the present date.
Another thing that has contributed to the reduction in cost of arms
to-day, as well as to their simplicity and sterling merit, is that
the patents on different inventions have run out, thus permitting the
manufacturer to select what he considers best and most available,
a locking bolt here, a cocking hook there, a coil mainspring the
invention of one man, and an ejector mechanism that has proved itself
by strenuous service. In this way better arms are built than could ever
have resulted from the mechanical genius of any one man. The world is
growing smaller and man is finding it more and more difficult to keep
secrets either of trade or war. Meantime we who are reaping the benefit
have no fault to find.
CHAPTER II
CONSTRUCTION OF SHOTGUNS
In treating briefly of shotgun construction I shall make no pretense
of posing as an expert in their manufacture. There are many things
connected with the building of guns about which our manufacturers talk
with reluctance, such as the prices paid for raw material, wages given
to workmen, actual cost of turning out a gun of a certain grade, amount
of hand work placed on any particular arm, and other things. All this
would be of little value to the amateur if known and might possibly
embarrass the factory owners. My only endeavor here will be to give the
novice an idea of how guns are constructed sufficiently clear to permit
him to judge with fair accuracy his own arm or any that falls under his
observation.
Barrels being a prime factor in gun building, we may as well begin with
them.
BARRELS
(Damascus, Twist, Laminated, Compressed Steel.)
Up to a decade or so ago shotgun barrels were made of a combination
of iron and steel strips, welded together and then twisted around
a mandrel of such size as roughly to give the diameter of the bore.
After being twisted into a spiral tube this was hammered or welded into
a homogeneous mass. These tubes were known as twist, laminated, or
damascus, depending upon the manner of using the steel and iron. The
damascus barrels were further subdivided into two-stripe, three-stripe,
and four-stripe damascus, the numerals having reference to the number
of strips of iron and steel that were welded together before being
twisted.
It is an old story that in the original, handforged barrels horseshoe
nails were used, and it was popularly believed that they made the
strongest and toughest barrels. Perhaps such material really entered
into the construction of gun barrels, but it is not worth while to
attempt either to prove or disprove the tale now.
Damascus barrels were in high favor twenty years ago. They were
very tough and elastic, capable of expanding under pressure without
disrupting. The only fault to be found with them is that they are soft,
denting easily, when struck against another barrel or any hard object.
Frequently gunners injured one another’s damascus tubes by jostling as
they walked side by side.
As compared with modern fluid steel barrels those of damascus were also
more liable to be injured by the gases of nitro powder, and generally
they were hard to keep free from pits and rust. It is doubtful, too,
if they would take as high a degree of polish as those of our present
plain steel. It is the belief of the writer that except for the regard
of the conservative for what was known to be good, no damascus or twist
barrels would now be in use.
COMPRESSED STEEL
The plain rolled or drawn steel barrels are known to be harder than
any heretofore used, thus being less liable to accidental injury. They
will sustain a higher internal or chamber pressure than damascus, and
are therefore better adapted to nitro powders with the occasional high
pressure that may be developed by handloaded or experimental charges.
Such tubes will take a higher polish, and can be kept free of pits with
half the labor occasioned by the old combinations of steel and iron.
The process of manufacture is simpler, and good barrels can be turned
out at a much reduced cost. The choke of a steel barrel can never be
shot out and will retain its pattern for all time.
Our manufacturers have various technical names to describe their
different grades of steel barrels. The Krupp and Whitworth tubes,
made in Germany and England respectively, have perhaps the greatest
repute. Other grades of steel such as armor, nitro, high-pressure,
titanic, homo-tensile, vulcan, mean nothing to the outsider more than
that they are known to be placed upon certain grades of weapons by
reliable manufacturers. Probably there is quite a difference in the
pressure that the cheaper and the higher grades of compressed steel
will sustain, but in its finished state the ordinary observer cannot
detect any difference in the appearance of the grades as he could with
the damascus and thus must rely solely upon the manufacturer’s word and
reputation for the quality of his gun barrels.
While I should have absolute confidence in the safety of any barrel
placed upon an arm by a reputable manufacturer, yet it is to be
regretted that builders regard as “trade secrets” the different
pressures that various grades of steel will bear. It might be well
for a man to know just how close he was coming to the danger line in
shooting heavy loads.
Some gunmakers advertise their barrels as being able to withstand a
pressure of one hundred thousand pounds to the square inch, but it is
difficult to understand just what this means. If the barrel would bear
an inside pressure of a hundred thousand pounds, it would, indeed, be
a corker. The ordinary shotgun charge only develops a pressure of from
four to six thousand pounds, and the barrel is “proved” in the rough
with a pressure of from four to five tons.
In this country we have no government proof house such as all European
countries possess, and hence must rely upon the tubes being privately
proved by the different manufacturers.
Strangely enough, while we turn out more shotguns than all the
remaining world put together, we are not and never have been a
barrel-making nation. Just why this should be true I am unable to
state, but the majority of our tubes are imported from Europe in a
rough form and are then put together, filed, shaped, and bored in this
country. It appears only a question of a short time now when America
will forge her own barrels. The Stevens people are now making all the
tubes used in their factory, and the Winchester and Remington factories
those adapted to their repeating shotguns.
The fluid or plain steel barrels are manufactured from a solid bar.
This is first drilled through and then rolled or drawn into length or
shape; after which it is rough bored into a size some thousandths of
an inch smaller inside diameter than it will be when finished. It is
then subjected to its first proof test which is expected to develop a
pressure some three times as high as the tube will be called upon to
bear with standard loads. This first test is cut upon the barrel in the
shape of a “proof mark,” and it is then in shape to be exported. Should
the barrel be finished in Europe, it will be given a final government
proof in its finished condition, this proof developing double the
bursting strain of normal charges.
In this country, having no government proofhouse, we must rely, first,
upon the foreign proof-marks, and, second, upon the reliability of our
builders. The foreign proof mark is practically worthless, for the
reason that the barrel is afterwards filed down and shaped, and if this
is unskilfully done a barrel that had ample strength in the rough might
be so weakened as to become absolutely dangerous. Within the past few
years I have seen a barrel burst that was as thin at the point where it
disrupted as the paper upon which this is written. It follows that our
only reliance is upon the integrity of our manufacturers, and ordinary
precaution would require that we purchase an arm only from men who have
a reputation to jeopardize.
It is greatly to our manufacturers’ credit that their output has
always been of such quality that there has been little demand for a
government proofhouse. Doubtless, though, should we ever become a large
exporting nation, which seems probable, such an institution will have
to come.
[Illustration: Stevens barrels ready to braze]
[Illustration: Stevens barrels finished]
[Illustration: Stevens compressed steel barrels. Barrels and lug forged
in one piece]
FINISHING BARRELS
The rough tube as it comes from the maker has little resemblance to
a finished shotgun barrel. A large amount of skilled labor and the
services of a number of special artisans are required before the
tube is ready to burn nitro powder and drive shot. The barrels must
first be filed down and dressed into the shape that gives them that
elegant taper from breech to muzzle, and while cutting away, reducing
weight and shaping them the greatest care is taken to do the work
scientifically, leaving a thickness of metal where the greatest strain
is to come, the whole work being accomplished by a man whose sole duty
or trade is to do that very thing.
Then another expert puts the barrels together, and upon his skill
depends the accurate shooting of the barrels, that is their shooting
to center. I can well remember the dismay of a young friend of mine
who discovered after a year’s use of the weapon that one barrel shot
six inches lower than the other at twenty-five yards. Of course he no
longer had any confidence in that gun, nor had he any difficulty in
accounting for every miss made during all of the year.
GUN BORING AND POLISHING
Some of our shotgun borers have international reputations, and
certainly they have made greater advances in their profession than have
the artisans engaged in any other branch of gun building. It is said
that the most skilled of these men can regularly cut a barrel to a
thousandth of an inch at any point from breech to muzzle, guaranteeing
a pattern within a very few pellets of that demanded. Not every shotgun
barrel is cut alike, indeed every gunborer has a system of his own that
will differ at least in minor particulars from those of all others, but
results are practically similar. It is true that nearly all the above
work is accomplished by machinery, but it is machinery that requires
very intelligent supervision.
When the barrels are bored the polishing process begins, and upon the
manner in which this is accomplished depends the interior beauty of
the tube and to some extent its future usefulness and life. A highly
polished bore is perhaps the best of all guarantees against pitting
and rusting. Moreover, this polish is strictly necessary in order to
guard against the piece leading at every discharge. I have seen barrels
that would begin to lead with the first shot and steadily increase the
deposits until from a seventy per cent. tube the pattern was reduced
to one of fifty per cent. Of course faulty ammunition might have
something to do with this, but it remains that some barrels lead much
more than others with the same ammunition.
Leading a gun seems to be a necessary evil, not to be entirely obviated
by the most conscientious work. Possibly one system of boring may show
better results in this respect than another, though I have never yet
seen a barrel that would not show traces of lead if shot rapidly enough
to heat. It is a very disagreeable fault, rendering the piece hard to
clean and causing pits where the tube is neglected, as well as reducing
the pattern as mentioned. In fact, I have yet to see a gun that would
maintain its seventy per cent. pattern throughout a day’s shooting.
Perhaps the cone has as much to do with the leading of a barrel as
any other feature of the bore. The cone is the place where the barrel
narrows from the shell chamber to its true bore. Should this be of
faulty shape it may cause the charge to upset as it enters the barrel,
leaving a deposit of lead at the breech. When the shot have jammed
and leaded in entering the barrel they are in good condition to make
further deposits; as a consequence the piece that leads in front of the
shell chamber will nearly always do so in the choke as well.
BARREL FITTING
Our barrels are now fitted to their action, and here the work can by no
means be slighted without betraying its slovenly character even to the
novice. Barrels perfectly fitted to the frame are sufficient evidence
that no part of the work of the entire arm has been neglected. Where
steel and iron come together the fitting should be as fine as the edge
of the sharpest tool, so close that eye can scarcely observe the joint.
An expert judges the arm from the way it is fitted as accurately as a
naturalist can pronounce upon the character of an animal from its teeth
and jaw. If the tyro can observe any evidence of imperfect fitting then
it is a cheap gun, no matter by whom made or at what price.
COST OF BARRELS--ROUGH AND FINISHED
Barrels cost in the rough as imported from two to twenty-five dollars
a pair. When finished and adjusted to the frame they range in price
from ten to two hundred and fifty dollars. Usually our builders charge
one-half the price of the arm for an extra pair of barrels of a grade
similar to that of the gun. Many of the manufacturers refuse to cross
their grades by placing cheap barrels upon a high grade arm or vice
versa.
CHAPTER III
THE FRAME
The frame of a gun is that part to which the barrels are jointed at one
end and the stock attached to the other. The frame, together with the
mechanism which it contains, is mechanically the most important feature
of a double hammerless shotgun. The life of a shotgun, its strength and
continued soundness, are directly dependent upon the bolting mechanism,
while the locks must be of such temper and quality as to fire thousands
and thousands of shots without weakening.
The frame itself is made of a solid block of drop forged steel which
is then milled out to contain the working parts, filed into shape,
polished, and case hardened when finished. There are at the present
time two types of frames in common use, the box-lock and the sideplate.
These will be treated more fully under the heading of locks. I have
never known the frame of a shotgun to break down, and it need only be
said of them here that they should be as light as possible consistent
with strength. A heavy frame is a great handicap to a gunbuilder who
is trying to maintain the correct balance of his weapons in all
weights, since a heavy frame and a light, short barrel are sure to
result in a butt heavy arm.
LOCKING BOLTS AND FASTENINGS
In the first models of breechloaders made the barrels were locked down
on the frame by a bolt actuated by a lever under the fore-end. The
lever swung out to drop the barrels and this model of gun was known
as the Lefeucheux, a French invention. Then the English improved upon
this by swinging the lever about under the guard and giving it double
bites or bolts into the lug. Subsequently the bolt was placed under the
standing breech and was withdrawn by a side lever. Some of the early
American arms were made with this side lever. All of these models of
shotguns are now obsolete and need not be dwelt upon here.
The top lever now came into use of practically the same shape as those
we now have. When the top lever was invented there was but one bolt
which engaged with a lug under the barrels and was withdrawn to the
rear. By and by this bolt was made to lock into two lugs in place of
one and the arm was said to be double bolted.
Use and wear soon betrayed the weakness of these underbolted guns.
The construction of the bolts was such that they could serve but one
purpose, that of binding the barrels down to the frame, but as at
least half of the strain in shooting is in the direction of driving the
barrels away from the standing breech, there was nothing to withstand
this except the joint which wore rapidly and the gun became loose. To
guard against this the rib of the gun was finally extended to dovetail
into the breech and was known as the
EXTENDED RIB
The original extension rib was termed the doll’s-head from its shape.
It proved a great reinforcement of the simple underbolts, effectually
preventing the barrels from springing away from the breech so long as
the lug bolts did not wear and permit the rib to rise in its socket,
giving it a play that allowed the arm to become shaky eventually. I
have known guns fastened in this way to rattle after two years of
service. But others remained tight and sound a good ten years. It
is much a matter of quality of steel and the strain to which it is
subjected. However, just as surely as steel grinding on steel will wear
eventually, so will guns shoot loose that are simply fastened by lug
bolts and a doll’s-head extension rib.
Inventive genius was not content, and a tapered or wedge bolt was
placed in the rear of this extension rib to prevent it from rising.
Many guns are still constructed with this style of fastening,
especially those built in England and on the Continent. A further
improvement, for such it undoubtedly was, placed a cross-bolt entirely
through the rib, engaging with the frame on either side. This is the
famous Greener cross-bolt much liked in Europe and adopted in this
country by the Remington people for their highest grade of guns. It
is a very efficient bolt, yet not beyond criticism. It is claimed
that owing to the long bearing of this bolt in the frame considerable
friction is entailed. This would not matter unless sand or rust gets
into the action when the bolt may stick and require the services of a
gunsmith to open the piece. In justice it should be said that such a
contingency happens very seldom, and the cross-bolted gun should give
general satisfaction.
The latest European addition to the lug bolts and the Greener
cross-bolt is the Purdey side-clips, a projection of the frame to cover
the ends of the barrels, designed to prevent all lateral action. The
side-clips have never been used on an American arm, neither are they
very highly regarded over here, the bearing of the lugs in the frame
and the deep extension rib being quite as well adapted to withstanding
lateral strain. The celebrated Continental, quintuple fastening as
found on the Daly, Francotte, Cashmore, Sauer and other guns, consists
of Purdey side-clips and Greener cross-bolt, with shoulder bearings to
the extended rib and double underbolts.
THE ROTARY BOLT
It remained for America to have the final word in bolting mechanisms.
Our clever mechanics early discovered that the lug bolts were in the
wrong position mechanically. The joint of the barrels acts as the
fulcrum of a lever upon which the barrels rest and pry at the bolts.
It is easy to understand, therefore, that the closer these bolts are
to the joint the more leverage the barrels have and the stronger the
bolts must be. It takes three times as much strength in bolts to
withstand the pressure if they are placed an inch from the joint as
it would should the fastenings be three inches away. This and other
considerations led American builders to take their locking bolts from
the lugs and place them in the extension rib which is undoubtedly the
right position for them mechanically.
[Illustration: Ithaca bolting mechanism]
Our manufacturers also wisely concluded that one bolt or fastening
in the rib was enough _provided_ it could be given such strength and
bearing as never to shoot loose. This fastening was at last found in
the heavy Smith rotary bolt. This tapered bolt rotates and is driven
through a square opening in the rib with the full strength of a heavy
spring. As the bearings wear, this spring automatically drives the
bolt farther in. It is the only locking mechanism in the world that is
guaranteed never to loosen with use, lack of use, or misuse. Experience
bears out this claim and the writer has no hesitation in saying that
throughout the world no other locking device should be used on a
shotgun save the rotary bolt. It is now in use on the Smith, Fox,
Stevens, Baker, and other guns while the Ithaca has adopted the same
principle in a slightly different form.
I am persuaded from the experiments of myself and others that no great
strain is put upon the locking bolts of a shotgun by firing it with
ordinary charges. Taking away all bolts and simply fitting the arm
with a doll’s-head extension rib, it has been discharged while merely
holding the barrels in place with the hand. The barrels have also been
tied down with a thread which remained unbroken when the piece was
fired.
It is not so much the strain of discharge that finally loosens a gun as
its constant manipulation, the opening and shutting, the prying weight
of the barrels against the bolts when the weapon is being carried and
jostled, the dropping down of the barrels with too much force. The
steady grinding of steel on steel must wear in course of time whatever
the hardness or quality of the metal, and provision should always
be made for taking this up mechanically. The rotary bolt does this
automatically and with absolute certainty. An English gunsmith said
when examining a rotary bolted gun that had been in use some years:
“Why, the piece _is_ loose but you can’t tell it because of the bolt,
you know.” The rotary bolt is a good thing for the owner of a gun but
is not calculated to throw much repair business into the hands of a
gunsmith.
THE BOX-LOCK AND SIDEPLATE LOCK
American shotguns are made with either box or sideplate locks. The
latter is very much the same as the old hammer lock except that the
striker is placed inside instead of out, and provision must be made
for the barrels raising the hammers in place of by hand. Indeed this
lock is a survival of muzzle-loading days and, though simplified and
improved, is not essentially different from those used on the flintlock.
Many believe that the sideplate gives the arm a better and more racy
appearance. This can be judged from the engravings of the two styles of
frames. Certainly the plate gives the engraver more latitude, and he
has no ugly and square lines to deal with. It also permits a lighter
frame which is an advantage.
[Illustration: Sideplate lock]
On the other hand, the box-lock admirers contend that the plate lacks
both the strength and the easy, certain manipulation of the box. This
is for the reason that part of the pieces constituting the plate lock
are contained in the plate while others are fastened to the frame.
Should the gun become wrenched or the wood swell from exposure to the
weather the pieces may not come together accurately, thus leading to
jar-offs or other trouble. A few go so far as to contend that every
plate lock should be fitted with an extra tumbler safety in order to
guard against the probable jar-off. I believe myself that a better
cheap gun can be made with a box-lock than with plate, but where the
weapon is carefully constructed I have never known any trouble to occur
of any kind, neither would I give the matter of a box or plate lock a
great deal of consideration when purchasing a gun of a reliable maker.
Certainly the plate lock has one decided advantage in that it can be
taken off for examination, cleaning, or repairs very readily, while
the other form must be taken to a gunsmith. This has been given so
much consideration by the gunmakers that one of them has invented a
hand-detachable lock for his box-frames. However, good general advice
to the amateur is to let his locks alone so long as they are attending
to business. More locks have been injured by the novice tinkering with
them than have ever been hurt by wear or weather.
When the embryo gunsmith feels like experimenting with his gun locks
he had best buy a cheap arm for that especial purpose. It may not be
any more worthless when he gets through than it was before, but he will
probably find himself in the position of the tinker who took an old
fashioned clock to pieces and never again could find room for all the
parts. He said it looked just as well as ever when he got it together
and would have run except that it refused to tick.
In passing, one advantage of the box-lock should be noted. It can be
and generally is used with a coil mainspring in place of the flat.
These coil springs are guaranteed to last forever, while such guarantee
could hardly be given with a flat spring, or at least never has been
so far as the writer can recall. One English gunmaker who uses flat
springs recommends that an extra pair of locks be purchased with every
gun (at an extra cost of fifty dollars) so that if one should break
another will be at hand. To many it might appear good sense to buy an
unbreakable lock in the first place. The ability to use coil springs
may ultimately predispose people to the exclusive use of a box-lock.
Nevertheless, in fairness, it should be said that the majority of well
finished guns are shot a lifetime without the breakage of a spring.
COCKING DEVICES
The hammerless gun is essentially an arm that cocks by some device
through which the barrels in opening lift the hammers. One of the
earliest and best of cocking mechanisms was that of Anson & Deely. It
is still in use on some American arms and many of those made in Europe.
In this mechanism levers are pivoted in the front end of the frame with
one end projecting into the fore-end and the other resting under the
toe of the hammer. As the barrels turn on their joint in opening the
forward end of the lever is depressed while the other rises, carrying
the hammer to cock, the whole action being performed very smoothly and
reliably. This cocking system has been criticized as being generally
used with a short frame in order to obtain greater leverage.
One of our American arms has a modification of the Anson & Deely
cocking levers. This is a rod running straight through the frame from
fore-end to hammer. This rod is fitted with a crank at either end,
so adjusted that while one of the cranks is carried down by turning
barrels the other rises, pushing the hammer to cock. The gun works
without undue force and the parts are unbreakable.
THE COCKING HOOK
A number of our guns use a peculiarly American invention in the shape
of a cocking hook. This has variations in the different makes of arms.
The Baker raises the hammers by means of a bent arm which is pivoted
under the standing breech. One end of this arm hooks to the barrels
and the other has a crosspiece which thrusts directly against the
hammers, pushing them back until caught by the sears. The Parker has a
hook which actuates a slide, pulling the hammers to cock. The work is
accomplished with as little friction as in any American arm.
The most modern cocking device, the simplest and what appears to be
mechanically the best, consists of connecting the toe of the hammer
directly with the lug of the barrel. The hammer is thus its own lever,
and as the toe rises the striker drops back until caught by the sear.
No lost motion is possible and very little friction is entailed. At
present it is hard to see wherein this device can be improved. The Fox
and Ithaca guns are lug-cockers.
SAFETY BOLTS--TUMBLER BOLTS
When hammerless guns appeared the old guard of conservative veterans
naturally set up a roar. Here was a muley gun that was not only at full
cock when game was afoot but remained so every blessed minute of the
time you were afield. It was regarded as certainly a dangerous weapon,
likely to kill somebody at any time. No matter how careful the gunner
might be about accidentally pulling his triggers, there was nothing to
prevent a jar-off such as had happened with hammer guns more than once.
The assurance of the makers that jar-offs were practically impossible
and that the arm was really safer than the piece with outside hammers
did not silence the outcry, and only years of use, fully bearing out
the claims of the manufacturers, at last ended it.
[Illustration: Tumbler Safety, Baker Gun. Illustrates also the trigger
safety bolt]
The absolute safety of the hammerless gun was secured by means of two
bolts, the safety or trigger bolt and the hammer or tumbler bolt. The
first only was necessary as proved by experience, but the latter was
needed to silence the kickers.
The safety bolt is pivoted in the frame in a perpendicular position;
the upper end of this lever is attached to a slide on top of the
tang, just behind the top lever; the lower end comes snug against the
triggers, absolutely preventing them from moving while the bolt covers
them. In order to permit the triggers to be pulled the top end of this
bolt, connected with the slide, must be pushed forward, throwing the
other end back off the triggers. This bolt, so adjusted, is known as
the non-automatic safety for the reason that it only bolts the triggers
when the slide is moved by hand.
In order to make the trigger bolt automatically assume its position
over the triggers, a piece was fixed in the frame extending from the
safety bolt to the post of the top lever. Every time the top lever was
turned in opening the arm this bar mechanically shoved the safety bolt
over the triggers. This is called an automatic safety.
The tumbler safety is a bar that rises directly between the strikers
and the firing pins. This bar is actuated by the triggers; and, unless
these are actually pulled, it retains its position preventing the
hammers from striking the firing pins. It will thus be seen that
should the hammer be accidentally jarred off the tumbler safety would
catch it and there could be no accidental discharge. It would appear
that no further safety devices could possibly be necessary on a gun
than the automatic trigger bolt and the automatic tumbler bolt.
However, many regard the tumbler safety as really a bit of useless
machinery. It has been demonstrated that with honestly made locks the
hammers absolutely cannot jar-off while the bolt is on the trigger.
Experiments have been made of the most radical nature to prove this.
With triggers that pull at the ordinary weight, the arm has been
dropped on a stone floor repeatedly from an increasing height until
the stock was smashed, and yet the hammers refused to jar-off. It has
been proved that jar-off when it does occur, as in a gun whose trigger
pull is set too light, comes from the movement and play of the trigger
against the sear. Triggers are necessarily so fixed as to move easily,
and a heavy jar like dropping the gun gives even such a light piece of
iron as the trigger some momentum which acts against the sear the same
as the pull with the finger. Moreover this play and force of momentum
cannot act if the triggers are solidly bolted, though it might were
there merely a tumbler safety controlled by the movement of the trigger.
Granted the foregoing is true, if the trigger can actually move the
tumbler bolt out of the way in the case of a jar, then the tumbler
safety is a useless encumbrance, only put there in deference to
prejudice or ignorance.
In addition, it is argued that if the trigger is set to pull at three
pounds, one-half of the weight will be used to release the sear from
the hammer and the other pound and a half to move the tumbler safety
out of the way, hence the gun is no safer against a jar-off with a
trigger pull of three pounds and a tumbler safety than it would be with
a pound and a half pull, exerted entirely against the sear. There is
some truth in this, no doubt, for some of the force of the trigger pull
must be exerted in moving the tumbler bolt out of the way, and this
detracts just that much from the strength with which the sear engages
the hammer.
Personally I have never been partial to the automatic safety,
preferring that my gun should only be safe when I set it so. In a hot
corner, when birds are rising in every direction, I wish to shoot
without the trouble of shoving up the safety every time the arm is
reloaded. I never yet knew a man with an automatic safety who did not
lose occasional shots from forgetting to shove it up.
Nevertheless, I believe that where it is to be handled by a novice
the piece had better bolt automatically. Should the bolt cause him to
lose occasional shots he will yet be the gainer through the increased
security of himself and companions. Besides should the gun have a very
light pull-off it might be wise to have the triggers invariably bolted
while the shells are being placed in the chambers and the barrels
snapped down perhaps with great force. With the non-automatic safety
the triggers are rarely bolted while the arm is being reloaded.
Individuals differ and what might be wise for one would not be safe
for another. For myself I have never yet had a gun jar-off either when
being loaded or at any other time except when the trigger pull was
set too light and the recoil of one barrel jarred off the lock of the
other. No kind of safety could guard against this.
CHAPTER IV
GUN STOCKS
Probably no feature of a shotgun, not even the finest engraving, is
so beautiful or so ornamental as an elegant piece of highly finished
walnut in the stock. Gunmakers grade their stocks as carefully as the
weapons to which they are to be attached. Technically the various
grades of wood are known as plain American walnut, fine American
walnut, English walnut, selected English walnut, fine English walnut,
French or Italian walnut, and Circassian walnut. Whether these are
any more than technical terms I am not prepared to say. It seems
unreasonable that there should not be any fine grained and figured
walnut in America.
The imported stocks are bought roughly blocked out and in this shape
are admitted duty free. The rough blocks vary in price from one to
twenty dollars, while the finished article may cost anywhere from four
to fifty dollars. I have seen plain stocks of American walnut, turned
to shape, ready to be cut and fitted to the action, sell for fifty
cents each.
The plain walnut is certainly what its name implies. These stocks are
usually not built to order but are turned out in quantities for the
retail dealer. Ordinarily they are made entirely by machinery after
a fixed pattern from which the manufacturer refuses to vary. They
have the appearance of being turned by machinery, soaked in oil by
the thousand, and coated with varnish en masse. The varnish lasts and
keeps the wood looking half way decent until the arm is sold and then
it begins to wear off in patches. A finished stock of this kind could
probably be turned out for a dollar.
Selected American walnut is a considerable improvement upon the plain.
It is darker, better in grain, and is generally what the rifleman
terms fancily finished. It is well seasoned, strong, and lasting.
When thoroughly oiled, it will retain its handsome appearance through
considerable hard use. Such stocks are sometimes made to order with
necessarily some hand work, but the majority are machined out to a
regular pattern and placed upon arms kept in stock.
Imported English walnut is a stock adopted by our best manufacturers
for their knockabout or field guns. The quality of wood is sound with
often a very good grain. The stocks of this grade are oil finished and
hand polished to some extent, thus enabling them to withstand severe
service. Many of the arms with English walnut stocks are made to order
with hand checkering, etc. They probably cost finished from five to
eight dollars and retail at from twelve to fifteen.
Fine or selected English walnut is the quality of wood that we find on
guns costing from one to two hundred dollars. As a rule such stocks
are made to order only, and of any length, shape, drop, or measurement
that the purchaser desires. Much of the finishing is by hand, and they
are filed, papered, oiled, and rubbed until the grain of wood shows
handsomely. A rag and a bit of polishing will always bring out the
beauty of these stocks even after years of service.
French or Italian walnut is generally very dark wood which is finished
in its natural grain without being stained to color or discolor it.
These stocks are hand finished by a long and careful process, very
similar to that applied to Circassian walnut which will be described.
Italian walnut stocks are made to order at a cost of from thirty-five
to fifty dollars, and are to be found upon guns valued at two hundred
dollars or more.
The finest selected Circassian walnut stocks are the pride of the
gunbuilder’s heart. He goes over his best wood with the greatest care
to find a piece which he can grade as the finest selected Circassian
walnut. After turning a number of those he likes into shape he again
culls them for the one with the choicest grain.
The wood of this is subject to a repeated process of wetting and drying
to bring out the grain which is then papered down until it becomes as
smooth as it is possible to make it. Oil is then applied and rubbed in
again and again until the wood will hold no more. No varnishing follows
and the result is a dull though beautiful oil finish. The amount of
hand work that goes into the manufacture of one of these stocks is
greater than that required to build an entire gun of the medium grades;
in fact, the oiling and rubbing such a stock receives is apparently
unlimited. The result justifies the means for no more elegant piece of
wood can be found anywhere than an artistically finished gun stock.
The frame and grip woodcutting is not that of an artisan but an artist.
Such stocks, and the remainder of the arm in keeping, rank in artistic
quality with the paintings of a master of the brush--of the two, well,
give me the gun. The majority of manufacturers will refuse to place
these stocks upon any except weapons of the highest grade, no matter
what the inducement.
FORE-END
The fore-end of a shotgun serves three purposes. It affords a hold for
the forward hand which would otherwise come in contact with the hot
barrel; it serves to bind the barrels to the frame at the joint; and it
contains the mechanism of the ejector.
In the earlier makes of breechloading arms I have known the fore-ends
to loosen and shake or even lose off, but this so rarely happens
to-day, whatever the age or service of the gun, that little thought
need be given to the fastening of the fore-end. In some American arms
the Deely & Edge fore-end fastener is used. Others have adopted what is
known as the snap-fore-end, a heavy straight spring which passes the
point of greatest tension in clamping on and goes home with a snap. It
maintains a continuous pressure against the joint and at that point
would take up all wear automatically. A ball and socket fastening is
also a good one.
When the fore-end needs to bear some of the strain of cocking the gun
as in the Anson & Deely system or the Smith, it should be firmly fixed,
but this has been so well accomplished by the manufacturers that it
is hardly worth while for anybody to go into it except the student of
gunbuilding.
[Illustration: The snap fore-end]
THE SELF-EJECTOR
Self-ejectors are of such positive advantage to the sportsman afield
that it is a matter of wonder any shotgun of good or medium grade
should ever be made without them. It is very rare indeed for any gunner
to shoot a single day without being placed at a disadvantage and
missing shots or game should he lack ejecting locks.
A bevy of quail gets up in succession and the shooter works so rapidly
in pulling out and replacing the empty shells that he becomes rattled
and takes an impossible chance where he might have made an easy kill
had the arm assisted him by throwing out the spent cases. Many of us
have seen the wild ducks come stringing over the blind. Perhaps the
first one is at long range and a miss is scored; then while the gunner
is fumbling to get out his empty shells a bunch of mallards will fairly
fan him as they go by his head. He tries a shot after it is too late
and then the process is to be repeated again. The repeater and the
automatic owe their popularity in a great measure to the fact that so
many of our sporting double guns are built non-ejecting.
Possibly trapshooters have had something to do with the slow
development of ejectors on American guns. He can fire at most not more
than two successive shots and then has ample time to reload, so of
course does not require an ejector. The young sportsman is very liable
to follow the example of these veteran professionals, and since they
have no ejectors neither does he wish any.
Old time gunners, too, who have become set in their ways, have done
something toward retarding the popularity of this as well as of every
other invention that did not make its appearance when they were of an
impressionable age. They decry the ejector as being a complex piece of
machinery and liable to break down, as making the gun harder to work,
and so on.
The self-ejecting mechanism can be described as simply a miniature gun
lock, placed in the fore-end and striking against the extractor stem in
place of the primer. The pulling of the trigger of the real lock may be
said to pull the trigger of the miniature lock also, when it is ready
to act as soon as the arm is opened sufficiently. There is no more
reason for this ejector lock breaking down than the one in the frame
for they are made on similar principles and just as strong.
Ejectors are cocked by the extractor stem pushing against the ejector
hammer as the barrels are going back into place. In one of the simplest
and best forms with which I am acquainted there are five pieces, the
striker, mainspring, sear, latch, and push rod. When the gun is closed
the ejector hammer engages with the latch and remains at cock until the
arm is discharged, when the pushrod drives out the latch and replaces
it with a sear that trips as the barrels rise.
A high class English gun is similar in movement except that the true
sear engages with the hammer of the ejector and holds it in position
until the action of the main lock drives out a trip in the end of the
frame which catches the sear and springs the lock as the barrels turn
on the joint.
These arms have the correct mechanical principles for ejecting
spent shells, and other makes will differ from them only in minor
particulars. Some few guns are built with ejectors that exert a
continual pressure against the extractor rod; the sear in this action
is only driven into the notch of the ejector hammer when the barrel
is fired, retaining the hammer at cock until tripped by the barrel as
usual. This model works well enough but is wrong in that the barrels
must be closed against the pressure of the ejector spring whether the
arm has been fired or not.
A well liked European arm has ejectors that act as usual or may be
locked back, whereupon the arm extracts its shells the same as a
non-ejector gun.
In all self-ejecting weapons the cartridges are removed the usual
distance in the ordinary way, that is by a pin in the frame pushing
against the extractor as the barrels are dropped. It follows that
should the ejector mechanism fail to work the shells could be extracted
by hand exactly as in a gun without ejectors. However, ejectors of a
reliable make do not fail to act.
The simpler the form of ejector of course the better, if it does its
work without lost motion and without friction. I should be inclined
to judge an ejector mechanism more by the strain it puts upon the
gun and its owner than any other way. One gun works so smoothly that
you are hardly aware it has ejector locks while another may keep you
emphatically reminded.
Our ejectors are now being built with both flat and coil springs, and
while both are behaving satisfactorily, a critical judge might be
disposed to favor the coil, for the reason that it is best adapted to
bearing a constant compression. In addition the striker of the coil
spring with its direct push occupies less room than the flat with
its hammer moving in the segment of a circle; this is a matter of
importance in view of the necessarily limited space in the fore-end.
Nearly all American guns use coil springs in the ejector even though
the main locks have flat.
[Illustration: THE PARKER EJECTOR]
[Illustration: THE ITHACA EJECTOR]
CHAPTER V
TRIGGERS AND TRIGGER PULL AND THE SINGLE TRIGGER
The trigger of a gun might be said to be the means of communication
between the brain of the marksman and the charge in his weapon. If the
communication is faulty, the brain’s work is wasted. The brain would
find it useless to give quick and sharp commands to a slow servant. The
eye, the brain, the finger, the trigger, and the charge make a team in
which, if one member balks, the efforts of the others are misspent. It
follows that if everything else about a gun is right, including the man
behind it, and the trigger pull is wrong the combination is no better
than a steel chain with a wooden link.
The technical term trigger pull means the weight that must be attached
to the trigger in order to release the sear from the hammer notch. In
arms built to order the manufacturers are always willing to adjust
the pull, within limits, to suit the wishes of the purchaser. On guns
placed in stock the weight of pull is placed at what would please the
average man or perhaps a trifle harder on the ground of safety.
The trigger pull on a shotgun for a normal man should be from three to
five pounds. It should vary somewhat according to the temperament of
the shooter, and the weight of the arm governs it in a minor degree. A
man of quick action and nervous temperament will find it wise to have
his pull adjusted a bit hard, and a heavy weapon that needs a strong
grip to handle and swing requires a heavier weight of trigger pull
than will a light piece. Field gunners, who shoot from all positions,
sometimes twisting and cramping the shooting arm or straining the
finger to reach the trigger, will need a pull from one-half to a pound
heavier than the trapshot.
Trigger pulls may reasonably vary from three to five or even six
pounds, but if the trigger is lighter than three pounds it may become
a source of danger to others through a premature let-off as well as
a fruitful cause of poor marksmanship. There are always moments of
excitement in the field when the gunner is liable to discharge his
piece without being in the least conscious of having pressed the
trigger; especially is this true in the case of a novice where the
trigger pull is too light. The greater the experience of the sportsman
the more sensitive he becomes to the weight of his trigger, and in such
hands the pull might well be adjusted to the minimum weight. The tyro
must not pattern after the veteran, however, in this respect or he
will find himself in trouble and everybody else that goes afield with
him. It doesn’t matter how naturally sensitive the touch is either; I
have known ladies with the most delicate hands to give a four pound
yank on the trigger without even knowing it was there.
There are exceptions to all rules and this applies to the pull of
triggers. A shooting companion of mine used a gun with a trigger pull
of scant two pounds, and another pulled eight pounds on his first
barrel and ten on the second--and he was a good shot too. Nevertheless,
it would not do for the average man to follow the example of either of
these.
Heavy trigger pulls, from five pounds up, are generally found on cheap
guns. In these the hammer and sear are made of a soft quality of steel
and it is needful that a deep notch be cut in the hammer to allow for
wear. Such arms gradually change the pull-off with use until the hammer
will no longer stand cocked.
Not only do the cheap and nasty weapons have a heavy pull but what is
worse it varies, at one time yielding with a pressure of seven pounds
and at another of five. It has been estimated that it requires a quick
man to press his trigger in a hundredth part of a second after his
brain has given the order, and if it doesn’t yield within a thirtieth
of a second the result is a certain miss. This is scientifically
explained on the ground that if a bird is flying sixty feet a second
he will cover two feet in the thirtieth of a second and be entirely
outside of the shot pattern. This is especially true of the snapshot
who must get off at exactly the right instant or miss, while the
swinging shot who carries his piece along with the bird might still
have a chance of connecting.
The hard pull and the variable pull are bad enough, but the creeping
or dragging pull is fatal in wing-shooting. In the drag pull the
shooter presses the trigger and feels it yield, but the sear after
partly releasing still maintains its hold on the hammer and a second
pull is necessary--the trigger continues to creep and finally lets go
unexpectedly. Skill and practice are all wasted with such a trigger,
and the arm is only fit to shoot rabbits in their form or quail huddled
on the ground.
Moreover a trigger should yield sharply if accurate work is to be
accomplished. If the trigger moves a great distance in the let-off
it will affect the grip of the hand and disarrange the aim, probably
jerking the muzzle down. All of these features of a bad trigger pull
contribute to those inexplicable misses that all of us have experienced.
Many prefer that the rear trigger should pull a trifle heavier, say
half a pound, than the front trigger. This is for the reason that the
back trigger is in the best position to be given a natural pressure
with the grip of the hand, while the forward trigger strains the
finger more and is not pulled in precisely the same direction.
The principles that govern trigger pull are: Too light a pull causes
premature let-off and tends to shooting low and behind. Too heavy a
pull means shooting ahead on a swinging shot and above in a snapshot.
A pull with weight enough to impress the gunner as being _hard_ is
fatal to regular time and accuracy. A creeping pull renders the arm
worthless. It is better for the novice to err on the safe side by being
sure that his pull is heavy enough; later it can be eased without
trouble by any gunsmith. Do not expect a good trigger pull on a cheap
arm.
THE SINGLE TRIGGER
A single trigger is a contrivance by which both barrels of a double gun
are pulled by one trigger which is usually placed in the rear position.
Mechanisms vary in the different models of one triggers, and any of
them are too complicated to be accurately described without the use of
diagrams and cuts or an actual inspection of the parts. It must suffice
here to notice their principles briefly.
[Illustration: The Hunter single trigger]
In the single trigger there is a slide or bridge which, when one
trigger is pulled, moves across and engages the sear of the opposite
lock permitting the gunner to let it off with a second pull. This
movable bridge can be set by a slide so as to pull either barrel first
at the will of the shooter. If it is intended to use the right barrel
first, the bridge is set for right, and that barrel will go every time
it is cocked, the slide only moving over to the left when the first
hammer is down. Should the bridge be moved to the left sear it shoots
that barrel first so long as permitted to remain in that position.
The advantages of the one trigger are that you can use heavy gloves
without being balked by having two triggers in the way. The pulling is
more uniform and the grip fits the hand better, for it is not to be
disputed that the grip and direction of the pull for double triggers
are not the same, and if one trigger suits the hand the other will not.
Moreover, the balance and fit of the arm are not disturbed as they are
in a two trigger gun where the grip must be released and shifted up or
down for the right and left barrels. The shifting of the grip tends to
alter the length of stock also as will be mentioned in gunfitting and
measurements. The rear position for a trigger is the only correct one,
moreover, since it gives a firmer grip, does not strain the hand, and
enables the pressure to be applied in the most natural manner.
[Illustration: The Infallible single trigger]
Other advantages are claimed for the one trigger, such as much greater
rapidity in the use of the second barrel, even to the extent of
getting onto a bird moving at the rate of sixty feet a second fifteen
feet quicker with the second shot than with a two trigger gun. The
experience of the author, who has used a single trigger gun three
years steadily, does not bear this out, though it would appear a most
reasonable claim to the inexperienced. Indeed, if a gain of fifteen
feet were made over the double trigger the second barrel would have
to go instantaneously, because a quick shot with two triggers, who
continues his swing after the bird, can just about catch it again in
fifteen feet or a quarter of a second.
My own conclusion is that the single trigger in the case of a heavily
charged twelve bore gun is no quicker than the double triggers. The
recoil of the arm is such that the muzzle is thrown well off the target
despite the firmest holding, and while the gunner is getting on again
he can readily shift from one trigger to the other.
Doubtless this claim of greater rapidity might be borne out if the
mechanism were placed upon small bores with very light charges, for
it is quite true that without loads in the barrels the two locks can
be sprung much more rapidly with a single trigger than with two. In
calculating the possibilities of rapid firing, recoil, the action of
the shooter’s mind, and the need of a second aim must not be overlooked.
I have every faith in the single trigger, believing it a positive
advantage and pleasure to use even in its present stage of development.
Nevertheless the conviction is forced upon me that no single trigger
now invented is perfect, neither will any of them quite bear out the
claims of the manufacturer. The problems incident to the construction
of such a trigger are complex and rendered more so by the difference
in men and their style of shooting. I knew one man who nearly always
let off two shots from his automatic when he intended to fire but one.
The theory on which the single trigger is made is this: When the first
barrel is pulled the recoil of the weapon shakes loose the grip, the
trigger springs forward, and the sliding bridge moves across to engage
the second lock which can then be fired also. Now should some gunner
occasionally have such a firm grip on the stock that the trigger could
not spring forward, he will be balked when attempting the second shot.
I have shot with one man who had this happen frequently, and that with
a trigger which is advertised as being impossible to balk.
There is no one trigger that cannot be balked by some men, though in
order to prevent this the inventor of one such action constructed a
trigger that only needed to move forward the thirty-second of an inch
to engage the second sear. It is obvious that carrying this scheme to
a legitimate conclusion would mean a trigger that did not have to move
forward at all to engage the second sear; then we would have an action
that would really be impossible to balk. But it could double discharge
with the greatest ease and certainty, and it would. Even with the
trigger springing forward a short distance doubles may occur from the
rebound of the piece after it strikes the shoulder.
Doubles are worse than being balked, too, as any one will admit who
will try the experiment of firing six drams of powder and two and a
half ounces of shot from a seven pound gun. For this reason I should
prefer a trigger that returned quite to its original position before
engaging with the second sear.
It must not be concluded that doubles and balking with one triggers
are a common occurrence, for with some men they never happen and with
others rarely, but the point that I wish to make is that they are not
impossible, and any advertisement so stating is misleading. It has been
estimated that in doubles with a single trigger the second shot may
follow the first in one-fiftieth of a second, practically both barrels
going off as one so that only one report is heard. How this can happen
with such rapidity the writer can only conjecture unless the movable
bridge in springing across touches and springs the sensitive sear of
the opposite lock. I am not trying to indict the single trigger, but
only pointing out the mechanical difficulties of making it perfect.
The one trigger has other defects which I think can readily be
remedied. One of these relates to the instantaneous choice of barrels.
The builders declare that a choice of barrels can be made instantly,
that is with the same quickness that a man would take his finger from
the front trigger of his open barrel and place it on the trigger of his
choked barrel when a bird sprang up at long range.
This means that the change would have to be made as the butt slammed
to the shoulder and without interfering with that motion. This could
be done provided the change could be made mechanically as in pushing
up the safety slide on top of the tang, the time required not being
more than one-fifth of a second. However, such one triggers as we now
have shift with a tiny button under the frame where it is hard to move
and difficult to get at, necessitating the gunner’s taking his eye and
mind off the game and then requiring at least ten seconds to make the
change. Imagine where a swift-flying bird would be that got up at long
range and was given a handicap of ten seconds.
There are three positions where the shift might be worked with
sufficient rapidity, one, the present position of the safety slide on
top of the tang where it could be moved by the thumb as the piece came
up, second, in the position of the Greener safety, and, third, in the
shape of a trigger just inside the front end of the guard where it
could be moved forward by the back of the forefinger as the gun came up.
The author is having a single trigger gun built in which the ordinary
trigger safety bolt has been omitted and replaced with a selective
slide that will change barrels as quickly as you could shove up the
safety on an ordinary hammerless gun. With the present models of one
triggers there can be no selection except from deliberate calculation
as to what kind of shot you are to expect next.
The single trigger sometimes causes the loss of a shot, too, in this
way: The first barrel has been fired scoring a kill, and as usual the
sportsman at once breaks his gun to replace the empty shell. When he
has withdrawn or ejected the empty shell and before he can replace it
with a load, another bird breaks out. With a two trigger gun the hunter
would at once snap down the barrels and fire the one that was still
filled, but should he attempt this with a single trigger the first
lock will go again with a useless click and the opportunity is gone.
Doubtless long use of the single trigger would cause the sportsman
to make the first futile pull as his piece came up, but most men are
accustomed to the discharge of the arm when the trigger is pulled and
their first thought is that the shell has missed fire.
Despite the minor drawbacks enumerated and the opinion that no
single trigger now in use is perfect or past improving, I should,
nevertheless, much prefer it to a double trigger and would not
willingly go back to the latter. The one trigger is following in
the footsteps of the hammerless action, the self-ejector, and other
improvements that in the nature of things are bound to come. Meantime
we can await with confidence the American single trigger that will
finally replace all the others.
CHAPTER VI
THE MATTER OF ENGRAVING
Engraving is placed upon a gun purely as an ornament to satisfy the
esthetic taste of the sportsman. It adds not one iota to the soundness
of the arm, its shooting qualities, ease of manipulation, fit, or
balance. It is a luxury on a footing with our preference for broadcloth
in place of jeans, silver knives and chinaware where steel and tin
platters would do as well, pictures upon the wall, that without them
would afford us as much shelter and creature comfort. The civilized
man has developed a taste for the beautiful, otherwise he would not be
civilized, and while he could return to barbarous ways and still exist,
why should he?
[Illustration: WEALTH OF ORNAMENTATION ON THE SAUER GUN]
The engraving upon a shotgun costs from five dollars to two hundred
and fifty. The plainest style of engraving and the cheapest is known
as line engraving. It consists of a simple line about the borders of
the locks and frame with a bit of etching around the screw heads. The
next higher grade would comprise some scrolls cut into the locks and
possibly the outline of a bird. Then we have scroll engraving, scroll
engraving in relief, scroll work inlaid with gold, picture and game
engraving surrounded with scroll as a frame, and picture engraving to
individual order.
Tastes differ in the ornamentation of guns. One man prefers a wealth of
ornamentation, another is pleased with the simplest style, while others
may like none at all. Gunmakers are partial to different designs also,
one being noted for handsome scroll work in relief, and another for the
artistic spirit displayed in his game scenes.
Engraving upon respectable arms is supposed to be done by hand. If this
is true the average gunbuilder makes a mere machine out of his artists,
for gun after gun is cut exactly alike to the line. Neither will the
manufacturer vary his design to order. Should you purchase a hundred
dollar grade gun it will have just so much engraving upon it, and there
will be ten thousand more cut like it to the last dot.
I knew an army officer who ordered a high priced arm of one of our
builders; he wished it left as plain in locks and frame as one of his
army rifles, but could not secure what he desired and was obliged to
accept the usual engraving that went with the grade. Just why this
should have been the case is something for the manufacturers to explain.
A word of advice might be given to our gunmakers here at which they
should take no offense. We are noted for the excellence of our sound,
well balanced arms in the cheaper and medium grades, but many hesitate
to purchase the finer weapons because they do not believe they are
getting value in ornamentation and appearance. The gentleman of means
who buys a high grade gun feels a trifle as did the man who would only
drink coffee that cost fifty cents a pound. The country merchant had
no grade of the berry higher priced than twenty-five cents, but it was
either fifty cents or no sale so he sold--one pound.
I may not be forgiven for here venturing to criticize the scroll
engravings so popular in this and other countries, but in plain
truth I consider it nothing more nor less than ornamental penmanship
transferred to the frame of a gun. It consists of a lot of curved
lines, beautiful in themselves, perhaps, but senseless and meaningless
as a whole or as a composition. I am no better satisfied with
ornamental penmanship on my gun than I would be to have such flourishes
take the place of my paintings which tell a story with life and fire
and beauty. A certain amount of scroll is all right as a relief to the
plain steel, as a setting to a picture, but other things being equal
I should prefer the simple scrolls that are placed upon the medium
guns to the elaborate curls and curleycues with which the steel is so
thoroughly scratched on our fine guns. I fancy there are others who
feel just as I do about this and hence the reluctance to pay good
money for engraving or to buy the higher grades of weapons.
[Illustration: THIS IS THE BEST STYLE OF ENGRAVING AND WOOD
ORNAMENTATION USED BY THE WINCHESTER COMPANY. FLORID BUT BEAUTIFUL. THE
COST IS ABOUT $200]
The man who is willing to pay for it should have his tastes consulted
in the engraving of his gun. If he has a preference for scroll
engraving, all well and good, but if he desires pictures on his piece
in keeping with the use to which the arm is to be devoted, then he
should have them. Above all he is entitled to have his weapon an
individual arm in appearance and ornamentation and not an exact
duplicate of a thousand others. The builder of one of the most popular
imported guns recognizes this, and every one of his higher grade guns
is engraved with a distinct design of its own.
Not only is this desirable, but the purchaser should be consulted
with regard to what he wishes reproduced. I should prefer an old
hawk sitting on the dead limb of a tree, a bevy of quail roosting in
the grass, a mallard dropping into the marsh, the head of a favorite
setter, to all the flourishes that could be cut into the steel. I
regard gold inlaying, gold plating, gold triggers, etc., as on a par
with nickel plating the barrels and would as soon have one as the other.
In the matter of ornamentation it seems that we will be obliged, willy
nilly, to take what the manufacturers give us. Moreover we have no
distinctive style of engraving in this country but have copied after
England. If you are satisfied with the English style of gun engraving
it can be obtained just as perfectly here. But the writer is forced
reluctantly to admit that Continental gun engravers, in his humble
opinion, are more artistic than either those of England or America. The
sole excuse that an American could have for preferring an arm built in
Germany, France, or Belgium is that the ornamentation is more to his
liking. He pays well for this, and sacrifices something in sterling
lasting and wearing qualities, but if the appearance of the piece
gives him the most pleasure he is entitled to gratify his own tastes.
It only remains for our builders to meet the demand for arms that are
ornamented by artists rather than mechanics.
AMERICAN AND FOREIGN SHOTGUNS COMPARED
Prejudice and local pride are likely to make any American, other than
an Anglo-maniac, a biased judge when it comes to comparing our arms
with those made in Europe. I make no denial of having a preference for
home built weapons, yet I shall attempt to treat all as fairly as I may.
In the first place it is not to be expected that there will be any
wonderful difference in the output of the various countries. The same
barrels are in common use, the systems of boring are alike in practical
results, the stocks are the same and the quality of steel, while the
constructive machinery differs little. It follows that weapons can
diverge only in minor particulars, such as locks and bolts, cocking
mechanism, and finish. It would not be worth while to dwell upon
features that are common to all, so I will confine myself to pointing
out briefly wherein they differ.
[Illustration: The Diamond Daly; beautiful German style of engraving]
Any close observer would be quick to note that the frames of nearly
all American arms are longer and heavier than those built across the
water. These long frames are a very positive advantage when considering
strength alone, for a gun with long frame _must_ outlast the one with
short frame, other things being equal. This is for the reason that
there will be less leverage against the locking bolts. It is true,
however, that this rule works both ways, and if a short-framed gun
gives more leverage against its fastenings, it also exerts greater
lever power in cocking both the main lock and the ejector. The
increased leverage in the short-framed gun comes from giving the locks
a shorter end of the lever and because the barrels turn farther on the
joint in opening the gun. If need be, this point could be absolutely
proved by lengthening the frame to such an extent that the piece could
not be cocked by hand at all in the usual way. It follows that while
American arms are the strongest, as a rule they function harder than
those made in Europe. Of course there might be exceptions but this is
the rule; what we gain in strength we lose in ease of manipulation.
In locking bolts and fastenings I am glad to vote the American ticket
straight. As noted, our long frames give us the advantage in the first
place, and besides our weapons are mechanically superior in this
respect. England and the Continent have tended steadily to multiplicity
of fastenings, America to simplicity. While they have developed a
quintuple locking action we have invented a single rotary bolt that is
emphatically stronger than all of their five. Locking bolts, length of
frames, and cocking mechanisms constitute the only really essential
differences between American and foreign arms, and in these assuredly
America scores. I am not considering the cheap output of Europe, for
with such arms we have nothing worthless enough to compare.
Engraving has been sufficiently treated. I can only repeat here
that England and America have practically the same style of gun
ornamentation, in which they are excelled by both Germany and France.
In weights of arms there is perhaps a greater variation in those of
Europe. They build lighter arms than we find serviceable and also
construct weapons for heavier charges than any listed by our ammunition
houses.
The English game gun is a very light arm, weighing in twelve gauge
from 5½ to 6¾ pounds. It is used with reduced charges upon driven
and hand raised game. We have never found featherweights adapted to
American shooting though they became a short lived fad a few years
since. The English pigeon gun, balancing at from seven to eight pounds,
is practically the same as our all-service arm. The European wildfowl
gun with its heavy charge has had but a limited demand in this country
since the ten bore went out of fashion. All nations are alike devoting
a good deal of consideration to the small bores at the present time;
neither do the dimensions of the narrow gauges vary greatly whether
made in America or Europe.
It is probable that the cost of building a shotgun in this country and
Europe is about the same. Doubtless their handworkmen receive a trifle
less wages than ours, but on the other hand our gunmaking machinery is
better and we have more of it.
Every imported arm pays an import duty amounting to about one-third
of its value which must be added to the cost of the arm. It follows
that we should expect an American arm costing one hundred dollars
to be of like value with a foreign gun at one hundred and fifty; a
three hundred dollar European piece grading with ours at two hundred.
These figures will apply approximately to weapons of all grades. The
conclusion is logical that where the sportsman has but a limited amount
of money to be placed in his weapon he will do well to purchase from a
home builder. Where money is not a consideration an elegant arm can be
obtained either at home or abroad.
CHAPTER VII
GRADES AND PRICES
In writing of the grades and prices of guns I shall refer to the retail
selling price rather than to the list price since the latter is such
an uncertain quantity. The net price of one gun may be nearly the same
as its list price while another will be sold at forty per cent. below
list. Trade requirements necessitate list and net prices no doubt, but
they are very confusing when mentioning the price of a gun.
Though American shotguns are graded at from fifteen to one thousand
dollars, yet strangely enough, from the highest to the lowest, there
is little difference in their shooting qualities. At one period in
the manufacture of firearms only the higher priced weapons could be
guaranteed to make first rate patterns, but gunboring has become such
an exact science that the cheapest arms may equal in pattern and
penetration those of the highest grade. The old stories of testing
some high priced arm and finding that it would kill at extreme ranges
are therefore antiquated, because the moderate priced arm is just as
liable to do the same thing. Nevertheless every grade from the lowest
to five hundred dollars or more gives value in proportion to price, and
I shall here endeavor to point out wherein one gun may excel another
though all should shoot alike.
The fact that nearly all shotguns perform alike with their charges has
had a rather unfortunate effect on gun building in this country. The
practical man, knowing that he can procure as good a shooting arm as
there is made at from twenty-five to fifty dollars, cannot persuade
himself that there is anything sensible in going beyond those figures.
This feeling has undoubtedly caused large demand for the cheaper class,
preventing any, even of our best manufacturers, from making a specialty
of high grade weapons.
In England and upon the Continent there are gunmakers who do make
a specialty of the best grades, never sending a cheap gun at least
to this country, and this has created the impression that our
manufacturers cannot compete with the foreigners in the finer class
of weapons. This conclusion is entirely without foundation in fact. I
am convinced that it is well worth while for any man who can afford
it to buy only the better grade of American arms, not only because he
purchases other things in keeping from his beefsteak to his automobile,
but for the sake of the general improvement in gunbuilding which such a
course would foster, and for his own satisfaction and the due pride a
sportsman should take in his weapon.
THE CHEAPEST GRADE
The cheapest double hammerless gun that I have been able to discover
in the catalogs is sold at $13.85. Such arms are not made for hard
usage, but for the farmer, for the man who wishes to have some kind of
a firearm in the house because he might need it some time. Mechanically
these guns are at least fairly good, embodying as they do features that
were thoroughly tried out by the makers of standard arms. Necessarily
such pieces are made heavy and clumsy, since in order to work up the
steel at a minimum of cost it must be soft, and the barrels and action
must be heavy in consequence to withstand ordinary charges. It need
hardly be said that such arms are made entirely by machinery, with
barrels and stocks of the cheapest description. As nearly as I can
learn the stock of such an arm costs fifty cents, the barrels about
a dollar and fifty, and the whole gun might be constructed for five
dollars. No attempt can be made to give such a piece fit or balance,
but the secret of their cheapness lies in the inferior quality of
material employed throughout.
[Illustration: BAKER BRUSH GUN. HANDY ARM OF EUROPEAN MODEL]
[Illustration: SMITH KNOCKABOUT EJECTOR. WILL LAST A LIFETIME]
[Illustration: STEVENS FIELD GRADE; A STRONG, SOUND GUN]
THE TWENTY DOLLAR FIELD GRADE
At twenty dollars some of our more reliable manufacturers will turn
out a hammerless gun. I have known men worth a half million to shoot
them with the settled conviction that no better weapon could be desired
either in action or appearance. Such arms are made on exactly the same
system as higher priced guns which guarantees mechanical excellence.
Necessarily these arms are turned out with extreme rapidity, and the
steel must not be hard enough to entail too much wear and tear on
expensive machinery.
The barrels are of the cheapest quality of steel but are strong enough
in the medium weights to withstand ordinary usage. The frames are drop
forged and case hardened, but I have sometimes found that I could cut
the locks and bolts with an ordinary pocket knife. The stocks, of the
plainest description of American walnut, are strong and serviceable,
though not a thing of beauty to begin with, and the simple finishing
soon wears away, leaving them baldly ugly.
Of course this gun is machine made and while the working parts are
strong they grind in a new gun in a way to put your teeth on edge.
Despite this, perhaps, too severe criticism of the cheap gun of
standard make, it is not to be denied that such arms are good shooters
and they will hold together a long time. As a rule, arms of this grade
are not built to order but are turned out after a fixed pattern. They
are sent in quantities to the retail dealer where they are sold to the
less discriminating purchaser.
THE AMERICAN KNOCKABOUT
At from twenty-five to thirty-five dollars our standard gunbuilders
grade their cheapest or knockabout arm. These weapons undoubtedly
possess strength and superior lasting qualities. The barrels are tough
enough to withstand ordinary or extraordinary usage, being made for the
most part of modern compressed steel, plain and sound. The locks do
not differ from the higher grade weapons except that they are a trifle
softer and are not so smoothly ground and polished. The stocks are
generally of the plain walnut variety, but they will be shaped to order
in length and drop while the wood is sufficiently seasoned to retain
its grip on the iron unimpaired for years. The world has no better gun
value for the money than these American knockabout guns. They are of
such absolute utility, their merit so positive, that the owner must
constantly regret the lack of finish in his weapon. Especially is this
true when he grows to the arm with the passing of time and is unwilling
to exchange his piece for any other.
[Illustration: THE STERLINGWORTH, BUILT BY THE A. H. FOX CO. AS GOOD A
GUN AS CAN BE SOLD FOR $25.00]
Every gunbuilder may have a special feature of excellence which he
places in these arms. One will take pride in close jointing and
superior fitting; another furnishes a better quality of stock, finer
in finish; some one else may attach barrels of the higher grades
and great tensile strength; without exception, any of our reputable
builders will give splendid value in these knockabout guns.
The principle to be observed by the purchaser of a knockabout is to
buy all gun, unadorned. Every dollar which is placed in ornamentation
must be subtracted from the fit, balance, and soundness that should
alone be considered now. Buy from the manufacturer whose reputation is
behind the piece, for from him you secure, free, reputation, knowledge,
system, and principle of construction.
At from twenty-eight to thirty-five dollars the cheapest of American
guns can be obtained having self-ejectors. These ejector arms are
perfectly reliable though of course very plain. Such weapons are
certainly worthy of our admiration when we reflect that the entire
gun costs no more than the ejector mechanism of some of the imported
arms. Considering their ability to undergo all kinds of hard service
for years these knockabout guns, either plain or self-ejector, must
be regarded as nothing short of a triumph for American machinery and
methods of building.
[Illustration: B. GRADE FOX GUN. LISTED AT $75.00, WITHOUT EJECTOR]
FIELD AND TRAP GUN
($100 List to $100 Net.)
This is the most popular of all our shotguns either for trap, field,
or wildfowl shooting. It is a balanced weapon, lacking in nothing that
a modern fowling piece should possess. The manufacturers pay due
attention to every feature of this grade. So strong and lasting are
these arms that they are practically certain to outlive both their
day and their owner, only to be laid aside with the march of time and
progress which may finally antiquate them. I have known a hundred
dollar list gun to be used steadily at the trap, in the field, and upon
the marsh for ten years without a sign of shakiness or any indication
that it had not merely ripened with age like good whiskey.
[Illustration: The Parker Knockabout; a perfectly fitted gun]
The barrels, while not of the highest grade, are practically just as
good; the stocks have both grain and finish; the frames are drop forged
and admirably case hardened; the springs may be everlasting, with the
locks, bolts, and all bearings of tempered steel; while the jointing
and finishing will bear the most rigid inspection. These guns have all
the elegance of balance and outline that the maker can place in any
of his output, and even the ornamentation of steel and wood will not
be neglected. The main difference between this grade and those higher
is in the quality of stocks, the amount of engraving, and the hand
finishing. I do not mean to argue that a sportsman should not buy a
higher priced piece if he can afford it, but if he cannot there is no
reason why he should not take a deal of pride in the ownership of one
of these guns. He can at least say to himself and his friends that a
score of years ago no man could have owned a gun like this one though
he exhausted his bank account.
[Illustration: Smith Field and Trap Ejector. A good gun in every
respect, including appearance]
A shotgun at one hundred dollars should have every modern improvement
with the possible exception of the single trigger. It is my belief
that the time has come when self-ejectors ought invariably to replace
the plain extractor in this grade--in fact the extractor should only
be furnished to order and then at no reduction in price. It has been
charged that we are a conservative people, but the manufacturer can
at least be progressive. The single trigger is at present so costly
that it would not be advisable to sacrifice to this mechanism any more
important feature which might be the case in a weapon at one hundred
dollars.
[Illustration: Baker Paragon Grade, New Model. $85. No Better Gun for
the Money]
[Illustration: THE PARKER $100 GRADE]
THE HIGHER GRADE
One hundred and fifty to two hundred dollars should procure the most
carefully selected material throughout. The best possible quality of
barrels might be placed upon it, with stocks of fine English, Italian,
or Circassian walnut. Only the expert workmen of a factory would be
employed upon a gun of this description--men of pride in their calling,
who work conscientiously and artistically. Now, at last, beauty of
ornamentation takes its proper place with utility and strength.
The simple scroll and outline engraving might well give place to
game or hunting scenes, the tastes of the purchaser being consulted
when the arm is made to order. In engraving every one of these guns
should have a distinct design of its own, not only for the sake of the
future owner, but that the manufacturer may display his own artistic
versatility.
In gunfitting and measurements, at the price of two hundred dollars,
the gunmaker should be able to embody every feature the experienced
sportsman thinks desirable, the length and shape of the grip, the
height and thickness of comb, the cast-off of heel or twist of toe, the
taper of barrels and their weight compared with that of stock and frame.
In addition, the shooting qualities of the gun should be thoroughly
tested at all ranges, with varieties of ammunition and an accurate
record kept for the sake of the future owner. Not only should the
weapon make a prescribed pattern with a standard load, but the
sportsman, who may not have an opportunity of experimenting himself,
frequently desires to know the capabilities of his piece with some
other size or quantity of shot or change of powder. This information
the builder is receiving pay for when he charges two hundred dollars.
In every specification except engraving and grade of wood in the stock
the above weapon ought to be as good as the manufacturer can possibly
turn out at any price. Many imported guns are kept in stock by
dealers who make a specialty of them in the higher grades, but American
guns are usually only made to order.
[Illustration: STEVENS FIELD AND TRAP; A HANDSOME GUN THAT CAN NEVER BE
SHOT LOOSE]
[Illustration: BAKER EXPERT. NEARLY PERFECT MECHANICALLY AND A FINISHED
PRODUCT THROUGHOUT]
THE HIGHEST GRADE.
At three hundred dollars and upward American shotguns are built only to
order. In this grade the manufacturer is given a free hand, where he
can use all the knowledge and experience that he possesses, reinforced
by the utmost skill and art of his factory. The pride a gunbuilder
takes in the construction of a weapon of this kind is not second to
that of the sculptor who lingers over a piece of statuary with loving
touches long after the novice would think it complete.
[Illustration: The $750 Grade L. C. Smith]
The result is the most beautiful bit of wood and iron that the skill of
man can put together. I say this advisedly for there is nothing that
mechanics construct quite so handsome as a double hammerless gun
of the highest grade. I must approve the judgment of the man who buys
one, for beauty and utility were never so well combined. If the author
had a hundred thousand dollars to spare he would place one thousand of
it in guns and the other ninety-nine in shooting them; neither would he
consider that he was displaying anything but good horse sense.
This is the first grade of shotgun wherein the foreign arms come into
active competition with ours. I think as good value can be obtained in
an English or Continental arm at three hundred dollars as in any of
ours, but it is the first grade of which I would venture to say that.
The value, depending largely upon the engraving, fitting, and character
of the hand work placed upon the gun, fairly represents the quality of
the artisans employed in the different countries.
A hundred choice pieces of wood may be rejected before one is found
that the manufacturer will attach to one of these guns. It will be
taken from the stump or root of the very finest Circassian walnut,
seasoned thoroughly and oil finished without regard to pains or labor.
The barrels should be of Sir Joseph Whitworth fluid steel or other
steel of like grade, proved and recorded with all varieties of charges.
The engraving should reflect the taste of the purchaser, and depend
upon it the man who can appreciate one of these arms will not lack
esthetic taste of his own.
[Illustration: THE HIGHEST GRADE SAUER. NET $450]
[Illustration: $400 GRADE ITHACA]
[Illustration: THE $500 DALY GRADE]
[Illustration: F. GRADE FOX GUN. LISTED AT $500.00 WITHOUT EJECTOR.]
CHAPTER VIII
REPEATING AND AUTOMATIC SHOTGUNS
What I have said heretofore relates entirely to double hammerless guns,
but there is another type of shotgun which being a weapon of absolute
merit and a strictly American production must not be overlooked. I
refer to the repeating shotgun either handfunctioned or auto-loading. I
shall consider them both as one type of arm, for undoubtedly the pump
repeater is merely a halfway house on the march to an automatic.
Pump guns and auto-loaders may never replace the double gun in the
affections of sportsmen, yet their use is increasing steadily and
rapidly. Note the picture of a crowd of trap shooters and you will
observe that the majority of them are armed with repeating shotguns of
some kind, which is no less true of a group of Western hunters. I might
be wrong but I would consider it a reasonable estimate to say that
one-third of the cartridges loaded by our factories will be fired from
repeating shotguns.
[Illustration: THE HIGHEST GRADE WINCHESTER REPEATING SHOTGUN]
[Illustration: THE HIGHEST GRADE REMINGTON REPEATING SHOTGUN]
[Illustration: THE STEVENS REPEATING SHOTGUN, TRAP GRADE]
I believe it is true beyond question or dispute that there is more gun,
better gun value for the money, in an American repeater than in any
other shotgun in the world. They will shoot as well as any smooth bore
tube ever fired, and one of them is equal to two double guns with a
man following about to carry one and do the loading--English fashion.
Unquestionably custom is mighty and a man’s prejudices small, for the
Briton will have none of the repeater on the grounds that it is too
deadly and unsportsmanlike, yet he will have the aforesaid two guns
carried about so that he can kill game as rapidly as he could with the
repeater.
The handfunctioned repeaters are so common that a detailed description
of them would be a waste of time. They are made in two models, one
working with an under lever, now nearly obsolete, and the other with a
sliding fore-arm, known as the pump-action. In the latter, moving this
sliding fore-arm back and forth ejects the spent shell and reloads.
An expert can move this slide so fast that he can shoot nearly if not
quite as rapidly as he could fire two shots from a double gun, while at
times he will discharge six shots to the two of the double barreled man.
The pump gun is the favorite trap gun in America to-day. If I am not
mistaken it holds all American records at the trap, the longest run
on clay birds, the best annual professional average, and odds the
greatest number of first place wins either amateur or professional.
As a trap gun for clay birds under present conditions it is unrivaled.
It balances as well as a double arm, shoots more evenly, and will fire
five thousand shots for every dollar that it cost and still be ready
for business.
Nevertheless, I believe an auto-loading mechanism is the ultimate fate
of all pump repeaters. Within another decade I expect to see every
gunbuilder, who now places a pump gun on the market, extolling the
virtues of his own particular automatic.
The manufacturers claim for this type of gun that it is in effect a
single trigger, hammerless ejector with five barrels to shoot and but
one to load and care for, a weapon that reloads itself and shoots with
greatly lessened recoil. A single trigger is admittedly an improvement
in a double gun, and it must have the same advantage in an automatic.
The double gun derives its prestige over the single shot from the fact
that it delivers two shots in place of one; this being true, three more
shots of the automatic could hardly be considered less than a most
commendable feature.
Few who have used a self-ejector will ever return to the old method
of extracting shells by hand, and the auto gun is beyond question a
self-ejector. Every user of an ejecting double gun must have felt
at times that if his gun only reloaded itself he could ask for no
more--the automatic reloads.
The last claim to superiority made by the builders is that a single
barrel, not being bound by rigid ribs and the contact of another
barrel, expands more uniformly under pressure of the powder gas and
hence makes a more round and regular pattern.
It might be concluded from the foregoing that the auto-loader is
nothing short of perfection, but the other fellow is not slow in
telling his side of the story. He claims that the automatic is over
weight for any purpose except duck and trap shooting; that the piece
utterly lacks balance; that the grip of the two hands because of the
size of the fore-arm and depth of the frame is so far below the line of
sight that the man accustomed to a double gun cannot point the piece
straight, but will be absolutely at a loss to know when he is holding
right. He further asserts that because of its complicated mechanism the
auto arm is bound to break down after a season or two.
He declares that the gun frequently fails to function, balks, and
must then be worked by hand, making it slower than a single shot. He
is positive, too, that the piece is an ill looking, clublike affair,
without a single attractive line. He sharply maintains that it is an
unsportsmanlike arm as well--both a game killer and a game crippler
owing to the reserve of fire which leads the gunner to blaze away
wildly at everything within range and out of it. Additionally he
protests that there is no such reduction of recoil as the manufacturers
claim, but on the other hand the piece gives him an additional prod
every time it is fired.
In truth it seems that both sides can readily make out a case, and the
author hardly feels competent to sit in judgment. Doubtless every man
will have to pass upon the matter himself, and then he will either like
the arm or he will not and decide accordingly.
The contention that the arm is unsportsmanlike might be thrown out
since it depends so much upon whose hands are on the gun. A shotgun is
made, primarily, to kill game and not to save it--the more effective
it is the better adapted to its purpose. That it will kill game is no
reason that it should be made to do so beyond reason or lawful limit.
That the mechanism is complicated is something hardly to be denied,
and no man should expect it to have as long and sound a life as a high
class double gun. However, three auto-loaders can be bought at the
price of one good double hammerless. It must be admitted, too, that the
combined cheapness and quality of these automatics are the greatest of
all tributes to the genius of American gunbuilding.
That the piece lacks the graceful lines of a double gun is quite true,
though it might alike be asserted that the repeating rifle is without
the clean lines of the single shot. You could hardly attach a magazine
to a double barrel and maintain its grace of outline. Sometimes beauty
must yield to utility.
I believe, myself, that the man accustomed to a double gun will have
some trouble in shooting as accurately with the auto because of the
distance his pointing hands are below their accustomed place. However
this is something that time and practice will assuredly remedy.
As to the recoil, while it would appear reasonable that some of this
would be absorbed by the heavy spring and the butt at least come back
with more of a push, yet to the man unaccustomed to the automatic the
jerk of the arm as the spring throws the barrel back into place is more
annoying than the sharper blow of the double barrel.
Since the auto gun is operated by recoil it follows that this should be
made as nearly a fixed factor as possible, which precludes the use of a
large variety of ammunition with satisfaction. The manufacturers advise
shooting standard ammunition only when that is possible. At first
glance this might be thought a hardship, but in the end the gunner will
discover that the use of a cartridge with a regular velocity and breech
pressure is the greatest possible help toward uniform shooting. In
wing-shooting the gunner could no more expect to do regular work with
one shell that gave a velocity of a thousand feet and another of eight
hundred than he could with a rifle having a fixed sight and using one
high and one low power cartridge.
The automatic arm, being the latest invention in firearms, might still
be regarded as in the embryo stage. If so we may be forgiven for idly
speculating as to what the future will bring forth. At present it
seems an assured fact that in time all military and sporting rifles and
side arms will be auto-loading. If this is true of rifles why not of
shotguns?
It seems highly probable that every fault that can now be found with
the automatic will finally be remedied. Means will be discovered to
simplify the mechanism. A reduction in gauge would reduce the size and
clumsy appearance of the fore-arm, giving the piece the lines of our
present single barrel trap gun. The weight of the weapon is certain to
be reduced in the immediate future so as to come within the standard
weights of field arms. Whatever is done, we can look forward with great
interest to automatic gunbuilding, certain that no prejudice, not even
law enactment, can long retard the development of an arm that in the
logic of events must displace every weapon of other description.
For myself, I am looking forward hopefully to the appearance of a
twenty bore automatic that will be neat in outline, positive and
lasting in action, and with a weight under seven pounds. I should
prefer that it use dense nitro powder in a shell not over two inches
long so as to shorten the present heavy frame; that the fore-arm be
cut down to the last ounce of weight; and that the number of shells in
the magazine be reduced to three. I expect that through an improvement
in boring and choking the entire twenty gauge charge will be placed in
a given circle in place of sixty-five or seventy per cent., and that
the charge will be given a muzzle velocity three hundred feet higher
than the now standard thousand feet. Such a weapon would be as much an
improvement over the twelve gauge double gun of to-day as the modern
Springfield army rifle is superior to the old 45-70.
CHAPTER IX
FITTING THE GUN TO THE MAN.
One of the most important features of a shotgun is its fit, fit and
balance having more to do with a gunner’s ability to perform well with
his weapon than even the shooting qualities of the gun. Shotguns can be
obtained that are quite capable of “outshooting” their owner, however
expert he may be, and hence the chief study of the skilled and the
novice alike should be perfect fit and balance as contributing to finer
holding.
It is true that there are men who can shoot fairly with any gun, just
as we have all heard of the man who can down his birds as surely from
the hip as from the shoulder. If the reader happens to belong to the
“hip-shooting” class this chapter is not for him, since he has risen
superior to the gunbuilder’s art and merely requires barrels that
will kill. However the majority of us do plenty of missing without
deliberately courting that sort of thing by purchasing a gun that is
unbalanced or a misfit.
The neatest fitting coat can be procured by going to an experienced
tailor and being measured for it, and the best fitting gun should be
turned out by the expert gunmaker. Nevertheless, when beyond the reach
of tailor shops, you must needs go to the largest retail store you can
find and there try on coats until you get one that fits, and the same
rule applies to procuring a gun. A sporting goods dealer should have
arms of every size, weight, and measurement, some of which would be of
the exact dimensions required. If you are a novice consult the salesman
who should know his business, or take with you the most experienced of
your shooting friends. Be careful in the selection of your first gun,
for you will “grow” to it, and it will always influence you thereafter,
perhaps in the wrong way.
[Illustration: Gun Stock Measuring
1. From trigger to center of butt. 13⅝ ins. (This corresponds with an
ordinary length of stock of 14¼ ins.). 2. From bottom of standing frame
to center of butt, 17⅛ ins. (This gives correct length of 14¼ in. stock
regardless of position of trigger.) 3. From bottom of standing frame
to heel, 17 ins. 4. From bottom of standing frame to toe, 18 ins. 5.
From bottom of standing frame to end of grip, 7½ ins. (This length well
adapted to single trigger.)]
The fit of a gun relates principally to the length and drop of stock,
the drop, thickness, and shape of comb, the length, shape, and size
of the grip, the slant and shape of the buttplate, and possibly its
cast-off. The balance of the piece, technically known as its “hang,”
concerns its equable distribution of weight.
MEASURING A GUN STOCK
A glance at the accompanying drawing will tell more of the method of
measuring gun stock than any written text. The system shown is more
elaborate than that in use by any gunbuilder in this country, yet there
is warrant for taking all the various dimensions. As a rule on orders,
the manufacturers ask for the length of stock from front trigger to
center of butt, and the drop at comb and heel, the remainder of the
stock being machined out according to a fixed form. If a man is going
to the aforementioned skilled tailor he should be forgiven for asking
that his coat fit elsewhere as well as in the chest and sleeves. The
proportions of stock given in the cut must not be taken as standard
or the conclusion reached that an arm of its dimensions will fit
everybody. It is simply a well proportioned medium gun which nearly
every individual would find necessary to change in some particular,
possibly in all.
American shotguns are built with a length of stock ranging from
thirteen and three-quarters to fifteen inches. Those kept in stock by
dealers are of medium measurements, say from fourteen to fourteen and
one-half inches. For several reasons gun stocks are now made longer
and straighter than were once popular. Trap shooting is in a degree
responsible for this. The man at the traps is permitted to place the
butt of his gun to his shoulder and for this reason can handle a gun
with a half inch longer stock than he could afield. Moreover he has
discovered that a long stock punishes the face less and the reduced
shock is not so liable to produce gun-headache. Then, too, a long stock
causes a tendency to shoot high which is a decided advantage with
the rising clay birds. An arm throwing its charge a trifle high is a
killing gun, too, in upland shooting where the game as a rule is rising
from the ground.
Perhaps a changed style of shooting has had more to do with the
lengthening and straightening of gun stocks than any other one thing.
The present manner of wing-shooting is to _point_ the gun with both
eyes open, which necessitates a line of sight well above the rib. In
the past it was thought impossible to aim without closing one eye and
squinting the other flat over the rib as though it were the sight of
a rifle. This matter will be treated at length in its proper place;
sufficient now to say that one eye sighting rendered a crooked stock
imperative in the past and would to-day. The longer stocks have come
with the gradual evolution of the piece from arms now obsolete.
The shooting principles involved in the length of stocks are: A stock
too long may balk the shooter by catching under his armpit as the piece
comes up for a quick shot; it causes shooting too high and behind;
it strains the arm and shooting hand, possibly causing a premature
“let-off.” A short stock shoots low; it allows the recoil to catch
the gunner’s face in place of his shoulder, thus causing gun-headache
and flinching. More stocks are too short than too long, on the same
principle that a man can wear a boot that is too large but he cannot if
too small.
THE COMB
The comb is known indifferently as the comb and the cone, but as
there is another feature of a gun known as the cone--that section of
the barrel just in front of the shell chamber--I shall adhere to the
term comb when referring to the upper portion of the stock just back
of the grip, against which the cheek is pressed when aiming. It is
shown in figure 6 of the diagram on stock measuring. Since it governs
and regulates the “line of aim” both horizontally and in elevation,
no feature of gunfitting is of greater importance than the comb. Its
drop from the level of the barrels gives the correct elevation to the
charge and its shape whether thick or thin regulates the line of sight,
keeping it directly over the center of the rib. As a matter of fact
there are just two sights of any possible use in shotgun work, one
being the comb and the other the object shot at. Even the front bead is
placed there merely in deference to custom and old fashioned methods of
shooting, never being seen when in actual use at flying objects.
Personally the writer likes a thick, well-rounded comb because it
punishes the face less where a great many shots are fired and brings
the line of sight directly over the center of the breech when used in
connection with a drop of an inch and a half. However, faces and eyes
differ and every man must be a law unto himself in the drop and shape
of the comb he uses. Our late models of shotguns are built with a drop
at comb of from 1¼ to 1⅞ inches, the majority of those not built to
order ranging from 1½ to 1¾ inches.
Formerly gun stocks were much more crooked and occasionally had a drop
of two and a half inches at comb and four at the heel. For upland work
and especially for trap shooting the comb should be of such a height
as to throw the body of the charge above the line of aim. A gun built
expressly for wildfowl shooting might well have the comb an eighth or
a quarter of an inch lower than for quail or clay birds,--this for the
reason that you are nearly as liable to overshoot a passing bird as to
undershoot him.
If the buttplate is comparatively straight or flat, the drop at heel
is of minor importance compared with that at comb, since the butt can
be raised higher or lower to the shoulder as may be required. However,
guns are usually built with a proper proportion of drop between comb
and heel. A drop of 1¼ inches at comb calls for a 2 inch drop at heel;
one of 1⅜-2¼; 1½-2½; 1⅝-2⅝; 1¾-2¾; 1⅞-3 inches. Of course, individual
tastes and conformation will vary these dimensions. Live pigeon shots
have used guns straighter than any of those given. The clay bird men
find it advisable to adopt the straighter of the measurements, the
upland shooters the medium, and the “one-eyed” performer the crooked
ones.
THE MONTE CARLO COMB
The Monte Carlo stock, which should be termed the Monte Carlo comb, is
shown in the illustration. This comb runs straight back, every part of
it having a like drop from the level of the barrels in place of sloping
to the butt as usual. The object of this is to have the line of sight
the same whether the cheek is placed close up to the grip or farther
back. Theoretically this sort of comb is right, but in practice I have
not found it to improve one’s shooting materially, for the reason that
a practiced shot will invariably place his cheek to one spot and the
elevation of the comb elsewhere cannot matter greatly. However, the
novice whose shooting habits are less firmly entrenched, might find
it a positive advantage. In any event, this comb could hardly prove
disadvantageous either to the expert or the beginner. Its only faults
are that it detracts somewhat from the clean, racy outline of the stock
and adds a few ounces to the weight of the breech end which needs to
be reckoned with if the weapon is to retain its perfect balance. A few
years ago such combs became a fad and many ordinary stocks were fitted
with them by gunsmiths. My advice would be to try a gun with this sort
of comb either in the field or at the traps before purchasing and
then, if you like it, shoot only the guns that have such combs. Do not
attempt to shoot one gun with the Monte Carlo stock and another without
as that would handicap you unnecessarily.
[Illustration: The Monte Carlo comb]
CAST-OFF
The English are firm believers in cast-off, that is in a stock which
deviates either to the right or left from a straight line behind the
rib. They argue that the butt being placed to the shoulder, well to one
side of the head, the eye will naturally be looking across the barrels
in place of with them unless there is a cast-off to bring the tubes in
line. This would be simple truth if the man’s neck were encased in an
iron collar so that he could not bend it to get in line. Moreover the
Briton only recommends a cast-off of from one-eighth to three-eighths
of an inch, whereas it would have to be as many inches were the neck
not bent toward the comb. A cast-off of one-eighth of an inch at butt
gives but one-seventeenth at comb which at one hundred feet would only
place the charge two inches to the side of where it would have gone
without the cast-off--not enough to cause a miss where the charge
covers thirty inches.
As a rule American stocks are made straight or without cast-off, and
yet the American marksmen are the best in the world to-day. We regulate
the line of aim by the drop and shape of comb, as previously mentioned,
in place of casting off the stock. Nevertheless, if a man prefers to
shoot a very high comb, he may find a cast-off an advantage, since
otherwise there will be difficulty in getting the eye over the center
of the rib without shooting too high. It is all much a matter of habit
and usage. If you have learned to shoot the cast-off stock and perform
well with it, why stick to it, but if you have not, it is likely to
cast your charge off just so much more than it ought to.
THE GRIP
Lines four and five, diagram p. 115, give length and circumference of
the grip. The dimensions of the grip require special study for several
reasons. The length of the stock is governed in a great measure by the
length of the grip taken in connection with the place the left hand
grasps the barrels or fore-end; lengthening the grip at once has the
effect of shortening the stock. This can be noted by taking hold of
the rear of the grip and at the same time shifting the left hand back
toward the frame; the stock will come up, missing the shoulder exactly
as though it were too short. This explains why a long stocked gun is
more liable to balk you when shooting with the front trigger. Hence it
follows that if your gun is to fit you in length of stock it must also
have a grip of correct length.
Grips vary in length with different guns from seven to seven and
one-half inches and even more. The illustration shows one of the latter
length. This measurement is best adapted to long fingers or to pulling
the rear trigger. With a small hand, especially when the habit is to
shoot the right barrel first, seven inches is long enough. A better
control of the gun is maintained where the hands grasping fore-end and
grip are well apart, but ease in reaching and pulling the triggers must
not be sacrificed to this.
In the nature of things the grip cannot be of exactly the right length
for pulling both the front and rear triggers, and as a medium seven
and a quarter inches is a very nice measurement for hands of average
size. It should be remembered when ordering a gun that the different
gunbuilding firms all have a standard length and shape of grip to which
guns will be built unless otherwise ordered.
Whether a gun shall be constructed with a pistol or a straight grip
is much a matter of taste in appearances. Some claim that the straight
grip is a trifle quicker, but I have never heard a good reason advanced
to prove it. Such a thing as a real pistol grip of the kind we are
accustomed to in revolvers and single shot pistols is impossible with
a shotgun. At most there is only a trifling curve to the part grasped
by the hand. The principle of a pistol grip is that the pressure is put
upon the trigger solely by the grasp of the hand and the contracting
forefinger, while shotgun triggers are pulled by the arm drawing back,
only the last few additional ounces being applied by the contraction
of the finger. If the grip were sufficiently curved it might interfere
with this pull back of the arm but it never is. Therefore select a
straight or pistol grip as may please your fancy without fear that
either will materially influence your ability to handle the gun.
Grips vary in circumference from four to five inches. The former size
is suitable only for a lady or a boy and the last is adapted to a very
large hand. Four and a half inches is an average size and will be found
satisfactory to the majority. A grip that is too large will cause
the gun to handle clumsily and one too small is still worse since it
permits the stock to roll in the grasp and the hand fails to take up
the amount of recoil that it should. It should not be checkered too
smoothly but left rather rough to the feel. I should like to say now,
in passing, that the best shaped grips and the handsomest finished of
any in the world are those to be found on high grade American shotguns.
THE BUTT PLATE
The butt plate shown in the illustration is five and one-fourth
inches long which is about an average. Lengthening the line to toe
and shortening that to heel will give more slant, and the shape of
butt is governed by these two measurements in connection with the
length of stock. The stock can be drawn in at the center, leaving a
bump at the heel and a long toe if desired. It is wise to leave these
measurements to the gunmaker unless you have developed positive ideas
from experience. A longer stock can be used by giving the butt more
slant so that the heel will not catch in coming up. A deeply incurved
butt leads to more regularity in placing the gun to the shoulder but is
slower. It is best adapted to trap shooting where the butt is placed to
the shoulder before calling “pull.”
[Illustration: Measurements of stock for single trigger]
The illustration shows the manner of measuring a stock for a single
trigger. Different manufacturers place their single trigger in
slightly different positions so that the most uniform and reliable
lines are those taken from the bottom of the standing breech. The grip
of a single trigger gun can well be from one-fourth to a half inch
longer than one intended for a two trigger gun. The unvarying grasp of
the hand in a single trigger gun maintains both uniformity of length of
stock and balance. The single trigger has a chapter of its own and it
is sufficient here to state that it is especially adapted to straight
and long grips thus permitting the use of long stocks and materially
assisting in steadiness of holding.
GUN BALANCE
The balance of a gun has always been regarded as something of a
mystery. The usual statement is that the gun _balances_, that it comes
up right, or that it has just the correct “hang” and feel in the
shooter’s hands. These statements are not especially enlightening to
the novice, and I shall attempt to analyze and give reasons. Naturally
a shooter’s previous experience of the gun he has become accustomed
to shooting will have a very considerable influence when a new arm
is being tested. If the sportsman has been handling a weapon that
is muzzle heavy or the reverse for fifteen or twenty years he will
consider every gun defective in balance that is not similar to his
old piece. For this reason the beginner cannot place such absolute
reliance upon the advice of his veteran friend as he might otherwise.
A gun balances when its center of actual weight is midway between the
two hands grasping the fore-end and the grip. Either hand then supports
a like amount of weight, there is no undue strain, and the arm comes to
the face level and true to the line of sight. This equable distribution
of weight to either arm has the effect of causing the weapon to “handle
light” or to feel lighter than it actually is.
The “point of balance,” or center of weight, given in the illustration
is three and a half inches in front of the standing breech. Naturally
this point will vary somewhat with the length of stock, length of
barrels, length of grip, and position of the left hand grasping the
barrels, but in every true hanging gun it should not be greatly removed
from the spot indicated in the drawing. To be sure it may be argued
that it will be found very difficult to bring the center of weight
midway between the two hands when the stock is made long and heavy and
the barrels short and light. All of which is very true, and it will be
just as difficult to make such a proportioned piece balance--in fact it
will be impossible.
I recently had the pleasure of measuring and weighing a twenty bore gun
from the shops of one of our best builders. The point of balance was
just in front of the trigger guard. The entire gun weighed five pounds,
fifteen ounces. It had a fourteen and one-fourth inch stock with
twenty-six inch barrels; the barrels with fore-end weighed two pounds
three ounces, the stock and frame, three pounds, twelve ounces. In
balance it was a startling illustration of what a gun has no business
to be. The true proportions of weight between barrels and fore-end
compared with the frame and breech should be in the vicinity of four
pounds for the former to three and a half to the latter. These might be
varied a trifle without destroying balance, yet never to the extent of
having stock and action out-weigh barrels and fore-end.
The things to be remembered in connection with the balance of a gun
are: A muzzle heavy gun has a tendency to shoot low and behind;
it is slower. The recoil is not felt to the same extent as with a
muzzle-light gun; it hangs where it is fired and the second barrel can
be placed more promptly. A gun light at the muzzle is quick and shoots
high. The recoil throws up the muzzle like a heavily charged pistol
making it slow to get on with the second barrel.
TRY-GUNS AND SHOOTING SCHOOLS
The try-gun is an American invention but has never been of much
practical use in this country of long distances, where ninety-nine guns
in the hundred are ordered by mail or bought ready made. It consists of
an adjustable stock in which every measurement can be changed until the
intending purchaser secures an exact fit on the lines of which the new
gun is built.
The try-gun is shot at a shooting school, so-called, a range where
an object is thrown at all speeds and angles across a background of
painted boards or other material which indicates accurately where every
load is placed. When the loads invariably go true to the line of aim
the stock is pronounced a fit. In the nature of things these shooting
schools where one practically shoots with visible shot are of even
more benefit in teaching the tyro to hold and shoot than in giving
him measurements for a new gun. As a matter of fact, the schools are
used principally to teach wing-shooting, but that phase is outside the
province of this chapter.
CHAPTER X
GAUGES AND CHARGES
To a certain extent omnipotent fashion even regulates the bores of our
shotguns. A generation or so ago the ten bore was in fashion, very
few sportsmen having any real confidence in any smaller gauge. To-day
the once popular big gun is securely locked in its case and the key
is lost. It is now the correct thing to say that the modern twelve is
more effective than the once universal ten, that it will shoot harder,
make a better pattern, and kill farther. The latest tendency is to
repeat history by substituting smaller gauges for the twelve. The
same stories, once applied to the ten and twelve, are being repeated
concerning the lighter guns, the shooter confidently declaring that
they are the most deadly in his hands.
All this is mere elementary human nature, for really it seems the
easiest of all deceptions is self-deception. However, it is well to
view every subject from the standpoint of logic and reason sometimes,
and logically and reasonably the twenty-eight gauge with its ⅝ ounce of
shot is not so powerful as the eight gauge with its two ounces, both
loads shooting into the same size of circle and being driven with like
velocities. Nevertheless a lady would not select a rail-splitter’s maul
to drive her croquet ball, neither would the man-of-the-maul tolerate
the croquet mallet in his business. There may be an excess of weight
and power just as the mallet would certainly be utterly useless in
sinking a great iron wedge into an oak tree.
Every gauge from the eight down is a weapon of merit, adapted to
some branch of sport, and none of them can be said to be perfect for
all-round use, though the twelve and sixteen come the nearest to it. In
writing this chapter on gauges and loads it is my intention to point
out the special uses to which the different sizes are best adapted.
First it may be taken as an axiom, not to be disputed, that the bigger
the bore the larger shot it will handle effectively, thus developing
power for two reasons, weight of charge and range of shot. In loading
cartridges the ammunition manufacturers practically give the same
initial velocity to the charges of all gauges, small and large, and
consequently the killing power can be reckoned mathematically from the
amount and size of the shot.
In calculating the killing power of a gauge and charge it must never
be forgotten, however, that the weight of gun must be in proportion to
its bore and load, otherwise the formula is deceptive and wrong. For
example, a seven pound ten bore is by no means so powerful a weapon as
a twelve pound twelve bore, though both arms are on the freakish order.
The eternal fitness of things requires that the weight of gun should
govern the gauge and the gauge should govern the charge. The matter of
chokes and patterns will be treated in a separate chapter; sufficient
here to state that all the different gauges of similar choke pattern
into the same size of circle, despite an almost universal belief to the
contrary.
THE EIGHT GAUGE
Four gauge guns are used to quite an extent in Europe, but in a
shooting experience extending over thirty years I have seen but one
battery of them in this country, and as they are not made in America
a description of them seems unnecessary. Eight gauges, however, have
their proper place in a sportsman’s armory, being particularly adapted
to some forms of wildfowl shooting. They are a killing weapon on the
sea coast, especially in goose and brant shooting, and many prefer them
for canvasbacks and redheads where the birds have been persecuted into
unusual wariness.
An eight gauge makes a very useful addition to a battery where several
guns are carried into the blind. It will pull down ducks and geese
entirely beyond the range of smaller bores, and there is a fascination
in tripping up a saucy old mallard that, having fully sized up the
situation, fancies that he is staying well outside the danger zone of
a shotgun. The big gun is always liable to thin a passing flock, too,
at outrageous distances.
American eight bores are built in weights from eleven to sixteen
pounds, with barrels from thirty-two to forty inches long. The most
popular length of barrels is thirty-four inches on a weight of gun of
fourteen pounds. The lighter weights are never worth while in a gun of
this gauge since its chief recommendation lies in its ability to throw
heavy charges.
The machine loaded shells for this gauge vary from five to five and
one-half drams of nitro powder, with a shot charge of one and a half
to one and three-fourths ounces. However, these loads are adapted to
arms of very moderate weight, and the true utility of the weapon is
shown with charges of from six to seven drams of powder and at least
two ounces of shot. The English are accustomed to use much heavier
cartridges than those recommended here, up to eight drams of powder and
three ounces of shot. Machine loaded shells are charged with shot from
four’s to BBs, and anything smaller than four’s are no more adapted to
the gauge than it is to quail shooting. Number one shot is much liked
for goose shooting, two and three for ducks.
Properly bored and with two ounces of number one or two shot, the
eight gauge should kill with fair regularity up to seventy yards, with
occasional execution on flocks at one hundred. The recoil of the
weapon is not excessive, with the charges given, in weights above
twelve pounds, though the writer strongly recommends the heaviest piece
which the gunner can handle effectively. It should be remembered that
it takes practice to swing this heavy arm, otherwise the sportsman may
lose his usually correct time and do poorer work than he would with a
lighter gauge and charge.
THE TEN GAUGE
The ten bore gun, in black powder days, killed off the passenger pigeon
at trap and afield, thinned the ranks of the pinnated grouse, and
decimated the wildfowl of many sections. It has killed more game than
any other gun in America, being popular in the days when large bags
were a proof of sportsmanship. Once it was considered the all-round
gun, equally serviceable on lake or upland, but to-day its use is
restricted to the marsh and shore.
It is the wildfowl gun par excellence. Temporarily fad and fashion
may supersede it, but it will come to its own again, being of that
combination of weight, gauge, and charge that is not to be equaled by
any other bore for the special purpose of duck and goose shooting.
It is not an upland gun for its weight precludes its being used with
comfort in the field. Should its dimensions be so reduced as to make
it a comfortable weapon to carry, it would have no more power than a
twelve, and so we must consider it strictly a “fowling-piece”.
Ten gauges are built in weight from seven to fourteen pounds; as
usual, the medium sizes are the most desirable. Barrels vary in length
from twenty-eight to thirty-four inches, or even longer on special
orders, but there is no good reason for going to extremes. Lengths
of thirty-two and thirty-four inches have the most to recommend them
and are generally specified on orders. Ten gauges are manufactured in
double, single barrels, and repeaters, the latter being much esteemed
by market gunners.
American machine loaded shells, ten gauge, are filled with from 3¼
drams of nitro powder, and 1⅛ ounces of shot to 4¼ drams and an ounce
and a quarter. Ten bores were restricted by rule to an ounce and a
quarter of shot in pigeon shooting days, this by way of equalizing the
ten and twelve; subsequently the ten was barred entirely from trap
work, but the manufacturers got into a rut and stayed there so far as
charges for the big gun were concerned. When the ten was at the zenith
of its popularity much heavier loads were in use, and miniature charges
have done much to injure the prestige of a splendid weapon.
The ten gauge duck gun will handle an ounce and a half of shot with
the same facility and deadliness that a twelve bore pigeon gun will an
ounce and a quarter, neither, given a proper amount of metal, will the
recoil exceed that of the twelve and the breech pressure will not be
greater. Foreign gunbuilders recommend charges up to two ounces with
seventy-five grains of nitro powder, but moderation is a good thing
in charging shotguns as in other things. A very effective load for a
twelve pound ten bore is five drams of powder and an ounce and a half
of shot, number five or larger. If smaller pellets are used, or the
piece weighs under the figure mentioned, the load should be reduced.
The cartridges listed by our ammunition people are intended for arms
weighing ten pounds and under.
Ten gauge shells are loaded with all sizes of shot from buckshot to
number tens, but as this bore is only to be recommended where range and
power are requisite, small shot are a waste of energy. The most popular
sizes run from fives for fresh water ducks to threes for geese and
brant. A few shells loaded with BBs might be carried for extremely long
shots at flocks, though flock shooting cannot be commended on the score
of sportsmanship.
Given a weight of from twelve to fourteen pounds and charged up to the
capacity of the gauge, I should consider a ten bore effective on ducks
up to sixty yards with a possibility of tumbling many a bird beyond
that distance. The heavy ten bore, loaded with large shot, driven at
high velocity, should have ten yards the advantage of an ordinary
twelve gauge “game gun”, and this often means all the difference
between a comfortable bag and a scant one.
THE TWELVE GAUGE
Throughout the world the twelve gauge is the standard shotgun for trap
shooting both at live and clay birds. Of all shotguns it is the nearest
to an all purpose weapon, being unequaled for trap shooting under
present conditions, excellent on wildfowl, and as good as the best
for upland work. More twelve bores are manufactured than of all other
gauges combined, and the shells constructed for it are of a variety not
approached by other sizes. Ammunition and gunbuilders have placed the
twelve upon a pedestal and figuratively thrown all the other gauges
into the junk heap.
Writers have insisted that the twelve would handle ten gauge loads
better than would the ten and twenty gauge more effectively than the
twenty. Sportsmen have almost come to believe that the twelve is the
only real shotgun, the remaining gauges being built only for “cranks.”
There is sufficient truth in these claims to make them difficult to
controvert, even if that were worth while, for, as stated, the twelve
is undoubtedly the best all purpose gun now constructed.
Loads have been fitted for it as light as 2½ drams of powder and ⅞
ounce of shot and then the eighth has been split giving ¹⁵⁄₁₆ of an
ounce or an ounce and a sixteenth. The English often use this last
charge on their domesticated, driven partridges and think it just
right. American gunbuilders have insisted upon three drams of powder
and 1⅛ ounce of shot as giving the maximum results with this gauge,
and have bored and regulated their guns for it. However, the practical
marksmen whose bread and butter depend upon results have never agreed
with them, but unanimously favor an ounce and a quarter driven by a
stiff charge of powder.
So long as people are persuaded that the twelve gauge is the only gun
worth owning, freak weapons will necessarily be produced, twelves
weighing as light as five pounds and others pulling the scales at
twelve.
Sportsmen should use the same hard sense in the selection of guns as
in other matters. If their shooting demands a heavy gun and powerful
ammunition, there is nothing in the least unsportsmanlike in selecting
the ten bore, though some “newspaper gunner” has called it a cannon,
and remember that there is a twenty bore built for twenty gauge
ammunition. It would not be worth while to dwell upon this except that
the twelve has been standardized more or less at the expense of the
other sizes larger and smaller. The twelve gauge is a good gun--none
better--,but it is not entirely without limitations. Miniature loads in
a twelve lack a killing velocity, and over charges are simply a pigeon
shooter’s method of “beating the devil around the stump.” Nevertheless
if the sportsman is confined to one gun and has a variety of shooting,
including an occasional day at the traps, then by all means select a
twelve, but have it of reasonable dimensions in proportion to its gauge.
The twelve gauge is built in this country in weights of from five
and three-quarters to twelve pounds, with barrels from twenty-six to
thirty-two inches. As a rule for field work an arm is selected weighing
from six and a half to seven and a half pounds, for trap shooting from
seven and half to eight and a quarter, and special wildfowl guns may
be still heavier. It can be secured in all models, single barrels,
double, repeaters, auto-loaders, and at all prices from the four dollar
“nigger” gun to the seven hundred and fifty dollar work of art. The
featherweight twelve is a foreign affair, serviceable on hand-reared
birds, but not adapted to American shooting. When constructed of
the lightest weights it is an abominable arm and in justice to our
manufacturers it should be stated that they have never favored it,
though they have built some of them to meet foreign competition. If the
twelve is to become an all purpose arm it should closely follow the
dimensions favored by the trapshooters, with metal enough to back up
heavy recoil when powerful loads are demanded.
The lightest machine loaded twelve gauge shells obtainable are those
containing 1¾ drams of black powder and ¾ ounces of shot; the heaviest
are filled with 3¾ drams of powder and 1¼ ounces of shot. Field shots
with medium weight arms are usually content with a load of three
drams and an ounce and an eighth, while three and a quarter drams and
an ounce and a quarter is the standard for clay birds. Ten or a dozen
years ago when live pigeon shooting was in vogue, still more powder
was sometimes thought necessary up to four drams. English authorities
recommend this amount of powder with an ounce and three-eighths of shot
for the heaviest work on wildfowl, but if a gun is to use such charges
it must be built, bored, and chambered especially for them, and then
the writer is inclined to believe that it had better be a ten.
It should be borne in mind that a twelve gauge will not handle large
shot quite so well as a ten bore, and therefore for duck shooting sixes
and sevens usually take the place of the fours and fives found the most
deadly in the larger cartridges. Personally I prefer sevens for the
small ducks and sixes for the large varieties, driven at high velocity.
The field load is not powerful enough for ducks except at modest ranges.
The large shot in a small bore prove to be great cripplers owing to
the openness of the pattern, for it must not be forgotten that it
takes more than one pellet to kill as a rule. Three number sevens are
more liable to kill dead at medium ranges than one BB, yet there are
nearly six times as many of the smaller shot in a load. I have seen a
woodpecker fly fifty yards with a 22 caliber bullet through him and
have known a prairie chicken to struggle along for a quarter of a mile
with a fifty caliber bullet hole in him a trifle far back.
THE SIXTEEN GAUGE
The sixteen gauge is the first of the guns usually termed small bores.
It is a thoroughbred with just the outside diameter of barrels and
general slender strength that unite beauty with utility. This gauge
is a favorite with ladies who spend time afield for the double reason
that its proportions appeal to the esthetic taste and its charge is
effective with no severe recoil.
Should the time ever come when an improvement will be made in shotguns
similar to choke boring, or the increased power that came with nitro
powder, the sixteen would replace the twelve for trap shooting and
general all-round use. Even now it is without a superior for upland
work on such game as snipe, quail, woodcock, and ruffed grouse. Its
standard charge of an ounce of shot is ideal, for medium weight guns,
and when driven with fair velocity is sufficiently deadly for all
practical purposes in the field. Furthermore it is a corking good
little gun in the duck blind as many a keen sportsman can vouch;
indeed, where the birds are decoying well, nothing better need be
desired.
[Illustration: THE SIXTEEN-GAUGE SAUER]
However, the special province of the sixteen is the upland or in any
sport wherein the gun needs to be carried afoot for hours at a time.
For the man who prefers carrying a lightweight gun in his tramps after
quail, for him who would match skill with skill in pursuit of the saucy
“jacks”, for the lonely partridge hunter who requires first of all a
quick eye and a ready hand, I would strongly advise a light sixteen
bore. Should the gunner be able to afford a modest armory of weapons,
too, with one for the trap, another for wildfowl, and an additional arm
for the uplands, then by all means include the sixteen for the daintier
game. You would never employ an elephant rifle to slay a rabbit and
neither should it be necessary to throw an ounce and a quarter of shot
at a four ounce snipe.
Ammunition makers and gunbuilders in catering to the twelve bore have
failed to develop fully the power and utility of the sixteen. Some of
the manufacturers appear to think that the man who prefers to shoot
a small bore is more or less of a comic-opera-sport anyhow, so they
fit him out with a featherweight gun and ammunition so light that he
can harm neither the gun nor the game. Never forget that the weight
of metal in the barrels and the strength of the ammunition are prime
factors in the power of any weapon whatever its gauge.
Sixteen gauges are built of a weight of from five to eight pounds,
the majority of American guns ranging between six and seven pounds.
The barrels are from twenty-six to thirty-two inches long, but the
manufacturers have shown what the writer considers an unfortunate
inclination to recommend short barrels for the sixteen,--this by way of
lightening the gun without reducing strength at the breech. Naturally
a gun that would balance perfectly with thirty inch barrels will not
do so with twenty-six, and a combination of stock and frame heavy
enough for a 7½ pound twelve bore with barrels shortened and lightened
to make the gun weigh six, is deplorable. Thirty inch barrels in a
sixteen bore with the stock cut on finer lines than a twelve make an
especially elegant looking weapon. Should the arm weigh over seven and
a half pounds or be intended for trap and duck shooting, then try the
thirty-two inch barrels.
Should the reader contemplate purchasing a small bore gun after
becoming accustomed to a twelve, I should like to warn him against
making too radical a change either in the weight or length of barrels;
otherwise he may lose that regular time that he has been years in
acquiring and so condemn the gun for what is not its fault. However,
the natural disposition of every man is to use a lighter gun and
smaller gauge as he becomes older.
The sixteen gauge will handle any charge of shot well from ¾ of an
ounce to an ounce and an eighth, but in factory loaded shells there
is no such variation. In shot their cartridges contain either ⅞ of
an ounce or an ounce, driven by from 2¼ to 2¾ drams of powder. The
standard load is 2½ drams and an ounce--a load nicely adapted to
lightweight guns where only moderate power is required. One ounce
of shot is the maximum limit in machine loaded shells, yet in
muzzle-loading days an ounce and a quarter was thrown by these guns
without the gunner becoming aware that he was exceeding a common
sense load. I have known sixteen gauge shells to be used at the trap
with splendid execution charged with an ounce and an eighth of shot
and three drams of powder. Nevertheless manufacturers should not be
criticized too harshly for clinging to light loads since a long shot
column in a small bore adds greatly to the breech pressure, disturbs
the pattern in some guns, and if driven at a high velocity may cause
excessive leading or balling of the shot.
My own load for duck shooting is three drams of powder, well wadded,
and an ounce of seven chilled shot. Shot from a close shooting seven
and a quarter pound gun this load is effective up to forty-five yards,
but it would cause a sharp recoil in any gun weighing under six and
three-fourths pounds. Numbers seven and a half and eight shot give
perfect satisfaction in quail shooting and are just as deadly on snipe
if the gun is not bored too open. I have never found it advisable to
use shot for any kind of game shooting smaller than eight and a half.
What has been said of using large shot in a twelve bore applies with
more force to the sixteen.
[Illustration: PARKER TWENTY-GAUGE; ONE OF THE HANDSOMEST WEAPONS MADE]
[Illustration: THE MARLIN SIXTEEN-GAUGE]
THE TWENTY GAUGE
At present the twenty gauge is attracting a great deal of attention
and no little controversy. Those partial to the little gun take the
rather untenable ground that it is fully as powerful as the large bores
or perhaps even more deadly for some mysterious reason, while the
hard-headed old conservatives will not grant it any utility whatever,
applying to it the terms popgun and grasshopper-killer. As usual the
truth is somewhere between the extremes. Only the man with a fertile
imagination could pronounce it as powerful as a ten gauge, but the
arm that will kill clean and sure up to thirty-five or forty yards
is not to be called a toy. As we have noted in the other gauges, its
effectiveness is much a matter of weight, strength of charge, and the
amount of choke in the barrels.
As will be further exemplified when we come to treating of patterns,
the twenty is for the skilled field shot who can center his bird with
a small pattern time after time. For such as he the twenty affords
added pleasure in field work with practically the same deadliness
as the largest bore. This gauge is not the gun for the pothunter or
the man who takes pride in the size of his bag, but on the score of
sportsmanship everything can be said in its favor.
It is the writer’s deliberate opinion that no shotgun, whatever its
gauge, is to be taken seriously if it weighs under six pounds. A
four and a half pound twenty, loaded with a half ounce of shot, is a
neat plaything for an experienced man, but should not be placed in the
hands of a lady or a novice to discourage them with field shooting and
their ability to handle a gun. Such a featherweight and charge are not
dangerous to game and not worth condemning except as casting reproach
upon a meritorious weapon. However, when the gun is built to weigh
seven pounds and charged with 2¾ drams of powder and an ounce of shot,
as it is in the Southwest, there is another story to be told. The arm
and load, in the section named, are considered amply powerful for wild
ducks, but the shooting is over decoys and not so difficult as it might
be in other localities. Moreover adapting special guns to special uses
does not alter the fact that logically the twenty bore is intended for
the uplands and small game.
The standard machine load for this gauge is 2¼ drams of powder and ⅞
ounce of shot, and so loaded the maximum range of the gun is but five
yards behind that of the twelve bore with its standard charge, both
being used with number eight shot. What the twelve will do at forty
yards the twenty will at thirty-five, and ninety per cent. of upland
game is killed under the latter distance. Ammunition houses list twenty
gauge shells with from two to 2½ drams of powder and from ½ to ⅞ ounces
of shot of various sizes. Handloaded shells are often filled with
heavier charges for special uses in specially built and bored guns. It
is well not to experiment with extreme charges without the consent of
the gunbuilder who should know his weapon better than you can.
American twenty bore guns are constructed in weights of from five
to seven pounds and a half; foreign arms are often built still
lighter. The barrels are the same length as those of the sixteen,
from twenty-six to thirty-two inches. The greatest demand is for guns
weighing from six pounds to six pounds twelve ounces with barrels
twenty-six to thirty inches. I am free to admit a prejudice in
favor of long barrels on the score of balance and accurate holding,
but assuredly a twenty-six inch barreled twenty bore is a better
proportioned piece than a twelve of that length.
For quail shooting number seven and one-half shot had better be
replaced with eights in a twenty bore, the smaller shot giving a more
even pattern and killing well up to the maximum range of the gun,
thirty-five yards. In duck shooting the same size of pellets should
be used as in the sixteen, no further reduction in size of shot being
permissible with such game.
THE TWENTY-EIGHT GAUGE
The twenty-eight has an effective range but two yards behind the
twenty. Up to thirty yards it will account for any game it is held upon
from jack snipe to geese. It will afford a lot of pleasure to the man
whose shooting opportunities are many and whose chief enjoyment comes
from a consciousness of accurate holding and clean work. The velocity
of shot charge in this gauge with standard load is a trifle higher than
any of the larger bores and the little weapon has always been highly
praised by those who have tested it. A full choked twenty-eight will
kill game at as long a range as an improved cylinder twelve, the arm
most often recommended for quail.
The difference between a twelve and a twenty-eight is that long shots
should not be attempted with the little gun, and it will not handle
large shots effectively. The difference in the amount of game bagged
with the twenty-eight and twelve will not be very great in upland
shooting, provided a man is accustomed to shooting with a full choked
gun and can center his bird. No finer holding is required with a full
choked twenty-eight than with a full choke of any other gauge, but the
small charge will not bear being opened up to give spread of pattern.
Machine loaded twenty-eight gauge cartridges are charged with from 1¾
to 2 drams of powder and ½ to ⅝ ounces of shot. Two drams and ⅝ ounces
is the standard load, usually with eight shot for quail, though some
prefer numbers nine or ten. Should the arm be anything but a full
choke, the tens might be preferable in order to thicken the pattern,
but the small pellets are liable to send a good many birds away
crippled. I have always secured excellent results with a high velocity
charge in this gauge, 2⅛ drams of powder and ¾ ounce of shot. In a gun
of sufficient weight it is deadly at ranges several yards greater than
the standard load, in fact has nearly the same power as the standard
twenty.
The recoil of a twenty-eight is so slight that it can be used with
comfort in very light arms. Therefore we find guns of this gauge built
as light as four pounds. American built guns are of more practical
dimensions, coming in weights of from to 5¾ to 6¾ pounds. My own
twenty-eight weighs near seven pounds with thirty inch barrels, but a
shorter and lighter arm would please the majority. Barrel lengths are
from twenty-six to thirty inches.
The man who can own but one gun should not choose the twenty-eight,
but it nicely rounds out an armory and will afford its own share of
recreation and sport.
GUNMAKERS’ TABLE OF WEIGHTS IN PROPORTION TO GAUGE AND LOAD
This table is intended to give a proper load of shot in proportion to
weight of gun for the different gauges. As compared with the large
bores the small bores give a relatively higher breech pressure and
greater recoil with the same amount of shot, and for this reason should
be somewhat heavier in proportion to the load. The rule gives sixteen
ounces of gun for every ⅛ ounce of shot in a twenty-eight, fifteen
ounces of gun to ⅛ ounce of shot in a twenty and thirteen in the twelve
and larger bores. Of the loads and weights of guns given the medium
ones are those in use. Here is the table:
Load Formula Weight of gun.
Gauge Drams. Ounces. lbs. oz.
{ 1¾ ½ 16 × 4 = 64 ÷ 16 = 4 0
{ 2 ⅝ 16 × 5 = 80 ÷ 16 = 5 0
28 { 2⅛ ¾ 16 × 6 = 96 ÷ 16 = 6 0
{ 2¼ ⅞ 16 × 7 = 112 ÷ 16 = 7 0
{ 2⅜ 1 16 × 8 = 128 ÷ 16 = 8 0
{ 2 ½ 15 × 4 = 60 ÷ 16 = 3 12
{ 2⅛ ⅝ 15 × 5 = 75 ÷ 16 = 4 11
20 { 2¼ ¾ 15 × 6 = 90 ÷ 16 = 5 10
{ 2½ ⅞ 15 × 7 = 105 ÷ 16 = 6 9
{ 2¾ 1 15 × 8 = 120 ÷ 16 = 7 8
{ 2¼ ¾ 14 × 6 = 84 ÷ 16 = 5 4
{ 2½ ⅞ 14 × 7 = 98 ÷ 16 = 6 2
16 { 2¾ 1 14 × 8 = 112 ÷ 16 = 7 0
{ 3 1⅛ 14 × 9 = 126 ÷ 16 = 7 14
{ 3¼ 1¼ 14 × 10 = 140 ÷ 16 = 8 12
{ 2½ ⅞ 13 × 7 = 91 ÷ 16 = 5 11
{ 2¾ 1 13 × 8 = 104 ÷ 16 = 6 8
12 { 3 1⅛ 13 × 9 = 117 ÷ 16 = 7 5
{ 3½ 1¼ 13 × 10 = 130 ÷ 16 = 8 2
{ 4 1⅜ 13 × 11 = 143 ÷ 16 = 8 15
{ 3 1 13 × 8 = 104 ÷ 16 = 6 8
{ 3½ 1⅛ 13 × 9 = 117 ÷ 16 = 7 11
10 { 4 1¼ 13 × 10 = 130 ÷ 16 = 8 2
{ 4½ 1⅜ 13 × 11 = 143 ÷ 16 = 8 15
{ 5 1½ 13 × 12 = 156 ÷ 16 = 9 12
{ 5 1½ 13 × 12 = 156 ÷ 16 = 9 12
{ 5½ 1⅝ 13 × 13 = 169 ÷ 16 = 10 9
8 { 6 1¾ 13 × 14 = 182 ÷ 16 = 11 6
{ 6½ 1⅞ 13 × 15 = 195 ÷ 16 = 12 3
{ 7 2 13 × 16 = 208 ÷ 16 = 13 0
CHAPTER XI
CHOKES, PATTERNS, AND VELOCITIES
Boring shotguns has reached its present state of perfection, if we
are permitted to call it such, through a process of evolution. A
decade or so ago all sorts of artifices for throwing shot in a closer
mass were called chokes, though some of them meant a freeing of the
muzzle, others a recess or two recesses where the shot charge spread
and was then contracted. There were recess-chokes, bell-chokes,
multiple-chokes, jug-chokes, and at last taper-chokes. Some of these
styles were fairly effective, others were effective temporarily, and
others are in use at the present time. To-day manufacturers have
settled upon methods of choking their barrels so similar that results
in all our best arms are practically equal.
Many gunbuilders claim that their barrels are a true taper-choke,
the natural inference being that the bore tapers evenly from breech
to muzzle, depending for close shooting qualities upon the gradual
contraction of the charge. The theoretical taper-choke appeals to
the gun buyer who does not like the idea of suddenly upsetting and
jamming his charge with a probability of leading his gun. Theoretically
the taper-choke is perfect, but I doubt if it would work at all in
practice, and neither have I ever been able to find a gun that had it
despite all the claims of manufacturers.
My own belief is that a tube with an even taper from breech to muzzle
so that the load could adjust itself as it passed out would shoot
little if any closer than a plain cylinder. Choke boring, as will
presently appear, depends for its efficacy upon jamming the shot
together at the muzzle with such force that they will cling together
in a mass for some distance after they leave the gun. A gradual
contraction, such as a true taper from breech to muzzle, would not have
this effect.
Full choked guns are constricted at the muzzle from twenty to forty
thousandths of an inch, depending upon the gauge. As might reasonably
be expected, the smaller the bore of the gun the less it will bear
being contracted at the muzzle. In the present styles of choking some
barrels are bored cylindrical to within a few inches of the muzzle
and there contracted, others are freed about the middle of the barrel
and thence gradually narrowed toward the muzzle where they have the
usual choke. Manufacturers are very reluctant about giving the inside
measurements of their barrels, perhaps considering such figures trade
secrets.
The writer has often speculated and theorized as to just what process
a charge of shot undergoes from the time it starts at the breech until
it separates into individual pellets. It would seem, looking at the
matter cursorily, that a true cylinder shotgun, sending every pellet
from the muzzle in a straight line, with the least possible disturbance
of the load, would shoot the closest. So it would, possibly, except
that as soon as they leave the muzzle every individual pellet begins
turning and twisting, giving every contiguous shot a figurative kick
out of the way. They kick one another until they become scattered too
far apart, and by that time every separate pellet is going its own
course at a distinct angle from every other until when they reach the
forty yard target the pattern is six feet across. Indeed I have seen
the outer pellets fifteen feet apart at the distance.
Now what is the reason the pellets from a full choked gun do not begin
to squirm and kick one another the moment they leave the muzzle? When
you have fully decided this point you will know more of the secret
behavior of the shot charge of a choke bored gun than anybody has been
able to tell us heretofore. Some claim that in some mysterious way
when the choke pinches the load together, the shot are set to crossing
one another, those lying on the right side of the charge crossing to
the left and vice versa. At a certain distance these theorists assert
that the pellets begin to cross out and thenceforth the pattern of a
choke bore is no closer than that of a cylinder. In support of this
“crossing-out” theory they point to the fact that a full choked gun
puts perhaps eighty-five per cent. of its charge in a fifteen inch
circle at twenty yards which may be reduced to 65 per cent. at forty
yards in a thirty inch circle.
Another school holds that the shot charge is elongated in passing
through the choke, the forward pellets having their speed accelerated,
the shot flying toward the target in a long string in place of a round
pattern. It has been proved by the simple experiment of shooting at
a rapidly turning wheel that shot do string out as much as sixteen
feet in going one hundred and twenty. So positive are the stringing
out people of the correctness of their theory that they go so far as
to gravely advise the gunner to hold plenty far enough ahead of his
game for, if the leading pellets miss, the bird will fly into this
sixteen-foot string somewhere and surely get killed.
My own belief is that the pellets from a choked gun do not begin
kicking and scattering the moment they leave the tube for the same
reason that they would not if enclosed in a concentrator; _they are
encased in a leaden shell of their own outer pellets_ which have been
dented and welded together by the choke of the gun. The greater the
choke in the barrels the firmer this outer shell of shot is welded, and
the longer it requires to break up with a consequent closer shooting
gun. Let me give some proofs that this theory is at least reasonable
and better accounts for the behavior of a charge of shot from a full
choked gun than any other that has come to my knowledge.
It is an undisputed fact that every time a charge of shot is fired
from a full choked gun thirty per cent. of the load is at once knocked
out and rendered useless for the reason that this percentage of the
pellets are so dented and deformed that they will not fly true and
so fail to reach the target with the remainder of the charge. The
longer the range the more erratic the flight of these defective shot
and as a consequence the gun falls off in its pattern from fifteen to
twenty per cent. These deformed pellets also account sufficiently for
shot-stringing since many of them are so flattened as to retard their
flight. But this does not mean that the body of the charge, the seventy
per cent. of sound pellets, is also stringing and I have no doubt
but that they reach the target practically in a body. Defective and
misshapen pellets entirely account for crossing and “shooting-out,” the
reduced patterns of choke bores at long range, and for stringing of the
shot.
Careful experiments have been made by expert gunborers to see if they
could not invent some system of choking a gun that would utilize this
thirty per cent. of the charge which is now wasted. They were well
aware that in case this could be done the twenty bore would become as
powerful as the present twelve for the reason that the entire charge
would be found in the pattern in place of the seventy per cent. which
is now the best that can be uniformly secured. No success has attended
these experiments for the reason that this thirty per cent. is the
amount of shot necessary to form the shell of lead without which no gun
could shoot a choke-bore pattern. From this it is to be inferred that
an entirely new system of choke boring will be necessary before this
thirty per cent. of waste shot can be rendered available. Should the
new system ever come it will be the greatest of all shotgun inventions.
The theory of a lead encased charge being true, it is to be expected
that if the gun were given too much choke, or the shot were driven
at too high velocity into the choke, the leaden shell would weld too
firmly and fail to break up at the proper time or possibly not at
all. We find this to be the case exactly. Guns that are over-choked
“ball” the shot, a technical way of saying that part of the shell
welds so firmly that it will not break up. Costly experiences have so
well convinced the manufacturers of this that they now wisely refuse
to attempt to turn out a gun choked closer than the usual seventy per
cent. It is this welding and balling of the shot also that is now
handicapping the gunbuilders in their attempt to turn out high velocity
shotguns. If the charge is given a few hundred feet increased muzzle
velocity above the present standard, the shot will ball in a choke
bore, and the pellets in the opener guns will kick one another so much
harder that the pattern is invariably ruined.
It is evident that soft shot would be more subject to the welding
process than chilled, and so we find that soft shot are never
recommended for high-pressure loads in a choke-bore gun. Granted that
it is necessary for a full choked gun to jam the shot and weld a case,
then if the shot were so hardened that they could not dent into one
another, no closer pattern could be obtained from a choke bore than
from a cylinder. Experiments with steel shot have proved this to be an
exact statement of the truth for they will not make any closer pattern
in a choked barrel than one bored cylinder.
It was supposed that steel pellets might place the entire charge within
the thirty inch because none of them would be upset, but instead they
scattered like shot from a rifle barrel. What has been said of full
chokes applies to any modification, though in less degree.
EVENNESS OF PATTERN
While full choked guns with the closest pattern are necessary for some
purposes, as trap shooting and work on ducks, and the development of
choke boring has added greatly to the power of all shotguns, yet it is
a comparatively simple matter to secure these dense patterns compared
with obtaining an even spread of the shot. In this respect gunbuilders
have made very small progress this past twenty years, their patterns
being little if any more even than those of the old muzzle-loaders.
The diagram shows a forty yard target of 260 shot, that of a modified
choke twelve gauge, drawn to indicate what an ideal shotgun pattern
should be. Owing to its regularity this modified pattern would be more
effective than that of any full choke of 300 shot such as we can now
obtain from the most carefully bored guns. Nothing could escape such
a shot charge as this from quail to clay birds, and neither would it
tear up and riddle the game in the manner of many close shooting guns.
Patchy patterns lead to a gun mutilating one bird and missing the next
at a like distance, for if one spot has a dense clump of shot another
must be open.
[Illustration: From a modified choke, showing an idealized evenness of
pattern]
Close shooting or density of pattern is a mere matter of correct
mechanics, but with our present skill in gunboring uniformity is in
a degree dependent on luck, for the most skilled gunborer, cutting
his tube to the exact thousandth of an inch, cannot foresee with any
certainty that his barrel is going to make an even spread. He can,
however, usually much improve the shooting of a barrel by carefully
retouching it, but no matter what the experience of the mechanic he
can never make two barrels that will pattern exactly alike, and it
follows that only on rare occasions is a perfect shooting barrel turned
out. This explains why our great trapshots may try fifty guns before
finding one that patterns up to the standard they require, and why when
such a piece is obtained it is considered invaluable.
The acme of perfection in shotgun boring is to secure an even spread
of shot in a close shooting, full choke gun, because, as we have seen,
the very principle of choke boring promotes patchiness rather than
uniformity. In my own experience I have always had the best luck in
securing a regular spread from guns modified a trifle, say those making
a target of from 60 to 65 per cent. of the charge. Nevertheless there
is no arm that I should appreciate so highly as the full seventy per
cent. barrel that uniformly covered the thirty inch circle.
Every new gun ought to be tested and the pattern analyzed before
purchasing. The plate shows the method of doing this. Mark off the
target into squares of a size dependent upon the game to be killed and
diameter of the shot pellets; for quail with number seven and one-half
or eight shot, three inch squares, for ducks, four inch. Count three
shot as the number necessary to kill with certainty and less as a
cripple, no shot in the square, a miss. Analyze several targets and
if on the average at forty yards twenty-five per cent. of the squares
indicate misses or cripples reject the gun. If you can obtain a gun
that will not miss or cripple once in ten shots at the distance it is
an extraordinary weapon.
[Illustration: Method of analyzing a pattern. Circle 32 inches in
diameter, squares four inches. Full squares show six cripples, no
misses. Would be effective on ducks up to fifty yards.]
The faults of choke-bore guns are shooting too much to center and
patchy patterns. Cylinder and slightly choked guns are apt to throw
variable patterns, one perhaps containing two hundred shot and the
next a hundred and thirty. It is more difficult to get a round pattern
too with a cylinder gun, since very frequently they string the shot up
and down or in some other direction. Every barrel needs to be tested
carefully whether it is choked or cylinder for some develop one fault
and others another. Not infrequently a tube may place the bulk of its
shot high, leaving the lower half of the circle thinly covered or the
reverse. I have seen some guns fill up one corner densely with load
after load to the detriment of the remainder of the target.
Guns may pattern better with one size of shot or load of powder than
another, so it is well to experiment with the arm until its strong
points and idiosyncrasies are fully understood.
Guns may have any degree of choke from full to a plain cylinder, but
for purposes of comparison and illustration we will adopt the factory
terms of full choke, or 70 per cent., half choke or 60 per cent.,
quarter choke or 50 per cent., improved cylinder or 40 per cent., plain
cylinder or 30 per cent. The illustration shows the size of circle
in which these various degrees of choke throw their patterns. For
practical purposes barrels should be given a degree of choke dependent
first upon the use for which they are intended, second the skill of the
user, and third the gauge.
[Illustration: Size of circle in which various degrees of choke of any
gauge will throw their pattern]
In calculating the degree of choke you would place in your gun barrels,
do away with all preconceived notions as to the close shooting of small
bores, for every gun of whatever gauge shoots into precisely the same
size of circle if given a like amount of choke. Every full choked gun
from an eight to a twenty-eight will pattern with its 70 per cent. into
circle 1, or the thirty inch, half chokes into circle 2, quarter into
3, and so on. This has been proved beyond any possibility of question
and every manufacturer will confirm it.
The use you would make of your gun should be governed by its power,
and power is directly dependent upon pattern or the number of shot
that can regularly be placed in the game. Of course this statement
might be modified by the velocity of the charge, but in standard loads
velocities of all gauges are so nearly equal that at present we can
leave velocity out of the question and consider power as a simple
matter of pattern and size of shot.
Certain kinds of work, either at the traps or in the field, necessitate
a given amount of power, and power is pattern. All guns, whatever their
gauge, that pattern 300 are of like power, other things being equal.
This 300 target is considered the minimum for a reliable weapon to be
used at the trap or on wildfowl, and it can only be secured in twelve
and larger bores. It follows that as now bored no gun smaller than a
twelve is quite powerful enough for trap and duck shooting. However,
a sixteen will target 280 shot with its ordinary charge of an ounce
or with an ounce and a sixteenth will reach the required 300, and we
therefore find it fairly deadly on wildfowl.
Guns smaller than sixteen should be confined to the uplands. This 300
pattern will cut up quail considerably or any game that is shot at
distances below thirty yards, and is therefore rather a special purpose
than a general service arm.
For an all-round gun, a weapon excellent on wildfowl and the trap and
unexcelled elsewhere, I should incline to favor a pattern of from 250
to 275 shot. This can be secured from a half choked twelve or a full
choked sixteen. A target of 245 shot is obtainable from the twenty bore
and therefore it will do on a pinch should the owner be confined to the
one gun. Nevertheless a man will find himself handicapped considerably
who is obliged to shoot ducks or face the traps with a light twenty
bore.
Patterns of from 225 to 250 are strictly for the uplands where they
will safely account for every species of game up to thirty-five yards
or more. Twelve gauges 50 per cent, or quarter chokes, will afford
this target and half choked sixteens or full choked twenties. Either
of these arms, bored as given, are perfectly capable of accomplishing
everything required of an upland gun.
A pattern of 200 shot is about as light as a sportsman can use without
undue cruelty through crippling game. It is only adapted to the uplands
and will be found much more deadly on quail and partridge than on other
birds. It is not a safe load beyond thirty to thirty-three yards. This
target can be obtained from an improved cylinder twelve, a quarter
choked sixteen, a half choked twenty, and a full choked twenty-eight,
any one of which is a very good quail gun, though requiring different
degrees of skill to handle them effectively.
Short range guns, or those with patterns of less than 200 shot, have
been used on quail and are very effective in the brush, but there is
a constant temptation to use them at ranges longer than the pattern
warrants, as a consequence pricking and wounding a great many birds
that go away to die.
Keeping in mind that even for the uplands the lowest permissible
pattern is 200, it will be apparent that really small bore like the
twenty and the twenty-eight should never be modified below a half choke
which would cover thirty-six inches at forty yards. If you are unable
to place a circle of shot of this diameter on your game be content
to shoot a larger bore that will permit a further modifying without
sacrificing deadliness to an unsportsmanlike extent.
It is hardly necessary to mention here a proceeding that would
naturally be followed by most men, that of using one pattern or degree
of choke for the right barrel and a closer one for the left. In a
twelve gauge a half choke for the first barrel and full for the second
makes a more killing duck gun in the hands of any one but an expert
than to have both barrels full choked. I have observed also that a
pattern of 225 for the first barrel and 275 for the second is about
the right thing for the average man in the uplands. The principle of
different degrees of choke for either barrel applies to all gauges
except the trap gun and the twenty-eight, both of which should be used
in full choke only.
Here are some patterns of ten, twelve, sixteen, twenty, and
twenty-eight gauge with standard loads in numbers eight, seven and
one-half, seven, and six shot, full choke, half choke, quarter choke,
improved cylinder, and plain cylinder.
FULL CHOKE (70 PER CENT. OF CHARGE)
gauge ounces shot pattern
10 1¼ 8 350.
12 1⅛ 8 315.
16 1 8 280.
20 ⅞ 8 245.
28 ¾ 8 210.
10 1¼ 7½ 301.
12 1⅛ 7½ 271.
16 1 7½ 241.
20 ⅞ 7½ 211.
28 ¾ 7½ 181.
10 1¼ 7 254.
12 1⅛ 7 228.
16 1 7 196.
20 ⅞ 7 178.
28 ¾ 7 153.
10 1¼ 6 190.
12 1⅛ 6 171.
16 1 6 152.
20 ⅞ 6 133.
28 ¾ 6 114.
HALF CHOKE (60 PER CENT. OF CHARGE)
gauge ounces shot pattern
10 1¼ 8 300.
12 1⅛ 8 270.
16 1 8 240.
20 ⅞ 8 210.
28 ¾ 8 180.
10 1¼ 7½ 260.
12 1⅛ 7½ 233.
16 1 7½ 207.
20 ⅞ 7½ 181.
28 ¾ 7½ 155.
10 1¼ 7 217.
12 1⅛ 7 196.
16 1 7 174.
20 ⅞ 7 152.
28 ¾ 7 130.
10 1¼ 6 163.
12 1⅛ 6 147.
16 1 6 130.
20 ⅞ 6 114.
28 ¾ 6 98.
QUARTER CHOKE (50 PER CENT. OF CHARGE)
gauge ounces shot pattern
10 1¼ 8 250.
12 1⅛ 8 225.
16 1 8 200.
20 ⅞ 8 175.
28 ¾ 8 150.
10 1¼ 7½ 216.
12 1⅛ 7½ 194.
16 1 7½ 172.
20 ⅞ 7½ 150.
28 ¾ 7½ 128.
10 1¼ 7 181.
12 1⅛ 7 162.
16 1 7 145.
20 ⅞ 7 127.
28 ¾ 7 109.
10 1¼ 6 136.
12 1⅛ 6 122.
16 1 6 109.
20 ⅞ 6 95.
28 ¾ 6 81.
IMPROVED CYLINDER (40 PER CENT. OF CHARGE)
gauge ounces shot pattern
10 1¼ 8 200.
12 1⅛ 8 180.
16 1 8 160.
20 ⅞ 8 140.
28 ¾ 8 120.
10 1¼ 7½ 177.
12 1⅛ 7½ 154.
16 1 7½ 138.
20 ⅞ 7½ 120.
28 ¾ 7½ 102.
10 1¼ 7 145.
12 1⅛ 7 130.
16 1 7 116.
20 ⅞ 7 102.
28 ¾ 7 87.
10 1¼ 6 108.
12 1⅛ 6 98.
16 1 6 87.
20 ⅞ 6 76.
28 ¾ 6 65.
PLAIN CYLINDER (30 PER CENT. OF CHARGE)
gauge ounces shot pattern
10 1¼ 8 150.
12 1⅛ 8 135.
16 1 8 120.
20 ⅞ 8 105.
28 ¾ 8 90.
10 1¼ 7½ 129.
12 1⅛ 7½ 116.
16 1 7½ 103.
20 ⅞ 7½ 90.
28 ¾ 7½ 77.
10 1¼ 7 108.
12 1⅛ 7 98.
16 1 7 87.
20 ⅞ 7 76.
28 ¾ 7 65.
10 1¼ 6 81.
12 1⅛ 6 73.
16 1 6 65.
20 ⅞ 6 57.
28 ¾ 6 49.
Some deductions can readily be made from these patterns. The larger
bores have the greatest power for either one of two reasons, in any
size of shot they make the denser pattern or they will place as many
shot of one size in the target, say seven and one-half, as the next
narrower gauge will eights. Every time you open the pattern of your gun
one degree you in effect reduce the power to that of the next gauge
lower. Reduce the choke of a twelve to sixty per cent. and you have in
range and power only a sixteen gauge; reduce it to a quarter choke and
the range drops to that of a twenty; still further open the twelve to
an improved cylinder and you have a weapon of like power and range with
the twenty-eight.
Select the maximum range at which you have determined your gun must
kill regularly--we will call it thirty-five yards--,a pattern of 225
to 250 will accomplish the work, and you can secure the required
effectiveness from a twenty full choke, a sixteen half choke, or a
twelve quarter choke. The principle should always be remembered that
every time you widen the pattern you reduce the range. To make this
plainer when you spread the pattern six inches, that is from a full
choke to a half choke, you shorten the killing range three yards.
Reckoning thus, a full choked twelve will be as effective at forty
yards as a plain cylinder twelve will at twenty-five. Opening the
pattern of a twenty to a straight cylinder will reduce its range from
thirty-five to twenty yards, and no shotgun is a practical weapon that
will not kill regularly with one barrel or the other up to at least
thirty yards.
SHOT VELOCITIES
The average gunner is liable to consider the flight of a charge of shot
from gun to game as instantaneous, like the negro’s “smoke wagon”,
“when it starts it’s thar,” but science comes along with facts that
are not to be denied. In standard loads number seven shot flies over a
forty yard course at the rate of 850 feet a second, and during the time
the pellets are on the way a speedy sprinter would move over four feet
and be entirely out of danger. If the shot charge was in the shape of a
great black ball we could watch it move up to and strike the target. At
the two hundred yard butts the writer has often curiously observed the
bullets in their flight to the target, noted their curve at a little
past mid-range, and could tell within a few inches of where the lead
would land--this was rendered possible by the burning lubricant on the
missile which left behind a faint blue smoke.
The matter of speed of flight in birds will be treated later, but at
present it is sufficient to say that some species of wildfowl get up
a speed only six times slower than that of the shot charge. Keeping
this in mind, we can better appreciate the necessity for the utmost
practicable velocity of shot, not only for the reason that less
allowance would have to be made for rapidly flying birds, but because
penetration on game is directly dependent on velocity.
As has been hinted in a previous chapter, shot could be given a
much higher velocity than is now the standard, and many progressive
sportsmen are demanding such ammunition. Gunbuilders and cartridge
firms are busily experimenting with a view to meeting this demand some
time in the future. They are very reluctant to change the standard
velocity of their cartridges, however, because they are now regulated
scientifically to suit our present systems of shotgun boring. If shot
charges are to be given a higher velocity, then gunbuilders must set
the pace by inventing some new system of boring that will permit a
high rate of progress of shot through their tubes without ruining the
pattern.
The standard velocity of shotgun charges has been fixed at 1,050 feet
over a twenty-yard course, and much experimenting has led the cartridge
people to conclude that this is about the highest velocity consistent
with even and regular patterns. To be sure, many guns will make a good
target with a higher velocity charge, but others will not and the
manufacturers are forced to remember the weakest link in the chain.
Nevertheless higher velocity charges will come some time because they
are possible, and since they would greatly simplify the problems of
wing-shooting the demand for them will become insistent.
Manufacturers endeavor to give all their loads of whatever gauge and
size of shot approximately the same initial velocity; when the shot
charge is reduced they load a less amount of powder to correspond.
Of course the large shot retain their speed for a longer time, the
difference in speed of number ones and tens at forty yards being 175
feet. This does not mean that the larger shot would be a hundred and
seventy-five feet in advance of the smaller, but the big pellets would
be eighteen to twenty feet in advance, and when they might strike the
game the small shot would pass behind. All of which emphasizes, not
only the need of a high muzzle velocity, but also the use of a size of
shot which will retain this velocity to the greatest extent up to the
maximum range.
Taking sevens, or pigeon shot, as a basis for calculating velocities,
we find that with a mean velocity of 1,050 feet over the first twenty
yards of the course, this has fallen to 850 feet at forty yards, and
750 at fifty yards. Experiments have proved that it takes a velocity of
750 feet to kill live pigeons with seven shot and nearly as much for
quail. We could therefore fix upon fifty yards as the limit of range
for seven shot whatever the gauge or load, though of course they might
occasionally kill at longer distances through luckily striking a vital
part. Number eight shot could only retain this necessary 750 feet of
killing velocity up to forty-five yards which could be fixed as the
maximum range of eights. Smaller shot would be still more restricted
down to thirty yards for number ten shot on quail. Duck shot, sixes and
fives, should maintain a killing penetration up to sixty yards.
Naturally the larger the shot, the greater their execution even with
like velocities, which would lead to the inference that relatively
large shot should be used in all instances, and so they should except
for the absolute necessity of maintaining a sufficient density of
pattern. A rifle bullet is more deadly than any size of shot, yet is
perfectly useless in wing-shooting, for in order to kill you must first
hit. It is usually considered that three shot or more are essential
to a kill, the chances being that one of them will reach a vital spot
and produce instant death. Less than this number may mean a cripple,
no matter what the size of shot or its velocity and hence we must not
sacrifice pattern even to secure increased penetration.
As has been shown, the size of the shot has much to do with both its
velocity over the range and killing power, but the maximum size of shot
that can be used is limited by the gauge of our gun and the way it is
bored. The futility of shooting large shot in small gauges, open-bored,
is shown in the diagram where three-quarter ounce of four shot is
driven at a velocity high enough to kill, but with only a remote
possibility of striking the bird with enough pellets.
With all this we return to the original proposition of large shot, big
bores, and heavy charges as being necessary to execution at long range.
The prime factors of power are: pattern, velocity, and size of shot. We
might reverse the order and say that the size of the shot which it will
handle effectively limits the twelve bore to fifty yards, the sixteen
to forty-five, the twenty to forty.
Progress in gunboring has now reached a standstill from the fact noted
that patterns cannot be maintained with charges much in excess of the
standard 1,050 feet over a twenty-yard range. If this difficulty can be
overcome and shot given a speed several hundred feet higher than is at
present possible, power will at once be greatly augmented, the sixteen
becoming as effective as the present twelve and so on.
It is not believed that any permanent limit has been reached in the
boring of shotguns, or that some system of boring will not finally
be developed that will permit high velocities while still retaining
and even improving patterns. The matter is in the hands of sportsmen
who can stimulate ingenuity by making their wants known. As one
manufacturer puts it, we do not make more powerful weapons because
the present output is good enough and meets every demand. But that is
neither progress nor history.
[Illustration: Shows the futility of shooting large shot in small,
open-bored gauges. Left side, pattern of eight gauge, full choke, forty
yards; right, twenty gauge cylinder; same size shot.]
CHAPTER XII
THE CARE OF THE GUN
Nothing so surely betrays the village would-be-sport, the city bum on a
rampage, the country ne’er do well loafing about the fields, as an old,
rusty gun. Whatever the gunner’s knowledge of shooting, be he novice or
expert, he can at least have his hunting arm in good condition. Many
a man, who must, perforce, wear standing collars all week and two on
Sundays, prefers old clothes in the woods, though to my mind this is a
mistake, for clean and beautiful game like quail and deer deserve other
things in keeping. But whatever excuse the sportsman may find for an
unkempt appearance, he can have none for an ill kept gun.
An old gun that has seen long and strenuous service yet is free of
rust, with well oiled stock and locks ringing only the clearer for
the mellowing of time, is one of the proper sources of a sportsman’s
pride. Moreover the man who takes care of his gun will learn to shoot
it, because the brains and application that lead to one result will
compass the other. Sporting writers have a fondness for comparing the
work of a rank beginner and his new gun with some old rusty firelock in
the hands of a veteran, the natural inference from this being that it
requires a corroded, powder-burnt old piece to kill game. All this is
merely second-hand wit that has been passed along as being too funny to
lose.
Shooting is a great sport, one of the finest in the world, and should
not be disgraced by the use of poor tools. Bicycles and their sprucely
dressed riders were a picturesque feature of our country roads at one
time, but the machine rapidly lost favor when the country boy, tying
a shoestring about the bottoms of his blue overalls, began taking the
place of the red sweater and golf stocking brigade. Dress baseball
players in the clothing of a greasy machinist and even that game would
be killed in a few years.
The man, and emphatically the woman, who will not dress smartly afield
has no business there; they are a disgrace to the game they pursue and
a blot on the glowing autumn foliage. Secure as handsome an outfit as
can be afforded, therefore, including the gun, and then take care of
the weapon, such care that it will become only handsomer with age and
use. This chapter is strictly for the tyro, with intent to instruct him
in the due care of his arm. Lecturing the older hand, who knows how but
will not, is, in the words of the lamented Peter Cartwright, “no better
than preaching psalms to a dead horse.”
In the first place remember that a gun is bought to be used, and is
not to be considered too fine to withstand any sort of weather that
the shooter himself is willing to hazard. I can recall an old Dutchman
who stopped to wipe the rain drops from his new Greener gun until his
dog, becoming impatient, flushed the bevy it was standing. Then the
German threw his gun down in the mud to whip the dog. Your most costly
gun ought to stand up under the hardest use if it is cared for at the
proper time, and that time is always at the end of the day’s work.
Neither should there be one gun for actual service and another to rest
in the cabinet and look pretty.
A gentleman’s clothes always look well. The business man shaves as
regularly as he eats breakfast. The hardest campaign doesn’t prevent a
West Pointer from creasing his trousers every time he has a chance to
pull them off, and the sportsman should never allow his gun to go over
night with burnt powder in it. No matter how tired he may be, the gun
must be cleaned before he can sleep with any sort of an easy conscience.
The process is simple, and five minutes will do the trick perfectly.
The ordinary proceeding is to run two or three flannel or canton
flannel rags through the barrels, followed by some description of a
scratch brush to loosen the lead; then another clean rag, and lastly
the oiler. If too much oil has been left in the barrels run a dry
rag through them in the morning before beginning to shoot. Having
finished the inside, go over the outside with an oiled rag, removing
all traces of moisture, even that which may have been left by the
fingers in handling the arm. The whole process should require little
more time than pulling off and putting on the shoes. When the practice
of cleaning the arm every night while it is in use becomes habitual it
will no longer be considered irksome, neither will the piece pit or
rust even when shot over salt water.
When forced to tramp through the rain, or should the barrels become wet
in other ways, and you are not in a position to clean the gun at once,
shoot the water out. Occasionally refuge may be taken in some house
where there are no facilities for cleaning the gun, and in that case
fire a couple of shells through the barrels before entering, and again
at night just before retiring if the gun cannot be cleaned in some
other way.
Prevention is better than cure, but if rust has been allowed to form in
the tubes, never rest until it comes out. Like the farmer’s crops, rust
grows while you sleep, unless you kill it. Several firms are making
rust removers as well as rust preventatives, and some of these will be
found to facilitate the removal of the deposits. A good wire scratch
brush and plenty of rubbing will always be found effective unless the
pits are of long standing and very deep. It might then be necessary
to take the arm to a gunsmith, but I always do this with reluctance,
since he is liable to run a cutting tool through the barrels, thus
altering the pattern.
The following implements should always be carried on shooting trips: a
good strong, jointed rod, preferably of brass, a four or six row wire
scratch brush or some contrivance that will take its place and a felt
oiler together with a bottle of oil. Never put oil into the barrels
until you are sure every bit of moisture has been removed. Otherwise
the oil will collect in spots, leaving the water to work its will with
the steel. With the first series of dry rags rub so briskly as to
produce considerable friction; when the barrels begin to heat you can
be sure that they are dry inside.
Where rust forms persistently, as it will in some climates, it is
desirable to use heavier oils than ordinary sperm or petroleum
products. This applies especially where the weapon may be set aside
for some time; then I have never found anything better than heavy
black machine oil of a kind almost similar to that used in lubricating
automobiles. I have never known one of my guns to rust when thoroughly
coated with this black oil after being well cleaned, for it absolutely
prevents the air from coming in contact with the polished steel. My
own practice at the close of the season is to wipe out and oil the arm
as usual, then set it away for a couple of days. If at the expiration
of that time no rust can be observed I coat with the heavy oil and set
the weapon away perhaps for weeks, perfectly assured that it will be
found in splendid shape months later. This sort of oil should always
be rubbed out before shooting the gun, and is therefore not desirable
where the arm is in daily use.
Pouring boiling water through a tube until it becomes too hot to hold
in the naked hand is an effective manner of killing rust. Occasionally
pits are formed too deep for the scratch brush to reach the bottom
of them, and then boiling water will be found the simplest means of
checking further mischief. The heat of the barrels will evaporate all
the water, but follow up with some energetic swabbing with dry rags and
then oil.
The locks and action mechanism will not require overhauling very often
unless the piece has been badly exposed, as by dropping into water. In
that case take the gun to pieces at the first opportunity. Having no
knowledge of mechanics, especially gun mechanics, or lacking proper
tools, go to a gunsmith rather than risk marring a fine action. Once a
year you should go through the piece from end to end by way of making
sure that no rust has formed anywhere. Some of our guns, at least those
with the box-locks, are difficult for an amateur to take to pieces. By
way of obviating this difficulty many English arms are being built with
hand-detachable locks both in the box and side plate. This manner of
lock fastening is no doubt a positive advantage in shooting over salt
water, as the locks could be cleaned and oiled as regularly as the
barrels without any possibility of marring screw heads or disarranging
other parts.
Finding that rust has formed on springs or other portions of the action
mechanism, do not be tempted to use a file in removing; a spring might
thus be weakened or some other vital part. A little emery polish can
do no harm if carefully wiped off before oiling. Should this not fully
remove the deposits send the arm to a gunsmith or back to the factory.
Remember that as a rule the ordinary gunner does more harm than good
when he begins tinkering with the locks of his gun.
Be careful that your scratch brush is not made of steel sufficiently
hard to cut the polish out of the barrels; the ordinary saucer-shaped
little brush will do this with regularity and certainty. However, the
four or eight row brushes are made of softer metal which I have not
found to do any harm. The Lefever Gun Cleaner is an excellent tool. It
has pliable steel plates, armed with soft steel teeth, and so bent as
to contract and expand with the variations in the bore, keeping the
teeth bearing evenly throughout. The brass covered rubber bulbs will do
this also just as effectively.
If your stock is oil finished and not varnished a filling oil should
be rubbed into it occasionally. By hard rubbing with an oiled rag the
wood can be kept in as good shape as when it left the factory, or even
improved in appearance. Dents and scratches can thus be rubbed out if
not too deep, and with the polishing the grain and curl of the wood
become more apparent.
Barrels of modern compressed steel do not dent easily, but if you are
so unfortunate as to strike them with sufficient force to mar them
they had best go back to the factory. No ordinary shooter or jackleg
gunsmith should attempt to hammer dents out of a pair of barrels.
Take care of your gun in crossing wire fences or the result will be a
certain marring of the fore-end. There is a great temptation to press
down a wire in crossing such fences with the gun and nine pieces in ten
where they have seen much service in a cattle country show the effect
of it. A rebounding wire is very apt to catch the stock, too, cutting
into it so deeply as to be past remedy.
Open and close the arm carefully, without any sudden jerks or extreme
force. I have known more than one cocking hook to be broken clean off
by the shooter yanking open his gun under excitement. Modern guns are
made pretty strong, but they shouldn’t be expected to stand as much
rough usage as a jack-screw. Snapping the locks with the shell chambers
empty is a bad habit. It is like striking a heavy fist blow into the
empty air and any boxer can tell you how that feels. Put spent shells
into the arm should you desire to practice snapping and aiming.
Procure a good heavy sole leather case in which to carry your gun when
traveling. Possibly the weapon will have to be submitted to the tender
mercies of a baggage master at odd times, and goodness knows what he
will do to it. He may hang it on the side of the car and allow it
to fall or drop on an iron bound trunk; maybe the trunk will do the
dropping with the gun beneath it. Under such circumstances the stock
might be cracked or the barrels bent. Traveling in a wagon with the arm
lying at the bottom and bumping over a rough road is not much better,
but it is safer than for a half dozen men to crowd into one wagon,
holding their naked guns in hand with the invariable result of striking
the barrels roughly together. Horseback work is especially hard upon
the gun which should be encased in a heavy scabbard, preferably one
lined with sheepskin possessing a dense fleece.
Occasionally even a careful gunner will drop his weapon upon the
ground. When this happens always look through the barrels to be sure
that no dirt or other deposit has found its way into them. I have known
several barrels to be burst by having a very small amount of dirt in
the muzzle; even soft snow may do the same thing. Should there be
anything in the barrel clean it out carefully. In one instance that
fell under my observation the shooter removed a bit of earth with a
stick, and the next charge tore the barrel off. Do not permit any boy
or other irresponsible person to fool with your gun, and do not loan
it to your best friend--give him another one.
I can only repeat: make the nightly cleaning of your piece an
invariable habit, not to be omitted under any circumstances. No more
think of going to bed with your gun dirty than sleeping with your wet
boots on. If you make any excuse and fail of your duty to the faithful
piece just once, the thing will grow upon you, and shortly the arm will
be in such condition as to be considered not worth cleaning. Remove
lead with elbow grease and a scratch brush, depending mostly upon the
elbow.
PART II
SCIENCE OF WING-SHOOTING
CHAPTER I
WING-SHOOTING PROBLEMS
In wing-shooting an object in motion must be struck by missiles from
an arm also in motion. The whole science of wing-shooting consists
in delivering a charge of shot, not directly at the flying target,
but to a point where the bird will be when the charge reaches it. A
woman novelist states the matter very naïvely when telling her sister
sportswomen how to shoot English sparrows with a 22 rifle. Incidentally
the lady cleverly demonstrates that she possesses all those qualities
of lively imagination so requisite in a writer of “fiction for girls.”
According to the authoress she early discovered that when attempting
to hit the little birds while they were sitting she missed because of
their springing away with the flash of the gun, but when she jumped
them and shot _where they would be when the bullet got there_ she
killed them every time. Wing-shooting is as simple as that, merely
shoot exactly where the bird will be when the shot gets there and
success is certain, even with a rifle.
Many of us have had more trouble to do this with a shotgun, however,
than this feminine writer of fiction seems to have found with a
rifle, hence this book on the science of wing-shooting. If the birds
invariably flew in the same direction with a motion as even as the
flight of an arrow, at one unvarying rate of speed, and the gunner knew
how to gauge the speed and angle to the fraction of an inch, possessing
at the same time the mechanical regularity of a machine in every
movement he made, I see no reason why he should not be as successful as
the lady.
In field shooting every separate shot may afford its own individual
problem which must be solved instantly if the game is to be killed.
Wing-shooting problems are highly complex, moreover, because nearly
every factor is unknown. The only factor, indeed, that is absolutely
known, or should be, is that when the gun is held right the bird is
killed. The death of the bird proves, _per se_, that the problem was
correctly solved, and there is no other correct solution. Reasoning
backward from results we know that the mind stated the unknown factors
with truth and reckoned from them without error. However, suppose the
bird were missed, the question then is to learn which of the unknown
factors was misstated, and here our difficulties begin. It reminds me
of a department in an old arithmetic of my father’s which was called
supposition. You supposed such and such to be the case, and this
governed a second unknown quantity, which finally led to solving the
problem provided your first supposition had been correct; otherwise you
tried again--in wing-shooting at another bird.
The unknown factors in wing-shooting are the behavior of the shot
charge and where it has gone when you miss; the direction, rate of
speed, and evenness of flight of the target; the mechanical ability
of the gunner to perform certain acts with absolute regularity and
precision; the behavior of the shooter’s mind and nerves under varying
degrees of tension.
If only one of these unknown quantities were known, fixed, and stable
it would immensely facilitate learning to shoot on the wing. For
instance, if our shot charge went up to the target in the shape of a
ball, approximately thirty inches in diameter, that we could see strike
or miss the target, we could all learn more of this art in a year than
we now do in a lifetime. The expert shot can frequently tell why he
has missed and where his charge went, but not so the novice for whom
we are writing. Even the most experienced are frequently puzzled as
to the cause of missing, though in their case it merely adds to the
fascination of the game which would lose in interest if made too easy.
In the same way if we could shoot at game which had an undeviating
line of flight, with angles that never changed and a speed that never
varied, striking the mark would be greatly simplified. We would
then have conditions similar to those that govern trap shooting at
artificial birds where high scores are made with such regularity as to
become monotonous.
Given a shot charge that could be seen and a target at known angles
whose rate of flight never changed, and we would still have two
unstable factors to contend with; the inability to make a perfect
mechanical machine of the human body and poor team work on the part of
brain and nerves. Mechanically, nature has endowed us differently. A
man may be able to draw one straight line, but if you tell him to draw
ten, one of them will be crooked; some other can draw ten straight
lines but will fail before reaching a hundred. The more difficult the
task and the longer continued, the higher the degree of mechanical
skill required. An expert modern trapshot is simply a great mechanic
and nothing else, but a high degree of mechanical skill is a requisite
in every description of wing-shooting. Nevertheless it is only _one_ of
the factors that lead to success in live bird shooting.
The action of an individual’s mind and nerves under varying degrees
of excitement is one of the shooting factors that are extremely hard
to control. Reliable work can only be accomplished by the man whose
mind and nerves have been trained to that very sort of thing. They must
work with automatic rapidity, without effort, under all circumstances.
Pulling the three-pound trigger of a shotgun is a very simple thing but
it takes one man six times as long to accomplish it as it does another,
or the trigger may be pressed in four-hundredths of a second ordinarily
but under excitement will be pulled in one-hundredth of a second. If
one pull places the charge upon the bird the other would probably miss
it.
It might be well to illustrate some of the shooting principles
mentioned. A quail is passing the gun at a distance of twenty yards and
the arm is aligned two feet ahead of the bird and fired, resulting in
a kill. Now the student of wing-shooting has an apparent foundation to
work upon, one of his unknown factors has become a fixed quantity; a
bird crossing at right angles, twenty yards distant, can be killed by
holding two feet in advance. But the next bird that affords a similar
shot is a duck and shooting two feet in front of it scores a clean
miss. His theory of holding two feet ahead of the target proved wrong
in this case and he must find reasons. By and by it may occur to him
that the duck was flying faster than the quail, forty feet a second
faster. The necessity of closely calculating the speed of flight of
the target is thus strongly impressed, and it dawns upon him that one
of the unknown factors, speed of flight, can never become a fixed
quantity, but must always be estimated, and upon his sound judgment
depends his skill as a shot.
The next duck that comes along he leads four feet and kills, much to
his satisfaction, for now he knows that two feet in advance of a quail
will kill it and four feet in front will connect with ducks. However,
a third duck is of a different variety, one that comes loitering by at
twenty miles an hour. A pull four feet ahead of this fowl results in
another rank miss and a badly puzzled shooter. Holding two or four feet
in advance doesn’t all depend on the variety of bird for the same wings
can carry it fast or slow, and every bird must be judged individually.
Again a quail comes by. A two feet lead will surely kill him as it did
before, but just as the trigger is pressed the bird suddenly swoops,
and the charge goes harmlessly above him. Birds must fly evenly if
our novice is to strike them; yes, and any one else--that is what the
second barrel is for. Yet another duck wings by and the gunner means to
try that four foot lead again, but the aim is high. He knows it, but
there is no time for more than the one aim and he cannot avoid throwing
his charge away. Our tyro has learned something else, though, if he is
to kill he must have the mechanical ability to place his charge exactly
where he means it to go, otherwise the knowledge of speed and where to
hold that he has been acquiring is all wasted.
More opportunities occur and the student resolves to be extremely
careful as to where he places his next shot. All his movements are
more deliberate. He swings slowly and pulls steadily and carefully, as
nearly as he can judge exactly four feet ahead of the duck, but it goes
on without the loss of a feather. Now what the deuce was wrong? Did he
fail to estimate the speed, or to hold where he intended? He may not
know it or learn what was the trouble for a long time, but the miss was
due entirely to his extreme care and over caution, to dwelling on the
trigger and taking six-hundredths of a second to pull it in place of
his usual one-hundredth. During the time lost by his over carefulness
the bird flew four feet and the shot passed away behind. His finger and
brain worked together like balky horses, when one lunged forward the
other held back.
Gradually he acquires knowledge, but all birds do not fly past at
twenty yards. A big bird swings down upon him and he thinks it very
close, but the usual lead fails to cut a feather. His gun swung to the
very spot he wished, he pulled in exact time, the flight of the fowl
never wavered from a straight line, and yet he missed. Neither would
he ever have known why except for a friend standing near who asked him
where he had held and how far off he considered the bird to be. His
reply was twenty-five yards and he had held five feet in front of the
old drake. He was skeptical when told that the fowl was not less than
forty-five yards distant and that he should have aimed from eight to
ten feet in front of it.
All this will be dwelt upon later. Here I wish merely to impress upon
the reader that the difficulties of wing-shooting lie almost entirely
in the inability of the gunner to detect the cause of error. Should he
ascribe the trouble to one thing and it proves to be something else, he
will surely go farther astray. There is no such thing as profiting by
our mistakes unless we know what those mistakes are. A bird might be
missed by giving it too much lead while the shooter, concluding he had
not led enough, would get farther and farther out with every succeeding
miss. Very likely the result of a perfect estimate of distance, angle,
and speed is thrown away by the novice keeping poor time, swinging too
fast or too slow, with a consequent placing of the charge elsewhere
than where he thinks he did. Under such circumstances the most natural
and easiest thing to do is to change the point of aim with the
inevitable additional misses that are as certain to follow as that two
wrongs do not make a right.
A false diagnosis leads to the novice swallowing many bitter and
useless doses. It is like a hunter hurrying to camp but on the wrong
road, the faster he walks the farther off he gets.
Some of the problems of wing-shooting are much more complex than any of
the foregoing. It took the writer a good ten years of steady practice
to solve one, and he thinks well of his work at that. Through years of
shooting I was considerably exercised by the fact that I missed easy
shots, generally quail going straight away or gently quartering--shots
that should have been as easy as falling off a log. Very often this
happened when I was perfectly cool and collected, covering my target
with such ease and certainty that missing should have been impossible.
By and by, from being told by companions and seeing the shot strike the
water or sand, I learned that the trouble was shooting low. There was
no doubt that I missed by shooting under, but I couldn’t see why when
the bird had been quivering along just above the muzzle of my gun as it
had a thousand times before when killed. One thing was obvious; I only
lost the birds that I felt sure of killing, those that were covered
with deliberate, calculating accuracy.
That being the case, I had only to quicken time, or shoot a trifle more
recklessly to kill, and this I could do. However, this did not satisfy
me; I wished to know reasons for the miss as the only sure means of
preventing its recurrence. My first conclusion was that with deliberate
shots I flinched and dropped the muzzle without knowing it. This
satisfied me in a way, though I worried because I never could detect
the flinching or discover means of preventing it. Then I solved the
mystery though I still miss the birds sometimes.
Here is the solution which applied in my case and might or might
not in others. At the exact instant when an experienced shot expects
his weapon to be discharged, he unconsciously leans forward to catch
the recoil which would otherwise throw him backward out of balance,
preventing the quick delivery of his second barrel. Now suppose the
weapon misses fire, there being no recoil to restore the equilibrium of
the body, it continues forward and if the gunner is standing in a light
duck boat he may be pitched out. On firm ground the muscles of the feet
will quickly restore him to position, but he will find his gun pointing
well beneath the target.
In a minor degree all this happened to me when I pulled deliberately.
Leaning forward to catch the kick which did not come at the anticipated
time because of slow pulling, down went the muzzle of my gun enough to
insure a miss. Of course leaning forward might not depress the muzzle
of the gun if you did it consciously, but not one shooter in a thousand
knows that he does it, and considerable poor work can be attributed to
this cause.
Close observation, experience, and practice will take you safely over
the road to the expert wing-shot’s camp, and the farther you travel the
smoother the path becomes--only do not take the wrong trail or walk in
a circle, neither trust any one else to more than point the direction
you ought to go.
In an entire day’s field shooting no two shots may be alike; indeed,
it is a question if two shots are ever exactly similar in live bird
shooting. One bird is driving, another is coming in; this little chap
quarters with a rising flight, and the next is dropping like a bullet;
the snipe dodges, while the mallard swerves and towers; now a wary old
pintail beats up against the wind and hovers over the decoys, but forty
yards beyond a blue wing teal whistles down the wind at a hundred and
twenty miles an hour. No man ever lived or ever will live that could
kill them all, which is as it should be.
I can remember the time when I could recall every kill made during
an entire season and where I held for the shot. That time will never
come to me again. The very best sport is enjoyed only by the ambitious
novice who is just beginning to learn. Youth, a good gun, and the
brown birds rising in the ragweed field need ask no odds of king or
millionaire. What matter if in five only one solved problem has deadly
results, life is before the boy and the skill that is surely coming to
every man who loves the gun.
CHAPTER II
AIMING
ONE EYE AIMING. BINOCULAR SHOOTING. GUN POINTING
Wing-shooting is of comparatively modern origin. A hundred years ago
very few birds were killed a-wing, and those with a long barreled old
flintlock that usually had double sights and was fired with what we
should consider a slow, pottering aim. Wing-shooting really dates from
the invention of percussion caps in a practical form, about 1830, and
the present style of shotgun shooting is of very modern origin.
Naturally the rifle method of aiming had its influence for a good
many years, a full half century in fact, long after the invention of
breechloading guns. The old manner of shooting a shotgun was to close
one eye and squint low over the breech, theoretically never pulling
trigger until the front bead was accurately aligned upon the target.
Many an old veteran still speaks learnedly of “drawing a bead” on the
game. The author’s wing-shooting career has been connected with the
breechloader only, yet in his first lessons, given by his father,
the necessity of closing one eye if any accuracy of aim were to be
attained, was strongly emphasized. In truth the primer of gun firing
was to learn to close one eye instantly and invariably preparatory
to aiming, and the second principle was not to shut them both before
pulling the trigger. If in those days any man had discovered that he
could kill game by simply pointing his gun without closing his eye
or seeing a sight, he would never have had courage enough openly to
advocate such a system of gun aiming.
Doubtless the coming of nitro powder has had much to do with the
development of our present slap-bang fashion of shotgun shooting, yet
due credit should be given to Doctor Carver who is properly entitled
to be called the father of modern wing-shooting. Probably no less
wonderful shot than he could have had influence enough to have changed
a style of shotgun aiming that was once universal.
The “one eye” method of sighting a shotgun is not altogether obsolete
yet. Many a veteran sportsman has shot long and successfully in this
way, and will not change; neither is there good reason why he should,
for it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks, nor does he learn them
quite so well as he knew the old. Nevertheless it is true that few or
no expert shots ever close an eye in aiming to-day, though some of
them in effect _sight_ exactly the same as though they did. The writer
has followed the Carver scheme of _gun pointing_ more years than he can
remember, and among all his friends who shoot well, especially in the
uplands, there are none who have any other method of aiming.
Many who point a gun without regard to sight or rib do it
unconsciously. As an example, a shooting companion of mine who found
difficulty in connecting with crossing birds concluded that a patent
sight with three beads would assist him greatly. With a bird passing to
the left he would use the right bead, and he figured to a mathematical
nicety just how far ahead that would throw his charge. After a shot of
the kind that usually troubled him, which he missed exactly as before,
I asked him where he had held that off bead. He admitted blankly that
he never had seen it, and neither could he remember ever seeing one of
those three beads afterward when making a quick shot though they were
big enough to cover a balloon. He soon threw the patent sight aside as
being theoretically fine but practically worthless.
ONE EYE SIGHTING
One eye sighting is distinctly slow, and is not adapted to killing game
that in the nature of its flight is either imperfectly outlined or
rapidly gets beyond range. One eye aiming implies that the instant the
gun comes to the shoulder there shall be a pause in its movement while
the eye adjusts itself to the sight, or, as it is called, finds it.
This focusing the eye upon the sight necessarily dims the vision of the
target, for there is no such thing as the human eye focusing perfectly
both upon the gun sight and the game. Notwithstanding this the target
can be seen, even though it appear shadowy, and the sight may be placed
upon it accurately; indeed, if the game were not moving, or the shot
was directed straight at it, with greater precision than any other way.
But it occurs not infrequently that after you have paused to find the
sight, the opportunity is gone, either the game cannot be seen again or
not quickly enough to cover it before it escapes.
Further, the principle involved in the one eye use of gunsights is that
if they do not perfectly align with the target on the first attempt,
withhold your fire and never pull trigger until _sure_ of your aim.
Naturally this theory of obtaining a second and surer sight when
needful is rarely put in practice in wing-shooting, and if it were the
result would be a pottering inefficiency that would last through life.
The gun-pointing shot doesn’t do things that way, since nothing short
of a house intervening would prevent his shooting exactly on time.
Finding the sights, whether with one or both eyes open, and putting the
focused bead upon the target is beyond question the most accurate way
of aiming a gun, as witness that it has been adopted by all riflemen
who are obliged to do fine holding. The very finest sighting that I
have ever seen done was accomplished with a telescope having a big
leather blinder attached to the rear which entirely covered the left
eye, thus permitting it to remain wide open without seeing anything.
Using a sight of this kind shots can be called within one inch at two
hundred yards. This means that at shotgun range of forty yards, a
sighting error of one-fifth of an inch could be detected; the absurdity
of such close sighting can be noted by recalling that a shotgun pattern
covers at least thirty inches at the distance.
What is required in wing-shooting is no such hair splitting aim, but
that we cover the target with the utmost dispatch and pull on the
instant--not a hundredth of a second sooner or later. Indeed, pulling
a hundredth of a second too soon or the hundredth of a second too late
will make more difference as to where our shot charge lands than any
variation that can occur with the finest sight or no sight at all.
While I am opposed on principle to the novice learning to sight a
shotgun with one eye shut or both eyes open, in fact to _sighting_ the
arm at all, believing that so taught he can never become a first rate
performer on all sorts of game, yet I have seen so much excellent work
in wildfowl shooting by men who closed one eye or who focused on the
sight that I hesitate to say it is not an effective style of firing at
ducks or any bird of large size that is habitually outlined against the
sky. In shooting of this kind the game is often seen while approaching
and allowance can be made for the time required to focus on the sights;
neither is it requisite that the gun be handled with such rapidity as
in upland work.
Success with wildfowl is more due to correct estimates of distance and
speed of flight than to manner of aiming, and since there is never any
question of being able to see the bird, even with half an eye, it is
probable that any system of sighting or pointing the gun can be made
about equally effective.
BINOCULAR SHOOTING--TWO-EYE AIMING
Two-eye aiming, or binocular shooting, has all the advantages of
closing one eye even for rifle firing while a distinctly clearer
view of the target is obtained, and distances can be estimated more
positively. All of us who were taught to close one eye can well
remember that the instant we blinded the left eye to find the sight,
the bird at once appeared to be a great deal farther away. I can recall
that more than once when a boy I have shut the left eye and then
decided that the quail was out of range, after which I opened both eyes
and found it still well within reach.
It is no doubt true that with only one eye a gunner could finally learn
to judge distances as well as though he had the use of both, but when
from birth to age he uses both eyes to see and estimate distances a
million times to where he does once with an eye shut, it reasonably
follows that he will do better work in the style in which he has been
trained even though that training were not with a gun. Therefore we can
take it as a simple statement of fact that with both eyes open we can
the most accurately estimate the distance that game is from us, the
speed of its flight, and the lead necessary in order to kill. Moreover
we can secure equally as fine sight with both eyes open, either with
shotgun or rifle, provided one eye alone governs the line of sight or
is focused upon the sights. This eye is then said to be the master eye
for the reason that the brain pays attention to what it is doing only.
The other eye sees just the same, but of its vision the brain fails to
keep any record.
[Illustration: Binocular shooting, or gun pointing]
Ordinarily it is supposed that the master eye has the stronger vision,
which entitles it to govern, but this does not follow by any means. In
shooting from the right shoulder the right eye controls, not because
its strength is greater, but for the simple reason that the brain has
been _trained_ to register only what this eye sees. It may be the
stronger eye or it may not, and neither would this make much difference
unless its vision were extremely defective while that of the other was
normal. Ninety-nine times in a hundred one eye governs the line of
sight entirely because it has been trained to do this and for no other
reason.
The usual manner of testing the eyes for shooting is to hold up an
object a proper distance from them and align it with a point beyond
while keeping both eyes open. Now close the left eye and if the
alignment doesn’t change, the right eye governs, but if on shutting
the left eye the line of aim swings to the left the wrong optic has
been in control, and the student will have to begin training the right
eye to assume the mastery or learn to shoot from the left shoulder.
Either can be done, but it is much simpler and easier as a rule to
put the brain to making its records from the proper eye. It might be
noted, in passing, that in case of an experienced shot no eye tests are
necessary, for the one with which he has been accustomed to sighting is
certain to govern.
The style of aiming with both eyes open may be exactly the same as with
one closed; that is the gun is brought up and there is a slight pause
long enough for the eye to find the front sight which is then placed
upon the point of aim. The focusing of the eye upon the front sight,
however, will probably not be so sharp as with the left eye shut, with
the consequence that the vision of the game will be less dimmed. The
man accustomed to aiming with one eye closed may find it best to teach
himself to shoot with both eyes open while still focusing upon the
sight after his acquired fashion. However, this is not the favorite
or most effective mode of two-eye aiming. Modern wing-shots have
pronounced in favor of the Carver method.
CARVER METHOD OF GUN POINTING
While this style of shotgun aiming is of modern origin, in fact
originated with Doctor Carver, yet it is the oldest of all systems
of directing a missile. It was used by the rock slingers, the spear
throwers, the dart casters, and was brought to the greatest perfection
by the long-bowmen. Shooting in this fashion an Indian will drive a
penny from between a split stick with half his shots at fifty feet, or
strike a running deer at three hundred, and doubtless the Anglo-Saxon
bowmen were much better shots than any Indian.
Gun pointing was the recognized manner of aiming of all our Western
“bad men” and gun fighters whose gun play was entirely too rapid to
be directed by any description of gun sights. In combined quickness
and accuracy, from foot or horseback, the work of these men has never
been equalled, but their system of shooting is now becoming a lost art
because it was not found the best adapted to target practice. Perhaps
in course of time gun pointing will hold sway in short range shooting
with every variety of firearm, for the military tendency at present is
to encourage rapidity of fire.
Probably it was from the Western gun-fighter that Doctor Carver, a
Western man, got his idea of the correct way of sighting a shotgun.
If the man with the sixshooter could hit nickels thrown into the air,
rabbits running, a man on a galloping horse while himself mounted, or
swing his weapon on a foe with such rapidity that the eye could not
follow the movements, then why couldn’t a man with a shotgun place its
thirty inch pattern upon a flying bird without glueing his eye to
any sights? Carver believed that it could be done, and he showed the
skeptical until everybody was ready to go away and do likewise.
[Illustration: Gun pointing--both eyes open]
Gun pointing has been miscalled instinctive aiming, though in reality
there is nothing instinctive about it. There can be nothing instinctive
in doing a thing that we have learned to accomplish through repeating
a performance thousands of times. It is merely perfecting an art that
we have been acquiring from babyhood, that of being able to point the
finger or something else directly at an object toward which we are
fixedly looking. We might as well say that we write instinctively,
because we give no thought as to what the next stroke will be. In
civilized human beings training takes the place of instinct which is a
very imperfect factor, though it must be admitted that every man has
inherited tendencies.
Shooting a pistol in the old Western way consisted simply in extending
the hand quickly in the direction of the target and pulling on the
instant. This one-hand gun pointing is the most natural method and the
easiest to acquire because we have been at it a good many years before
we ever gripped a gun. Shooting a shotgun differs from it only in that
the _piece is pointed with both hands_ in place of one, and while the
method is more difficult to acquire it is steadier and more reliable,
because with the butt of the weapon at the shoulder and both hands
holding it, we have a firmer control than if the piece were directed
entirely with the one hand. Shooting a shotgun in the Carver fashion,
in its primary principle, is merely training the two hands to point
at the exact spot at which the eyes are looking or the brain directs,
without any lost motion or focus upon sights.
Shooting a revolver in the Western manner, with movement of hand too
fast for the eye to follow, is in reality juggling a pistol, and
muscles and nerves must undergo the same training as those of a juggler
who keeps half a dozen balls in the air with one hand. The wing-shot
who aims by pointing also juggles his weapon in a way, though the
training necessary to do this is not so severe because the movements
are not especially rapid. Nevertheless he undergoes a degree of
training that insures his weapon being aligned automatically or without
conscious effort before he becomes an expert shot. When he has reached
a stage where none of the movements of his piece require conscious
supervision, then they are said to be instinctive, though, as we have
seen, instinct has nothing whatever to do with it, but it is training
pure and simple.
The advantages of pointing a shotgun in place of getting the eye close
down to the barrels and aligning rib and sight are these: Point your
finger at an object quickly, without any effort to sight or closing
an eye, and you will find that while it is directed precisely, yet
nevertheless you are glancing some distance above the finger. Now close
one eye and you will note at once a tendency to drop the head and
_sight_ the finger. The same optical principle applies to pointing and
sighting a gun; under the former system you naturally keep the barrels
well down out of the line of vision, but at the same time direct them
at the object with exactly the same precision as in the other way.
Moreover in pointing a gun by means of a thorough training of the
hands, you are in a measure independent of fit of gunstock. Indeed, in
my own experience and that of others, any gun can be shot accurately
so long as the drop of stock is not so great as to bring the barrels
within the line of sight, or where they will interfere with a clear
view of the target. Correct alignment is not nearly so dependent upon
drop of stock, as it is upon the position of the two hands grasping
grip and fore-end.
For instance, if you are accustomed to a gun that is grasped nearly in
the line of fire, and you then attempt to shoot with one having a deep
fore-end which places the left hand low, or a piece with grip set low
behind the frame, you will at once note a feeling of uncertainty as to
where you are pointing. I should therefore conclude that an accustomed
grip and fore-stock were of as much importance as drop at comb and
grip. Additionally it should be noted that if the hands are to do the
pointing, unassisted by sights, they should grasp the piece well apart,
that is with the left hand extended as far as possible without strain,
and the places where they grip the arm should never vary an iota.
Given a gun that I have grown to with use, I find that I can shoot as
effectively when holding my face several inches from the gunstock,
really not inclining the head toward the stock in the least, but
holding it perfectly erect, some inches above the line of the barrels
and well to one side. I have further dropped my head toward the
left shoulder in place of the right and struck my bird with the
same facility, proving that the hands were accomplishing their work
automatically without regard to the position of the sighting eye with
reference to the line of sight. Dropping the stock low on the shoulder,
or jamming the comb tight against the cheek made not a particle
of difference so long as the automatic action of the hands was not
interfered with by trying to govern them directly by means of the sight.
In gun pointing the sight should never be seen, nor rib, nor barrel,
neither should they be even thought of, for if the eye is permitted
to interfere with the calculation of the brain two bosses of equal
authority are installed with the obvious result that nothing will
be accomplished. In this style of aiming the gun should be swung
methodically, with mechanical uniformity of movement, and the trigger
pressed the moment you _feel_ that the aim is correct. No mystery need
be made of this feeling of being right, for it is merely the signal of
the brain to the nerves that the work has been well accomplished. The
same feeling is in evidence when a baseball pitcher has released a ball
which he _knows_ will split the pan, or when the billiardist or golf
player has made a true stroke.
In gun pointing, long and short barrels can be shot with much less
variation in the holding than when the eye governs the line of sight,
for with the latter method a long sighting plane is a positive
advantage. The hands will do their work with the same facility, be the
barrels long or short, since these are never seen, but length of tubes
is to be preferred for other than sighting reasons, as balance of the
arm, steadiness in swinging to a given point, with reduced recoil, etc.
Relative to the rapidity of shooting under the two systems, when a
rifle is fired the two sights are first placed exactly in a line which
is then directed to the point of aim. Should this line of sight not
cover the target precisely the piece is not discharged but the sights
are swung on again and again before the trigger is pulled; it may take
the rifleman from fifteen to sixty seconds to secure a satisfactory aim
and pull. This sort of aiming is absolutely impracticable in shotgun
shooting for obvious reasons, in fifteen seconds the target might be
two or three hundred yards away.
In some descriptions of wing-shooting, as quail or ruffed grouse in the
woods, the gun is discharged within three-quarters of a second after
the brain has realized that the bird is on the wing; during this length
of time the shooter takes position, brings his gun to his shoulder,
selects the point of aim, directs his piece there, and presses the
trigger. No “second sight” can be obtained under such circumstances,
whatever error the eye may detect at the instant of firing, and
accuracy is absolutely dependent upon the mechanical training of the
hands which direct the gun. By putting the eye and mind upon the
gunsights these can be noted very clearly, but while doing this _the
bird is lost_.
The one advantage in “sighting,” among all its disadvantages, is that
the novice can more readily detect errors in holding. He cannot prevent
the shot he is firing from going wrong, but he may be able to analyze
every movement of his piece and to discover which particular feature
needs correction; for he might be making some mistake with mechanical
regularity and certainty, just as in writing he may produce some
ill formed letter and be quite unable to alter its form except with
deliberate care. Perhaps it is true that a high degree of skill in
gun pointing is the result of a post graduate course in wing-shooting
rather than the A. B. C. of the art.
Now there may be doubt in the mind of the beginner or others as to
whether a shotgun can be pointed accurately enough invariably to place
the pattern upon the target, for it is not claimed that sufficient
precision can be developed for deliberate rifle shooting. With a view
to settling this question the writer made a series of experiments at
twenty yards with a 22 rifle in which the sights had been removed.
With a well balanced rifle, handling like a shotgun, ball after ball
could be placed in a six inch circle, the majority of them going into
four inch. No attempt was made to level or even see the barrel and the
arm was fired with the same rapidity as a shotgun at quail.
In order to be sure that the barrel was not being leveled or sighted,
a blinder was built up on the barrel over the position of the ordinary
rear sight; any attempt to sight over this would have thrown the
bullets two feet high. After a few shots the results were just the same
as before, and so long as the target could be seen the gun could be
pointed there with ample accuracy to kill every bird with a shotgun.
Diagrams are here presented of ten-shot targets made in this fashion
both with the naked barrel and the blinder attached. Of course such
shooting is dependent somewhat upon the skill of the marksman, and so
is any other kind of shooting for the matter of that.
[Illustration: Three ten-shot targets made with a 22 rifle at 20 yards
with a blinder over the rear sight, showing the effect of binocular gun
pointing.]
In some measure every man must be a law unto himself in his work with
a gun. While I use the pointing system of aiming for all game, yet
some of my shooting acquaintances tell me that whereas they can point
very accurately at anything flying near the ground, at birds passing
overhead they have a feeling of uncertainty as to where they are
holding that leads them to prefer aligning the barrels by direct sight
of eye in such work. Doubtless it is all much a matter of training and
habit.
CHAPTER III
SNAP SHOOTING--DELIBERATE SWING--RAPID SWING
AN ANALYSIS AND A COMPARISON
Almost every writer on the topic of field shooting will at some time
mention making a snap shot at a bird, or perhaps covering another and
then swinging ahead before firing. The reader can readily gather from
these essays that snapping is a very prompt way of delivering a shot,
while the swing is both more deliberate and more accurate. It is not
likely, however, that, taught by books solely, the student will ever
be able to fix in his own mind exactly what a snap shot is nor what
constitutes a swinging shot further than that one is discharged in much
the shorter time. Still less will he have grounds for deciding which
particular style of shooting he ought himself to adopt.
The object of this chapter is to analyze these systems of aiming,
making as plain as possible what constitutes a snap shot, what a
deliberate swing, and the difference in principle between a deliberate
and a rapid swing. Simple diagrams and drawings are used to illustrate
with the hope of making the subject plainer to the beginner.
The term “line of swing” will be used frequently in this chapter so it
is well to give an early explanation of its meaning. The accompanying
diagram shows the line of swing. It is the line covered by the
moving gunsights from the time the piece strikes the shoulder or the
sights are caught to where they are pointed when the gun is fired.
The character of this gun movement or sight movement constitutes the
difference in the three styles of gun aiming that we are discussing.
[Illustration: Rough snap, semi-snap, and rapid swing]
Technically, snap shooting has no line of swing, the aim being taken
before the gun is brought up, the sights are thrown directly to the
desired point and the arm is discharged the instant the butt hits the
shoulder. While this is snap shooting proper, it is a very ineffective
manner of firing even at an object at rest, for the reason that when
the butt jams into the shoulder muscles the latter give and then
rebound, causing the gun muzzle to vibrate to such an extent as to
insure a miss except with a very wide spread of pattern. Selecting
a point of aim before the gun is thrown to the shoulder is making a
pretty fine calculation too, it must be admitted; the bird might spring
to the north of you, and without a moment’s hesitation you would have
to know the precise spot to the northwest where the shot charge would
meet it.
Such absolute judgment of speed and angle of flight is next to
impossible, and the experienced gunner never attempts snap shooting in
this fashion except when he perceives that the opportunity to shoot at
all will be so fleeting that it is either a rough snap shot or none.
Impressed with the belief that wing-shooting is merely jerking up the
gun and lamming away, the novice is liable to practice just this sort
of snapping with the result that when he does hit he cannot tell why,
nor give a reason for his misses. The expert who can handle his gun
like a part of himself cannot shoot successfully in this manner, much
less a tyro who is none too sure of the easy shots.
There is another style of snap shooting, however, that is widely
practiced by nearly all clever upland shots. It consists of throwing
the gun close to the game with the motion of bringing it to the
shoulder, but always sufficiently under it. From this point beneath
the target the line of swing travels in a direct course with great
quickness to the place where the gun is discharged, following the line
C-E, shown in the diagram on page 221.
Suppose a grouse has sprung from the brush and is circling to the left
and rising. It has been estimated that a grouse or a quail will be ten
feet into the air before a man’s mind can give his nerves and muscles
any instruction whatever. Then if a rough snap shot were to be made
the gun would be at once flung ahead of the bird and there fired. The
difficulty of making such a shot is obvious. In the first place the
motion of raising a gun to the shoulder is complicated compared with
moving to a given spot after it is up and steady. Moreover in a rough
snap there is never any change of aim from the place the mind estimates
as right. The gun is simply thrown to that place and fired.
Orders have been given which the mind cannot alter if it would, and
even should the bird be killed meantime by another gunner the snapped
piece would be discharged precisely as though the bird were still
flying. Thus we see that the problems confronting the rough snap shot
are: a mechanical inability to jam a gun to the shoulder and shoot to a
given spot, and the extraordinary judgment required to foretell where
the bird will be when the arm is ready to fire.
We have all heard of some snap shots that were as quick as lightning,
and of course if this were literally so the shot could be sent to the
first possible place, but it should be remembered that the man is
probably walking with his gun down, and during the short space of say
half a second he must get his feet into position, make his estimates,
and bring up his gun--meantime the bird will be doing something you may
be sure, covering not less than twenty-five feet. Nevertheless it is
not to be doubted that the quicker the shooter, the lighter his gun,
and the more open his pattern the simpler his problem becomes.
At best, however, shooting in this fashion, an expert could not expect
to connect with more than one bird in three. Knowing this the skilled
wing-shot would never attempt the rough snap except that suppose at the
natural place of aim there was a tree with brush beyond; reaching this
tree the grouse would have been safe so nothing remained but to chance
the lightning snap at the point marked. It follows that the novice
should never deliver a rough snap unless any other kind of an aim is
impossible either because the bird will be out of sight or possibly
out of range. In either of which events it is to be preferred to not
shooting at all.
The second or practical style of snap shooting is much more reliable.
With this method the gun is thrown up below the target; first, that
the view of the game may not be obscured in the least; second, that
time may be given to the gun muzzle to cease its vibrations ere it
covers the point of aim; third, that while the line of swing is moving
steadily yet rapidly to the point where the charge is to go the trigger
finger can be given due warning to pull; fourth, the estimates for lead
and speed of flight are greatly simplified because only taken from the
time the gun is up and not from the rising of the bird. The problem
here is to make the line of aim cross the line of flight of the bird,
and this is comparatively easy.
In its principle rough snap shooting throws the gun to the point of aim
without a line of swing. That of semi-snap shooting is to _intersect_
the line of flight with the line of swing in the shortest and most
direct way. For instance, with some angles of flight the gun might be
thrown too far ahead and then the “line of aim” would be carried back
toward the flying target. Naturally this happens seldom unless the bird
changes his course, the skilled shot endeavoring to throw up his weapon
in such a position that it will only be necessary to lift it straight
to the spot where it will be fired.
The more accurate the judgment of the sportsman as to the bird’s speed
of flight the nearer he will come to throwing his piece to the proper
place with a consequent shorter line of swing and a quicker shot. But
in doing this it should not be forgotten that the line of swing must
always be of sufficient length to steady the gun before it covers the
mark, and to fairly warn the pulling finger. Otherwise you are on the
bird, as they say, “before you know it,” and the result is an almost
inevitable miss. This not infrequently happens with straightaway birds,
where in the nature of things the swing is short, and it is a most
productive and irritating source of misses. Indeed it is an axiom with
veteran field shots that the driving bird requires the steadiest of all
holding.
Successful snap shooting necessitates a very quick and sensitive
trigger. Bear in mind that the line of aim merely intercepts the line
of flight and can only do so at one point, at one instant; any dwelling
upon the trigger, a pressure that comes the smallest fraction of a
second too soon or too late, leads to certain missing. The bird may
be traveling fifty feet a second, the line of swing a hundred feet
a second or more; should the trigger yield the one-hundredth of a
second fast or slow the game will be missed a foot. Any irregularity
of trigger pulling is fatal, and a man who needs a greater time than a
fiftieth of a second to release his trigger had better adopt some other
style of aiming.
Snap shooting or semi-snap shooting is an effective style of aiming
only upon birds that are not changing their angle with regard to the
gun too rapidly--that is upon straightaway or quartering birds. Should
the quarry rise and swing about the gun would inevitably have to follow
it if the piece came up promptly, or a swift-flying fowl might come
in from the right and pass to the left before it could be covered,
with the result that the gun would have to move after and overtake it
before being discharged. This would lead to the third mode of aiming,
technically known as a rapid swing.
In this style the line of aim travels along the line of flight or
preferably takes a parallel course just beneath it for the sake of an
unobstructed view. The working principle of the rapid swing is that
the gun is invariably aligned behind the bird and the “line of aim” is
then swung after it much faster than the bird is traveling, until it
overtakes and passes the moving mark to the point where the charge is
sent.
The strength of this system of gun aiming lies in this: The gun moving
in the path of flight of the game takes the elevation automatically. In
illustration of this, should the bird be rising the line of aim rises
also and will continue to do so after passing the bird, necessarily
striking its mark unless the course of the target alters radically.
Of course an identical rule would apply were the bird descending,
climbing, or taking any other angle of elevation so long as the line of
swing followed the line of flight and passed it the proper distance.
Rapid swing simplifies lead also, for should the line of aim be
traveling three times as fast as the bird flies an estimated lead of
one foot would place the charge three feet ahead of the bird, the gain
being made during the interim of pressing the trigger and the passage
of the shot up the barrel. Moreover it must be borne in mind that now
the line of aim is not intersecting that of flight but traveling with
it, which permits considerable latitude in trigger pulling. Should the
gunner be a trifle quick or slow the charge still being in line will
probably catch the mark with some portion of the pattern.
Almost every skillful wildfowl gunner uses the rapid swing, and many
do so in the uplands as well. Birds with a speed of from sixty to one
hundred miles an hour are entirely too fast to be snapped with any
certainty.
The diagram indicates the difference in lead between a swinging shot
and a snap shot. The bird is supposed to be distant from the gun one
hundred feet, and is traveling at the rate of one hundred feet a
second. The normal velocity of a shot charge over a one hundred foot
course is eight hundred feet a second, and at this velocity it would
require one-eighth of a second for the pellets to reach the mark. In
one-eighth of a second the fowl would fly twelve and one-half feet
which is the theoretical lead necessary for shot and target to connect.
If the line of aim intersects the line of flight at right angles--as in
snap shooting--the full theoretical lead must be taken, and if there
is any dwelling upon the trigger a further allowance must be given.
[Illustration: The difference in lead between a snap shot and a
swinging shot]
But with a swinging shot in which the line of aim travels three times
as fast as the bird, this sighting line will move six feet in the
fiftieth of a second required for a quick man to pull the trigger and
for the passage of the shot up the barrel. Hence we have lead for a
snap shot twelve and one-half feet, lead for a swinging shot six and
one-half feet. In case of the man who requires the maximum length of
time to pull, or six-one-hundredths of a second, a further lead of six
feet would have to be given with a snap shot or a total of eighteen and
one-half feet. No man could make such an estimate.
By consulting experienced wing-shots it will be learned that hardly
any two of them will make the same estimate for the lead necessary to
kill at a given distance; neither theoretically nor practically are
they holding at the same place. In fact with the rapid swing every man
is a law unto himself, the distance he holds ahead being governed by
the rapidity of his swing, his time in trigger pulling, and his habit
of maintaining a uniform gun movement after pressing the trigger. One
shooter might swing rapidly but would check his piece at the moment
of firing and so lose all the advantage of swinging: another would
accelerate the motion of his muzzle at the instant of firing and so
gain more than six feet. The same thing could be done by the individual
of slow trigger, who if he pulled in six-one-hundredths of a second
could actually gain eighteen feet and would not need to make any lead
at all--neither would he hit anything, for it might well be stated now
that a pull of as slow as six-one-hundredths of a second is quite too
slow for wing-shooting.
Nevertheless some of the best duck shots that I have ever known stated
positively that they made no allowance whatever for speed of flight or
distance of the mark further than to merely hold in front and swing.
Watching them at work I arrived at the conclusion that they made the
necessary gain entirely by the rapidity with which they swung--for all
of them moved their pieces very swiftly--and not by any hesitation on
the trigger.
Doubtless the acme of wing-shooting is to be able to swing with such
rapidity and uniformity as to obviate the necessity for any lead, but
it will not do for the novice to attempt to graduate his first year in
school. Indeed the average sportsman never learns to shoot in this way,
neither should he endeavor to do so unless so situated that he can fire
shot after shot days, weeks, and months in succession.
Indeed the swifter the swing the graver the problem of so governing it
that the shot can be placed with sufficient precision to strike the
mark. The neophyte can readily learn this for himself by attempting
to shoot at a stationary mark while swinging the gunsights past
it. Experience soon teaches the gunner about how fast he can swing
successfully, and his endeavor henceforth should be to make this
movement as mechanically uniform as possible, studying carefully the
results which he secures from it.
A semi-snap shot and a rapid swing may readily merge into one another.
The gunner may throw up his weapon with a view to making a snap shot,
but finding the bird has passed his gun he must needs swing after it.
In the same way when intending to place his piece upon the line of the
bird’s flight he might fall below it, being then obliged both to swing
with the bird and to raise his gun to intersect its flight.
The two styles of aiming are readily used in conjunction, also, as in
live pigeon shooting where the shooter ordinarily makes a practical
snap with the first barrel and a rapid swing with the second. A like
system is preferred by the crack field shot who snaps with his first
barrel before the game is at top speed, and then swings on with the
second should he miss. One thing must forever be borne in mind by the
swinging shot and that is never to check the gun when pulling the
trigger.
In upland shooting upon such game as quail, snipe, chickens, partridge,
and woodcock, birds that rise near the gun, nearly every shot can be
taken without any allowance for lead or elevation, it being merely
necessary to swing upon the line of flight past the game and fire with
the result of killing nine birds out of ten which is a pretty good
percentage in any event. The truth is that in such work, especially in
the brush, there is no time to think of allowance for lead, but this
can always be secured automatically by swinging, and therein is the
advantage over any description of snap shot.
There remains to be described the deliberate swing. It fits in with
the old one eye manner of aiming and is becoming antiquated along
with it. With the deliberate swing the game is first covered usually
by throwing the line of sight in front of it, and then moving with the
target, at the proper distance in advance until the trigger is pulled.
The principle involved is to maintain the requisite lead while the
trigger is being pressed, continuing the swing at the same rate until
the charge is out of the gun. In theory this system of aiming is the
most accurate of all, because whether the trigger is pressed instantly
or dwelt upon the pattern will with like certainty reach the desired
lead. For instance if the line of aim is traveling three feet in
advance of the line of flight, which distance is maintained until the
shot are on the way, it cannot matter whether the trigger is pressed in
one-hundredth of a second or six-hundredths.
Obviously with this system of aiming no gain is made by the swing and
the same allowance for speed and distance is required as though the
target was snapped.
The trouble with this mode of aiming is that it develops a very slow,
poky, pottering style. There being no precise moment when the trigger
_must_ be pulled, the gunner almost invariably acquires the ill habit
of dwelling upon the trigger. For this reason the deliberate swing
cannot be used upon any game that is quick in its movements, that
swerves and dodges like a snipe or a quail. Hence such a slow system
of aiming is not adapted to anything except waterfowl or such birds as
are seen approaching and remain within gunshot some time.
I have seen most excellent work upon wildfowl by those who swung
deliberately in front of the target and am ready to believe that the
style can be made very effective upon such birds. In duck shooting
where the birds are passing and have acquired maximum speed it
certainly has the advantage of any sort of snap work.
Nevertheless my advice to the beginner would be to acquire the rapid
swing. It accomplishes everything that can be done with the deliberate
and does it quicker and better, with a minimum of nerve expenditure. It
requires double the expenditure of nerve force to shoot deliberately as
to pull quickly, and no man should endeavor to develop the slow style
unless nature has made him steady and phlegmatic.
CHAPTER IV
PRIMARY LESSONS
Almost every boy with an inborn taste for shooting will have learned
to aim a gun and pull trigger before he becomes old enough to tramp
widely afield or handle a fowling-piece. Emphatically is this true of
the youth so fortunate as to be born in the country. However, there
may be youngsters with the ill luck to be crowded by houses and people
all their lives, with whom the longing to hunt and shoot must be
deferred to more mature years. The city boy, whose instincts, waiting
on opportunity, must needs survive all urban temptations, makes the
most determined and enthusiastic of sportsmen when finally stock and
shoulder fit together. Hungry for the fields and the whistle of birds’
wings, he never gets enough from twenty years to his three score and
ten. With a view to assisting him as much as I may in his first lessons
this chapter is written.
An old disused barn in the country is a great place for preliminary
practice with a shotgun. Secure some large sheets of paper, blacken the
center, and tack them up on the barn. Shoot at twenty yards because at
that distance the pattern will not spread too much to easily observe
its effect. Select very lightly loaded shells for this kind of work,
two and one-half drams of power are enough and lighter loads are better
if they can be procured. Recoil always appears more severe when the
target is stationary, and it takes practice so to hold the weapon
that the arms and hands absorb most of the jar. The object now is to
acquire confidence in yourself and the gun, carefully guarding against
a tendency to flinch which is liable to develop into a most annoying
habit, nearly fatal to good wing-shooting.
A few shots should enable the learner to place his pattern regularly
upon the center of the target. When this can be done with a deliberate
aim begin snapping. Throw the gun quickly to the shoulder, pointed at
the target, and without checking the motion raise it to the center and
fire as you come up. If the trigger fails to yield at the exact time,
take the piece down, throw it up and try again. What you are striving
for in this is a correct trigger pull, the lock working precisely on
time, without any checking the gun for a second sight or any attempt to
hold it still upon the target.
An axiom of shotgun shooting is that the arm is never to be held still
upon anything--in this differing radically from the rifle. The trigger
should be pressed, therefore, without checking the regular rising
movement of the barrels, the pulling and upward movement of the sight
being so well timed that the discharge will take place just before the
center is covered.
Press the trigger, not by any conscious crooking of the forefinger,
but by tightening the grip of both hands, the one pushing forward and
the other drawing back. This is not only the right manner of pulling
trigger on a shotgun, but tightening the grip of the hands enables the
gunner to catch the recoil just as the blow of a fist is warded off
before it gathers momentum.
Having learned to strike the mark with a straight upward snap, as
directed, now begin swinging on from side to side, first from the right
and then from the left. Swing evenly past the target and pull as the
line of sight goes by, being careful not to check up at the moment of
firing. Probably this shooting with right and left swing will need
practice to get the desired accuracy, but keep at it until the charge
regularly reaches its mark. Swing slowly at first, but later increase
the speed until the center can be struck with the piece moving smartly.
Doubtless with a rapid swing a tendency will be noted for the charge
to pass the center of aim, but that can be avoided by pulling quicker
which is one of the things to be learned.
With proficiency, vary the line of swing with every shot, sometimes
coming on from the right, again from the left, then straight up and
quartering. These lessons are the foundation of wing-shooting, so take
plenty of time with them and do not expect to accomplish everything
in one day. Twenty-five shots are enough for one practice since among
other things you must develop nerve force rather than expend it to the
point of exhaustion. Remember that half the people who go afield never
learn to shoot, and a large share of the other spend the remainder of
their shooting days trying to eradicate the bad habits acquired in
early youth.
Being able to strike your target with a gun moving fast or slow, with
the line of sight swinging in every direction except down, you now have
command of the gun and can take up the second problem, exchanging the
stationary for a flying target. Here is where shooting schools are an
advantage since they have a movable target which travels across the
barn at any desired angle, with a rate of speed that can be regulated
from very slow to as fast as a bird flies. The benefit of a flying
target with a background that would instantly show the impact of the
pattern is not to be doubted, faults of holding being detected at
once. However shooting schools are not a very common institution in
this country, though in their place we have the clay bird trap and
artificial targets.
Having access to the grounds of a trap shooting club, go there for
practice. If possible enlist the services of some more experienced
friend who can point out your errors and instruct you as to where
to hold. Stand up close to the trap as you like and take only easy,
straightaway, low flying birds in the beginning, later changing to
quartering targets. Becoming skilled enough to hit these, go out into
the field and have the birds thrown past you at different distances to
one side and the other.
Endeavor to obtain every description of shot that is likely to be
afforded by field shooting. Have the birds thrown while walking up on
the trap with gun down in its ordinary carrying position, and instruct
the trapper to start his bird at unexpected times, even when your back
is turned, when he should of course warn you as the target starts.
A like method should be followed when the gun is out in the field.
Naturally the nearer conditions can be made to approach field shooting
the more valuable the practice. Getting behind the traps, with gun to
shoulder, and shooting at birds always at the same angle of flight
teaches very little except mechanical regularity of performance which
can be acquired at the barn. But rightly used artificial targets can be
made a very beneficial experience.
The English method is to mount the traps in a tower from which the
birds are thrown over the shooter’s head and past him. Such practice
would prove very helpful to the inexperienced duck shot, as it is with
the British driven game. Unfortunately our gun clubs never mount their
traps in a tower or endeavor to teach anything except the making of big
scores. For this reason a man may become an expert at the traps and
yet possess but a trifling amount of skill in the field.
The writer, a country boy, with no clay targets to shoot at, got his
first lessons in pass shooting by means of an arrow-shaped piece of
wood known as a dart. The dart is driven by means of a short stick,
similar to the rod of a fly fisherman, though not so long and limber.
This rod has a short, strong line with a knot in the end which engages
with a notch cut into the dart about one-third from the point; the
dart being cast by means of an overhead swing the same as in throwing
a fly. Our dart can be made of light, cheap wood, from three to five
feet long, with a large, flat head and a broad shank. It can be sent
a distance of one hundred and fifty yards, with a velocity in the
beginning of its flight higher than that attained by any bird.
The object is to strike the broad head of the dart and if the charge
falls back anywhere else along its length the novice knows that he
has not made sufficient allowance for speed and distance. When thrown
rapidly the flight of this projectile is practically level, neither
does it lose velocity so quickly as an artificial clay bird. The dart
can be sent at any desired angle except straight away from the gun.
Practice at the dart is especially good training for flight shooting
at wildfowl, and the boy who has become expert in striking the head of
a shaft traveling a hundred and fifty feet a second will have little
trouble in connecting with ducks or any bird of similar flight. Of
course a good assistant is necessary to this kind of practice, but any
athletic boy will enjoy casting the dart as much as the gunner will
shooting at it.
Shooting at clay birds as they are commonly thrown at gun club meets is
not without benefit to the upland gunner, but the experience avails the
marsh shooter very little; indeed, his acquired habit of holding close
to his birds is very hard to overcome even when he has learned where to
hold. Not so the man who shoots at a dart which may be traveling two
hundred feet a second; he necessarily learns to get out in front--away
out.
A hand trap is a convenience where club grounds and traps may not be
available. They throw the same clay birds as the ground traps, but are
held in the hand which enables the target to be sent in any direction.
Good practice can be made by having the assistant throw the bird at
unexpected times when both are walking along. The shooter thus learns
to be alert, promptly bringing up his gun to take the bird that rises
without warning. The trapper may walk behind and send his target past
the gun, or even be hidden by hedge and cover in which case he should
call sharply when starting the bird.
Keep up the snapping and swinging practice at the stationary target, at
the clay birds, and the dart until expert. It will teach you just as
much as getting out into the field and banging away at non-game birds,
which is a very unsportsmanlike thing to do as will be discovered
should it ever be attempted in the presence of a veteran bird hunter.
Besides shooting song birds is generally forbidden by law.
In all this time do not forget that your endeavor is to make the gun
a sort of third arm that will point anywhere you wish as readily as
the hand can be thrown in that direction. When no other practice is
available, take up the gun in your room or back yard, and placing some
empty shells in the chambers, exercise your pointing skill by throwing
the piece up quickly, covering some object and pulling the triggers.
This is a very valuable drill, alike beneficial to the tyro and the
expert. Indeed you can hardly get too much of it, only do not be
careless with the work but put heart into it. We have all laughed about
the Englishman who raises his walking stick to sight every bird that
flies past, but really the Briton is right, for there is horse sense in
just that kind of practice.
In your target shooting at the barn you may discover that the firing
can be accomplished with greater precision by stopping the gun at
the exact instant of pressing the trigger, but do not allow that to
influence you or change your scheme of pulling trigger with a moving
gun. A dangerous habit may become fixed, one that will have to be
overcome later when it is found necessary for the arm to keep pace with
the swiftest flying game. Furthermore there is the second barrel to be
remembered.
The barn is also a convenient background in training to acquire second
barrel habits. The right use of the second cartridge is to have it
follow the first invariably where the first barrel has crippled or
missed, unless two birds have sprung at once and you expect to make a
double. When this is the case make no pause to observe the effect of
the first shot but continue the swing of the tubes until they cover the
second target.
Put up two targets on the barn for second barrel practice, placing them
at first on a horizontal line about twenty feet apart. Fire at the
right hand target and without stopping the swing cover the second mark
and shoot again. You will shortly learn in doing this that some time
is required to recover from the recoil of the first shot, and the gun
will be thrown out of line. But utilize this time in moving onto the
second bull’s-eye which should be sighted as soon as the piece is under
control and moving steadily again.
As the practice continues change the position of the targets, sometimes
shooting at the right hand first and again at the left; then place
one above the other at different angles and various distances apart.
Quicken the time as you become expert until not over a half a second is
required to get onto the second, pull, and shoot. A lightning second
barrel shot can swing on with his second barrel and shoot accurately
in a quarter of a second, which quarter second time is the standard of
rapidity which the novice should set for himself.
The barn with large sheets of paper will indicate results of this rapid
swinging fire more definitely than any live or clay birds, so continue
this work until results are perfect, quick time being uniformly
maintained with absolute accuracy. Keep the piece swinging after the
second shot the same as the first.
After the practice I have described the novice should have little
trouble in connecting with a certain number of birds, either in the
uplands or marsh, the first time he goes afield. There is no greater
difficulty in placing the pattern upon a quail than in striking the
clay target, except for the added excitement caused by whirring wings,
and the anxiety to make a good showing.
Overanxiety to appear well or show shooting skill to your companion
is a fruitful source of missing, not only by the beginner, but by
the older hand alike. Indeed if overanxiety and flinching could
be eliminated the majority of us would do fifty per cent. better
execution. It is well therefore for the student of wing-shooting to go
afield with a veteran shot in securing his first experience, one that
cannot be considered in any sense a rival gunner, but who is anxious to
see that his young friend performs well rather than to display his own
skill. If such companionship and instruction are unavailable, then go
alone and study out the problems in your own way.
Be very careful not to quicken the time you have been acquiring, but
rather shoot more deliberately, remembering that any bird you fire at
so quickly as not to be able to recall where the gun was held is simply
a lost opportunity, no matter whether the bird was killed or missed.
The only method of acquiring a solid foundation for future success, is
to make your mental calculations quickly and then use your gun to prove
your judgment. In plainer phrase do not shoot until you have first
decided where to hold, and then put the charge right there with all the
skill you possess, making a mental memorandum of every move the bird
made, the gun processes necessary to cover him, and the results.
Do not be hurried because your companion is quickest, for every human
being learns to walk before he can run. You could not reasonably expect
to solve problems in mathematics as readily as a college professor, and
take my word for it wing-shooting is no less difficult than mathematics.
Do not let misses disturb you, for in the beginning as much can be
learned from missing as from hitting, since you have at least been
taught where not to hold. The man who cannot learn through his mistakes
will never know a great deal, but be sure to analyze errors thoroughly,
and know reasons, otherwise experience and practice will leave you
about where you started.
It is a fortunate thing for the earnest young sportsman that his mind
is impressionable and his memory most tenacious. I can clearly recall
the shots that I made twenty-five years ago; just how the bird broke
cover, the course of his flight, where the gun came to the shoulder,
how much it led when the trigger was pulled, the very weed that the
bird struck as he fell, even the clumps of feathers, sifting down, are
still before me. Opportunity and circumstances being similar, I could
again repeat the shots in the same old way. None but the young could be
impressed so graphically, and no others learn with such ease.
It is not necessary that the student should possess such memory,
however, but the moment a shot is fired every detail should be fixed
in his mind. The better to do this make a systematic mental diary.
Here the bird arose so many paces from the gun, he was at this point
when the weapon came up, he bore away from the shooter at an angle
of forty-five degrees, slightly rising; the gun came up just so much
behind him, and he flew so many yards before being covered and fired
upon with a lead of two feet; result a kill. Try to recall the exact
position of the flying target when the mental estimate for lead was
made, and if the bird flew farther than you think he should before
being shot perhaps the cause can be detected. Remember that a lesson is
of no value after it is forgotten and do not forget.
The very first thing to be recorded after the mind recovers from
the strain of firing is to note where the gun is then pointed. It
should swing right along on the path of the bird’s flight, and if
involuntarily checked at the shot, that is something to be studied and
corrected. The average shot never learns to continue his swing upon the
line of flight after the bird is dead, but be ambitious to do what the
average man cannot.
At the close of the day’s shooting, take your mental diagrams and
write them all out on paper. Mark upon the sheet where the bird rose,
where you stood, and every evolution of target and gun as previously
directed. Study these diagrams and fix in your own mind why you killed
and why you missed. If the shot was a scratch or accidental write that
down, for many such shots are made in the course of a season, and these
daily diagrams are intended for future study.
If you failed to hit give that drawing especial attention, marking the
place where you should have held. When at a loss as to where the shot
should have been directed, probably your shooting friend can set you
right. Above all do not again hold for the exact spot that previously
resulted in a failure, unless you can prove to your own satisfaction
that the miss resulted from other causes than faulty lead.
If the gunner cannot recall his point of aim at the instant of firing
that is something for grave study. It may be that his line of aim is
swinging so fast that it is impossible to govern it; he really cannot
tell where he is aiming at any precise moment from the time the weapon
comes to the shoulder until it is discharged. Again perhaps it is a
case of unconscious flinching, and this is always to be suspected where
the shooter cannot _see_ where his shot has gone.
I can only repeat again, use the utmost care not to make the same
mistake in a like way. Study and analyze, and your hits will soon
teach you to kill, while your misses will tell you how not to miss
again. When desirous of showing well, learn to select the bird that you
know how to kill, the one that is easy for you, be it straightaway,
left quarterer, or what not. But if simply desirous of improving your
shooting, let the easy birds go and choose only the hard ones, those
that you miss frequently.
Do not permit any overweening desire to appear easy and graceful
influence you, but shoot every shot with all your might. Put strength
into the work first, and by and by grace will take care of itself. You
are out to develop nerve force, and the only way to do that is to use
what you have; rather than fire a shot indifferently, quit altogether.
Nerve force can be developed by using it just the same as muscles are
strengthened by being exercised.
CHAPTER V
SOME SHOOTING PSYCHOLOGY
SECOND BARREL SHOOTING--THE EFFECTS OF RECOIL, FLINCHING,
CONCENTRATION, SELF-CONFIDENCE
Perhaps the greatest weakness of the average field shot lies in his
use of the second barrel. From my observation only the odd man can
place his second charge with prompt accuracy, this being particularly
true of clay bird performers who from habit fire but one barrel. The
observation applies with equal force to the ordinary sportsman, not
one in ten of whom has a deadly second barrel. Having faithfully
endeavored to ascertain the reasons for this, I will briefly set forth
my conclusions.
The best second barrel shots that I have seen were men trained to
live pigeon and wildfowl work, varieties of shooting more generally
practiced twenty years ago than to-day. Live bird shooting at the traps
is now generally forbidden by law, and the fowl are not distributed
so widely as they once were. The pigeon shooter commonly fired both
barrels at every bird, often for the sake of safety, when the second
charge was really not necessary to kill. The distance he was placed
from the traps, from twenty-eight to thirty-three yards, made it
imperative that he send in his loads with the utmost dispatch, a quick
half snap with the first and a rapid swing on with the second barrel.
Then, too, under some rules the boundary was so short that the bird
must be killed in the fraction of a second or it might fall out of
bounds.
Trained to such conditions the pigeon shot cracked in his second barrel
involuntarily, without a second thought or the least delay to verify
the effect of the first charge. A hundred or even a thousand dollars
might depend upon that second barrel driving in true and fast, the man
who could not learn to place it in a quarter of a second soon dropping
out of the game.
Though the shooting was from unknown ground traps, it was nothing
unusual for a fast bird to be caught within twenty feet of where he
sprang, and should the first charge fail the second would follow ere
the pigeon had gone five yards farther.
Such rapid work as this is not absolutely essential on game,
nevertheless it is the standard of excellence which the field sportsman
should endeavor to attain. The gunner who cannot deliver his second
charge in from a quarter to a half second after the first will not find
it to avail him much, and as a rule will fall into the common habit of
letting the bird go after it has escaped the first pattern.
The wildfowl hunter is a good second barrel man also, and equally with
the pigeon shooter from habit. These birds often fly in flocks which
necessitates the use of both barrels; additionally many single ducks
are struck without being killed outright which demands the use of the
second barrel before the fowl can reach the water and dive. While the
wildfowler is not so sharp as the pigeon shot about pulling either his
first or second load he is no less accurate and positive about it. Like
the man of the traps, he knows before his piece comes to the shoulder
that both barrels are to be fired, and hence there is never a delay to
note what the first charge has accomplished.
The general run of upland shots go at the matter differently. Almost
invariably they seem to believe that the first barrel will surely kill,
the immediate brain impression when they see the bird still going on
being one of surprise; recovering from this, they either fire the
second barrel so quickly as to practically have no aim, or a slow,
pottering second is sent in after the target is out of range. Either
the unaimed or the pottering second charge is so generally ineffective
that the gunner soon comes to depend entirely upon his first load.
Here is the trouble so far as I can analyze it. If the second barrel is
to do perfect execution, the brain must complete its work _before the
first shot is fired_. There is absolutely no time to think between the
first and second shots, the mind barely retaining sufficient control
to prevent the shot going in when the bird is unquestionably a dead
one. Indeed in the case of pigeon shots, the barrel might be delivered
involuntarily whether the bird were dead or alive, this not altogether
for safety as has been supposed, but rather because the finger was
predirected to pull and there was no time to think or to stop it.
I have had the same thing happen to me in field shooting, when having
made up my mind previous to delivering the first shot that the bird was
a hard one and would probably escape, I could not avoid sending in the
second barrel automatically after the bird was dead. This never happens
except from brain orders that antedated the discharge of the first
barrel. This is an extreme style of second barrel work, such promptness
not being requisite in the field, but it is far more effective than the
lame, halting method generally seen. So true is this that if I were
coaching a novice in the use of his second charge he would be required
to pull it invariably, alike when the bird was killed or untouched.
It follows from the foregoing that where the second barrel is to be
made deadly there must be no pause in the aiming swing of the gun which
should travel right along on the path of the bird’s flight ready to
be discharged the instant the gunner recovers from the recoil of the
previous shot. The swing should be kept so true to the line of the
bird’s flight that in place of the arm hanging where first fired, it
should be pointing within a foot or two of the target when the shooter
has steadied himself sufficiently to aim again. On the other hand,
having checked his piece, waiting to note the effect of the first load,
the marksman will find his arm pointing so far from the bird that
he either has to move the line of swing so rapidly that it becomes
uncontrollable, or a slow swing will permit the game to get beyond
range.
We will take the flight of a quail as an example. Should it break cover
at twenty yards, it would on the average travel some forty feet before
being fired upon, which would place Bob White distant thirty-three
yards for the right barrel, delivered in less than a second. Now
waiting to realize that the game has been missed would give the quarry
another quarter of a second or fifteen feet; then, with a motionless
gun, swinging on again from the previous point of aim will consume an
additional half second, thirty feet, or a total of forty-five feet
from where the first shot was fired, placing the quail forty-eight
yards from the gun for the second barrel. On the contrary had the swing
of the gun been maintained automatically the second shot should have
been placed within twenty feet of the first, catching the bird when he
was distant forty yards and still within reach of a good gun. None of
the figures has been overdrawn and they can readily be verified by
observing the efforts of sportsmen afield.
THE EFFECT OF RECOIL
It might be argued that it doesn’t require the fourth of a second for
the mind to realize a miss which the eye can see instantly. So it would
not except for the effect of shock upon the human brain, the shock of
recoil. Furthermore, when the mind has just concluded a strenuous piece
of work, like aiming and firing a gun, it pauses an instant before
tackling a fresh problem. Combining this cessation of brain recording
with the shock of recoil which causes the brain to cease acting
entirely for a space of time, however small, and we have a loss of at
least a quarter of a second--sometimes more. In fact so far has the
bird flown meantime that the gunner despairs of being able to reach it
and so withholds his fire.
Recoil and its effects upon the shooter are worthy of careful study.
It affects every one, but in varying degrees. It has been observed
that the most noted pigeon shots are men of strong physique, some of
them seeming almost impervious to recoil, on the same principle that
a pugilist might without blinking an eye take a blow on the jaw which
would render an ordinary man unconscious. The jar of a shotgun’s recoil
and the blow of a fist differ only in the extent of shock and the time
needed to recover. The shotgun may knock you out for perhaps not more
than the tenth of a second, while the fist blow puts you away for ten
minutes.
Nevertheless, no matter how hardy the constitution of the man, even
a John L. Brewer, there is a shorter or longer space of time after a
shot is fired when he can do nothing except he does it involuntarily,
for the brain has been momentarily shocked into a state of coma.
Notwithstanding this the nerves and muscles can be taught to accomplish
orders given previous to this shock, maintaining certain actions
automatically, or as we say from habit. The boxer does this when he
starts a blow and sends it in after receiving such a jarring slap
himself that he cannot remember when his own fist landed. If anyone
doubts the effect of recoil shock upon the brain, let him try to recall
the movements of his gun muzzle immediately subsequent to firing.
In the case of the writer his first distinct knowledge of where his gun
is directed is when he finds it pointing below the target. Reasoning
the matter out, he knows that the muzzle first flew up and then reacted
downward, but from anything the brain has actually recorded it simply
dropped below the point of aim. Accepting the foregoing as true we can
see the need of acquiring a habit of maintaining the swing, such an
absolutely fixed habit as to require no direct brain control.
FLINCHING
However, the shock of recoil doesn’t interfere with the work of a
gunner so much as its anticipation, an anticipation that causes
flinching and dodging before the shot is fired. Flinching after the
recoil takes place would not merit much consideration, in fact would
not be flinching. Flinching interferes so greatly with the delivery of
both the first and second barrels, especially the latter, that we must
analyze and give it full consideration.
The commonly accepted conclusion is that in shooting flinching is due
entirely to the fear of punishing recoil. It is supposed to consist of
blinking and dodging to such an extent as to deflect the muzzle, one
man perhaps merely blinking while another dodges, or possibly blinks
and dodges. My own conclusion is that flinching cannot in all cases be
analyzed so simply as that.
Recoil undoubtedly is a prime factor in the trouble, but the sharp
report of the gun has its influence also, for people with a tendency to
flinch have noted an improvement in their work where a longer barrel
was used, thus carrying the stunning noise farther away from the head.
The loud report may cause more actual pain also than even the jolt of
the butt stock. Mr. Roosevelt illustrates this in “African Game Trails”
when telling how the heavy report of his elephant rifle caused bleeding
of the nose and ears of a companion who stood beside him. It is
claimed for the Maxim Silencer that it greatly lessens the inclination
to flinch.
The above causes of flinching are obvious, but many flinch when
shooting a 22 rifle which has neither recoil nor any undue noise. This
might be ascribed to habit, but people dodge who are not in the habit
of shooting at all.
Careful study of the matter has led me to believe that flinching is
as much due to the strain of aiming and firing as any other cause.
It requires a highly concentrated effort to hold either a shotgun or
rifle perfectly steady and pull the trigger. The mind and nerves may
not be able to sustain this strain for any great length of time, and
certainly both are glad to be relieved of it as quickly as possible.
Sometimes the brain gives up the task just an instant too soon,
permitting the muscles to have their will of the piece, and of where it
might afterward be pointed neither the eye nor the brain will take any
cognizance.
Being overstrained, mind and nerves go on a strike, quit temporarily,
making no further records until after the discharge takes place. Of
whatever happens during this interim the shooter has no knowledge,
though another man standing near can observe perfectly and tell him,
generally much to the gunner’s surprise, and often little to his
conviction. Whatever the eye might see, if the brain refrained from
making any record, that particular thing never happened so far as
the gunner’s mind and memory are concerned. This is what renders it
extremely difficult to cure flinching, the fact that so far as the
marksman’s own knowledge is concerned it never occurred. He did not
know it and could not know it except from the observation of others and
a reasonable conviction based upon the effects of the shot.
Moreover the brain sometimes makes records with perfect clearness of
things which never occurred. For instance, the shooter notes the speed
of flight of the target, the velocity with which his line of swing is
traveling to cover the mark, and calculates where he must hold in order
to connect, but just at this instant the brain ceases to act, and the
movements it has recorded as having taken place were never in fact
accomplished. The result is a miss which to the marksman must always
remain an absolute mystery.
The duration of time of which the marksman has no record, that is the
space in which his brain is practically paralyzed, varies greatly
with different individuals, though I am impressed with the belief
that everyone is affected without exception. It might not last longer
than the twentieth of a second, a time so short that it would have no
practical influence upon gunner’s work, or it might have such duration
as to make him very slow with the second barrel.
Moreover the mind may take cognizance of what is occurring without
being able to take the initiative; it can note what is transpiring
without having the power to give active commands. Afterwards the
shooter can remember what took place and see where he missed an
opportunity, but cannot tell why he failed to take advantage of it. We
note examples of this kind in ordinary life: someone may neglect to act
at a critical period and we say he lacked presence of mind--the shock
caused a cessation of brain control. The brain may either not have been
acting at all, or it may have been like the engine of an automobile
that is pounding away with the clutch disengaged. In such an event, if
muscles and nerves accomplish anything they must do it automatically;
the machine could only go forward from previous momentum.
That is the point we are trying to drive home in shooting. For an
infinitesimal or greater length of time when a shot is fired the brain
having lost control under shock, the muscles must be taught to carry on
certain actions without conscious effort and yet with precision. There
is no question but they can be trained to do this and it must be done
if any great brilliance in marksmanship is ever to be attained. The
greater the effect of recoil upon the gunner, the longer space of time
in which the brain fails to function, the more thoroughly must nerves
and muscles be taught to do things automatically, or instinctively, or
unconsciously, call it what you will.
Could training of this nature be made perfect, the shooter might sight
his target, throw up his gun to cover the bird, mentally calculate the
point where it would be killed, that is where line of aim and line of
flight would connect, and then all brain effort having ceased the shot
would be fired at the given point, and the piece carried on to where
the second charge was to be sent.
The writer has seen something similar to this accomplished numerous
times in night shooting. The bird having shown only for an instant,
giving its line and speed of flight, then disappeared utterly, but was
killed with almost the same certainty as though it had been in plain
sight. Naturally no second barrel could have been fired under such
circumstances, because the result of the first barrel would not be
seen, but had the gunner become aware in some way that he had missed,
he might still have killed the bird with his remaining load, the whole
mental effort being matured in the short space of time the bird was in
sight.
The gist of this is that flinching, the cause of which is overstraining
mind and nerves, can be cured by rigid training, but where the cause is
an actual fear of punishment, either sound or jab, it is a different
matter. The trite saying that prevention is better than cure applies
with special force here. Had I the coaching of a lady or sensitive
lad in shotgun shooting, no heavily charged twelve bore would ever be
tolerated; I would choose a twenty gauge of more than normal weight,
with barrels thirty or thirty-two inches long, and charge them lightly.
Bad eggs are never so laid, but chemistry can do little for them after
they have passed a certain stage; granting we have fair eyesight,
nature has kindly endowed us with every power necessary to the making
of a good shot, but very often indeed we foil her good intentions.
CONCENTRATION
Concentration is not a quality of an untrained mind. The expert shot
may not know Latin, Greek or mathematics, but his mind has been trained
to concentrate more absolutely than would be needful in solving
algebraic problems. Whatever his knowledge of gunnery, a man cannot be
considered reliable with either rifle or smoothbore without the ability
to fix his mind upon one thing to the utter exclusion of everything
else in the world.
A rifleman who shoots upon the range with his fellows must so train
himself that he will not hear the gun that is discharged within four
feet of his head. The pigeon shot who could not prevent his mind from
dwelling upon previous misses would never excel in the sport. I have
known two crack quail shots to cross their guns without knowing it when
a bevy broke, and one of them shot off the muzzle of the other’s gun.
If, after selecting one bird of a bevy at which to fire, the marksman
still sees other birds, the chances are that he misses them all. The
shooter who can see trees that are liable to interfere with his aim
would probably miss the target were the trees absent.
Some sportsmen cannot shoot well in company from inability to free
their minds of some faint knowledge of what companions may be doing.
When two men have both decided to fire at a bird, and the knowledge of
what the other is to do is known to both, the bird will be more likely
to escape than if but the one gun was fired--this because the minds of
the gunners are divided between aiming and a consciousness of what the
other gun is doing. One bird of a bevy is harder to kill than a bird
rising singly for a similar reason. The match shooter who could feel an
earthquake while aiming a shot would be the wrong man to place money
upon.
A perfect control of the mind and nervous organization is essential to
either field or trap shooting, and the latter must hear what is being
said about him without comprehending it. Making irritating remarks
in connection with a competitor’s shooting is an old trick of pigeon
shots. The surest way to rattle a field shot is to induce him to
discuss his misses while still shooting.
I remember one very clever quail shot that I took the job of rattling
as a joke. His misses were usually shots that went low which caused
him to fall into my scheme very innocently by agreeing that I should
observe his work and call attention to every shot that went low. As
soon as a bird arose I called, monotonously, “shoot high, shoot high.”
Very shortly he was missing nearly every bird fired upon and was a
very thoroughly worried man. He afterwards told me that no sooner had
the bird started than he could think of nothing but me and my infernal
“shoot high”.
Another individual was slow with his second barrel and I consented to
coach him. He was a peppery chap, but usually pretty reliable with his
first barrel. When the bird jumped, I said, sharply, “second barrel,
second barrel” with the certain result of his rattling off both barrels
without touching a feather. He flew into a rage finally.
A good shot with a trained mind, capable of a high degree of
concentration, would never have heard what I said. I have known men
in brush shooting to strike their muzzles against a limb and push the
branch along sufficiently to get an aim and kill the bird without
knowing the limb was there until afterwards. With his mind divided a
marksman can no more shoot straight than he could throw baseballs with
both hands at the same time.
Here are a few axioms to be remembered: When aiming see nothing, feel
nothing, hear nothing, think of nothing except the work in hand. While
shooting solve the problem that is before you, and not the one that is
past. Always kill the first bird shot at if you have enough loads in
your gun, and never mind the others.
SELF-CONFIDENCE
In wing-shooting self-confidence is a great asset. When a bird springs,
if there is any doubt in your mind as to your ability to kill, the
result will probably be a miss. A feeling must be ever present of
absolute power to kill, a feeling born of previous success. Any feeling
of confidence not born of past results is simply self-deception. The
vain glorious fellow who believes that he can do anything without
trying has the sort of faith that wouldn’t deceive anyone except
himself.
If a novice could suddenly become miraculously possessed of the
knowledge of exactly where to hold, with the mechanical ability to
handle his gun, he yet could not shoot from lack of confidence in his
newly acquired powers. The only self-confidence built upon a solid
foundation is that which comes from repeated, almost unvarying success.
Confidence that comes from thoroughly tested ability is the stock in
trade of the expert and so long as he possesses it, he will shoot well.
Overconfidence is a different matter,--a miss usually resulting from
the marksman’s conscious or unconscious belief that it is not necessary
for him to put forth his full powers. Shoot with all your might, at the
easy birds and the hard ones alike, quitting when becoming tired rather
than to shoot on carelessly.
CHAPTER VI
SPEED OF FLIGHT--WHERE TO HOLD--JUDGING DISTANCES
No amount of mechanical ability to handle a gun, such skill as might
be acquired in trap shooting, will ever make a crack field shot out
of the man who cannot estimate distances accurately, or who would not
know where to hold if he did. In treating the subject of speed of mark,
distance of target, and amount of lead, the writer feels constrained to
admit that no theoretical knowledge can take the place of experience--a
world of experience. The knowledge that comes only with long years of
shooting is something that is never received on a platter of gold, but
is bought and well paid for by the years that have gone by; it is power
that was stored by the water that has gone past the wheel forever.
It is well that this is so, for if youth, with its irrepressible
vitality, its muscles of iron and nerves of steel, might magically have
the wisdom of age also, there would be no use for the veteran in this
world--he would have to be Oslerized to make room. The best the author
can do is to give such advice as may prevent the water from slipping by
without turning the wheel.
Given the velocity of our projectile, the speed, distance, and angle on
which our mark is traveling, and it is easy to work out the exact spot
at which the aim must be taken in order to connect with the target.
But, as has been shown in previous chapters, all our theories will
be much modified and negatived by the different styles of shooting
that men have acquired. Indeed so many factors have a bearing that it
is rare for theory and practice to agree, and it is seldom that two
skilled shots can be found who will not have divergent views about
where to hold.
Just how much the mathematical lead will have to be changed by the
shooter’s manner of swinging is something that everyone will have to
decide for himself. The novice who manages by the rapidity of his
swing to cut theoretical lead in half is on pretty safe ground. The
scientific lead is given in these pages merely as a foundation for
those who have not yet built a shooting structure of their own.
The following table gives either the estimated or timed speed of flight
of some of our common game birds, taken when they are in full plumage
and power, after having flown such a distance as to have acquired full
momentum. It may be noted that birds of the order of quail and grouse
are much more uniform in rate of progress than wildfowl. Nature did
not give the grouse family such wing powers as the migratory birds, the
one style of flying they have developed giving a very regular velocity.
It might be taken as almost axiomatic that the greater the strength
of wing possessed by any bird, the more will his speed vary with his
humors and needs. Some hawks can stand still in the air, but they can
also cut through it faster than anything that flies; the king bird
ordinarily flies slowly, but he can dart like a flash of light when he
wishes.
The variations in flight speed of quail and grouse can be ascribed
to wind and atmosphere rather than to the will of the bird. One of
them might fly past you, running a hazard of both barrels, without
accelerating his wing strokes a particle, though doubtless he is as
much frightened as any other bird. As much cannot be said of the duck
tribe who sprint or loiter as the occasion demands, always appearing
able to let out another link or two when danger is pressing.
The velocities here given are taken in feet per second rather than
miles per hour which is less readily comprehended or applied by the
gunner.
TABLE OF FLIGHTS.
_Bird._ _Feet per Second._ _Average._
Quail 65 to 85 75
Prairie chicken 65 to 85 75
Ruffed grouse 60 to 90 75
Dove 70 to 100 85
Jack snipe 50 to 70 65
Curlew 45 to 65 55
Plovers 50 to 80 according to variety.
Crow 35 to 55 45
Mallard 55 to 90 75
Black duck 55 to 90 75
Spoonbill 55 to 85 70
Pintail 60 to 100 80
Wood duck 70 to 90 80
Widgeon 80 to 100 90
Gadwell 80 to 100 90
Red head 110 to 130 120
Bluewing Teal 120 to 140 130
Greenwing Teal 100 to 130 115
Canvasback 130 to 160 145
Canada geese 100 to 120 110
Brant, different varieties, average speed 100
Some species of hawks have a speed of 200 feet a second.
There may be much greater variation in the flight of some of these
birds than could be given in any table. An old mallard might plug
lazily along, looking for a place to alight and not travel above thirty
feet a second; on the other hand he has a tremendous sprint when
frightened. It might be said that given a good scare any of these ducks
can reach maximum speed at will, and this sprinting flight is usually
what the gunner has to make allowance for.
Give a bluewing teal a forty-mile breeze behind him, have the little
rascal dropping down with it, and he comes on so fast as to be simply
unhittable--some writers have claimed a speed for him of a hundred
and fifty miles an hour or two hundred and twenty feet a second. The
canvasback, redhead and bluebill have a way of driving before a gale,
too, that will be found fast enough in all conscience. Much of the
fascination of wing-shooting comes from the fact that shots will always
be afforded quite beyond skill of mortal man.
On the contrary many wildfowl are jumped, killed when hovering over
decoys, or shot while unsuspicious of danger and moving slowly; enough
of such shots are the rule to keep the tyro in good heart. Moreover
many birds like snipe, quail, chickens, and grouse are generally killed
before they have attained full speed, perhaps ninety per cent. of
such birds falling before they have reached normal flight velocity.
Generally speaking, upland birds are not shot while passing the gun at
right angles, but are going straight away, quartering, or twisting. It
follows that in the fields our gravest shooting problems are other than
reckoning speed of flight, but on the marshes our ability to calculate
distances both horizontal and vertical has full play.
As a consequence wildfowl work may be said to be the most scientific
wing-shooting in the world, while the expert of the uplands displays
such uncanny quickness of perception that we can only explain it as
instinct. Comparing the work of the men who follow either of these
branches of sport, we might say that the sportsman of the fields has
much to unlearn ere he can perform creditably upon the web-feet, and
the man of the duck boat has only a foundation for partridge shooting
skill. Having learned to kill quail we can no more double up a whizzing
canvasback than a man can play golf because he has learned croquet, or
a ninety per cent. clay saucer breaker can hit a jack snipe.
MATHEMATICAL LEAD
The figures given below are based upon a shot charge having a mean
velocity over a fifty foot course of one thousand feet; over a one
hundred foot range, of nine hundred feet; and for the distance of
one hundred and fifty feet, eight hundred feet a second. Of course
these calculations for shot velocity are only approximately correct,
since they would alter with the size of the pellets, the larger shot
maintaining a higher momentum at the longer ranges. Then, too, the
initial velocity of the load might be greater or less than that given.
Nevertheless, as it would be obviously impossible to work out the
problems to fit every different charge, without taking up the space of
a book, these will do as well as any.
No allowance has been made for the time required to pull trigger, the
action of the lock, or the time necessary for the charge to pass from
breech to muzzle, these being variable quantities that would only
render the matter more complex. Mathematical lead, as here given, means
simply the distance the bird would fly at his stated rate of speed
while the shot were reaching him at the velocity mentioned.
A snipe, curlew, or plover, flying at the rate of sixty feet a second,
would require a lead of two and one-half feet at fifty feet; five and
five-ninth feet at one hundred feet; and nine and three-eighths feet at
fifty yards.
A quail, prairie chicken, ruffed grouse, or mallard, covering space
at a speed of seventy-five feet a second, would have to be led three
and three-quarter feet at fifty feet; eight and one-third feet at one
hundred; and fourteen feet at fifty yards.
A wood-duck, widgeon, or pintail flying ninety feet a second, would
necessitate a lead of four and one-half feet at fifty feet; ten feet at
one hundred; and at fifty yards sixteen and seven-eighths feet.
A gadwell, greenwing, or wild goose traveling one hundred feet a second
would call for a lead of five feet at fifty feet; eleven and one-ninth
feet at one hundred; and eighteen and three-quarters feet at fifty
yards.
A bluewing teal, canvasback, or redhead, passing at the rate of one
hundred and twenty feet a second would need a lead of six feet at a
distance of fifty; thirteen and three-ninths at one hundred; and at
fifty yards twenty-two and one-half feet.
Should a canvasback or bluewing flash by at the rate of one hundred
and fifty feet a second, which they doubtless sometimes do in a wind,
the lead for fifty feet would be seven and one-half feet, that for
one hundred, sixteen and two-thirds; for fifty yards twenty-eight and
one-eighth feet.
Granted that a hawk is able to fly two hundred feet a second, as
stated, this means that over a fifty yard range the shot charge would
travel but four times as fast as the bird, and the lead required to
connect with him at the distance would be thirty-seven and one-half
feet. Even in the case of many of the ducks the shot have a velocity
barely eight times as great as the target. Bearing this in mind, the
need of correctly estimating distance and lead may strike the reader
with new force.
It should be noted that these allowances for lead are all theoretical.
The average experienced man, who fires with a rapidly swinging gun,
would cut the given lead in half, and many expert wildfowlers would do
better than that. It might be added here that any apparent lead greater
than ten feet becomes pretty much guesswork. I have myself killed teal
in a Minnesota gale by holding what I considered twenty feet ahead of
them, but the feat was performed so seldom as to be readily recalled.
It should be remembered that consciously giving a lead of twenty feet
means really a much greater allowance if the gun is swinging true and
fast. Naturally difficult shots like those are the “home runs” of
wing-shooting.
It is hardly necessary to state that all the calculations here
presented call for the bird’s passing at right angles to the gun, any
other angle of flight obviously changing the lead.
JUDGING DISTANCES
Within shotgun range it is a comparatively easy matter to judge
distances along the ground, especially stationary objects of recognized
dimensions. Even birds a-wing that fly low nearly always pass a tree or
something else that will afford us a basis for calculations. But with
birds of unknown size, passing overhead, the matter assumes different
proportions.
As previously stated, in upland shooting, where the birds generally
rise near us the matter of estimating distances need not concern us
seriously. To be sure some shots will be missed through an incorrect
lead due to badly judged flight, but such chances will not occur often
enough to make a great difference in the size of the bag.
When wildfowl are in question, however, the subject is one that cannot
be studied too closely. Ducks frequently maintain a line of flight so
regular that striking them could present no great difficulty if we knew
how far they were away from the gun and exactly what lead to give them.
Nine misses in ten upon the marsh are caused by faulty lead, which in
turn must be attributed to poor judgment of distance or speed of flight.
Expert gunners estimate the distance of their mark, first, by knowing
the kind of bird that is coming in and the size that it should appear
at a given time. This makes it imperative that we should always be
able to recognize the species of fowl that is approaching, be it teal,
mallard, or pintail, for we cannot reckon nearness by size unless
the size is well known. Secondly, the closeness of wildfowl can be
approximately figured by keenly observing their markings. The shooter
may say that he knew the bird was within range because he could see the
white on its cheeks or the bars on its wings. The third method is to
observe the apparent time required for the fowl to pass the gun. A bird
that is well out will seemingly be much longer in passing than he would
if he whistled by our heads.
One of the first things for a wildfowler to learn is to recognize the
kind of duck which is approaching while it is yet at a distance. Until
he can do this simply by the manner of the bird’s flying he cannot
hope to do a great deal of execution. This is true for more than one
reason, but the particular one which concerns us now is the necessity
for judging the bird’s range by its size and appearance. The novice
quickly comes to know that a mallard shows markings about as far as he
can be killed, but if he is looking for trimmings of chestnut, white,
and green, and a little black teal whizzes by at half gunshot he will
never believe that it was within reach.
Nevertheless when experience has taught us to recognize at sight the
different species of fowl there is no better key to the mysteries of
unknown range than the markings of the birds. So many yards away we can
distinguish the drakes from the ducks. A certain nearer approach and
the chestnut and white of the mallard drake’s breast no longer blend.
Close up the very eyes of the bird may be seen, or the curl upon his
tail, and then even the tyro knows that his mark is within easy reach.
[Illustration: Estimating a bird’s distance by his apparent size and
the plainness of his markings. Lower bird 50 feet, middle one 100 feet,
upper, 150.]
Probably judging the distance of a wildfowl by his markings is the mode
most commonly practiced. It is usually very reliable, though to be
sure atmospheric conditions would have an influence. In rainy or foggy
weather the colors might blend when the bird was nearly on top of you.
And, by the way, estimating the distance or size of the flying game in
a fog is almost impossible.
The apparent size of the mark also gives the gunner a very good line
on its vicinity to the gun. When the bird looms up as big as a balloon
you know that he ought to be within gunshot. It is here, however,
that a man’s eyes often deceive his reason. After killing a mallard
at forty yards, he permits a teal at thirty-five to escape because he
fully believes it is out of range. In like manner, impressed with the
appearance of the ducks, an old Canada honker will not seem to be half
as far away as he really is and a lot of forbearance is needed to keep
from cutting loose while he is yet two gunshot lengths off. A safe
plan with the big bird is to let him come just as close as he will if
he drops into the pit. As a matter of fact, that is a pretty good plan
with any kind of a waterfowl larger than a teal, for almost invariably
they are not so close as they appear to be.
With very small birds the opposite might be true, as for example a
quail at forty yards looks a long distance off, many would pronounce
him from fifty to sixty yards away. This accounts for most of the
sixty-yard shots on quail that we read about, the bird really being
under forty oftener than not.
Judging the distance of the target by the rapidity with which it
approached and passed the gun would be reliable if a man had his bump
of mathematics highly developed and nothing else to do. The fowl being
above our heads, with its markings showing clearly, should it seemingly
require a long time to pass out of range, so that if need be a half
dozen shots could be fired at it, we can safely assume that it was
quite out of gunshot to begin with.
This reminds me of the efforts of a young friend of mine on his first
duck shoot. He said that he had no trouble about getting an aim on some
of the birds, but that others drummed by so fast that he couldn’t shoot
at them at all. I found that he was banging away at all the high-flying
flocks while the birds that whistled by his head escaped without
drawing fire. In a modified way this happens to more than one novice.
Correctly estimating the distance of the mark will not avail us much
unless we can at the same time closely calculate the speed of flight.
The lead that would kill mallards right along will miss every teal
that wings past us; or if by accident the beginner first learns to
connect with the teal, he will be disgusted at missing the slow flying
greenheads and pintail while apparently hanging right over his head.
Indeed, the expert gunner is often dismayed to find that he cannot
change his swing to adapt it to a slow moving mark after becoming
accustomed to a speedy one. He perceives at once that he should do so,
but shooting instinct and habit betray him. It is often laughable to
see a crack shot lead a rabbit three feet too much when bunny hops up
among the scattered quail.
[Illustration: Estimating distance to hold ahead in lengths of the bird]
The ordinary manner of estimating the lead for a bird is not in feet,
as might be expected, but in lengths of the bird. For instance, at
fifty yards ten feet appears a very short distance, but a bird that is
known to be twelve inches long seems very small also; nevertheless, by
taking ten of his lengths we can safely assume that we are ten feet
ahead of him. This rule, of course, pertains to any distance, while
by attempting to work in feet we will find that the eye will deceive
us with every varying range. Not one inexperienced shot in a dozen can
come closer than two feet to estimating the distance apart of two poles
at fifty yards, not to mention measuring off ten feet in the air with
nothing to serve as a guide or comparison. Despite this, the novice may
guess off ten lengths with sufficient accuracy to insure a kill.
After a time the final dependence of every veteran shot comes to be
shooting habit. He glances at the flying quarry, swings upon it, and
pulls when he feels he is right, with deadly results. The feeling
of where to hold becomes so strong that no manner of reasoning or
instruction would change his point of aim. This is not from any form of
instinct, but simply because he swung so and killed many times before.
He finally does it all without second thought, or first thought either,
and should you ask him how much he led he wouldn’t remember, either
feet or lengths. Perhaps he might declare that he didn’t lead at all,
or barely shot in front; this because his mind was upon other things.
Notwithstanding the above this style of shooting can be safely imitated
by the novice. Humanity is so constituted that it must learn things
slowly, through a process of reasoning, and reason only can lay a sure
foundation for the so-called shooting instinct. If there is any royal
road to success in wing-shooting the writer has never known anyone
to strike it. Practice and study, practice and study; you will never
become perfect, but you can become expert.
CHAPTER VII
HINTS ON SHOOTING DIFFERENT GAME BIRDS
The limits of this book will not permit me to treat shooting the
various game birds at length. Indeed, full instructions for handling
the ordinary varieties of game which fall before the shotgun in this
country would require a volume of itself. The best that I can do in
this one chapter on the subject is to give a few hints which the
beginner may find worth consulting.
THE BOB WHITE QUAIL
This little fellow is to head the list because he is the most widely
distributed and best loved of all our game birds. In all the South,
the West to the mountains, and throughout the Middle States, not
a sportsman can be found who will not assert a fondness for quail
shooting, the sport of many being limited to this one bird. The
friendly brown chap ranges from Minnesota to the southern extremity of
Florida, and in all this region the lad who has any shooting instinct
born in him must have longed to follow the pointers and the quail,
years ere he was able to bear the weight of a gun.
Little Bob affords shooting under many conditions, some of them so easy
as to make him one of the least difficult of all our game birds to bag,
and others quite hard enough to call forth the highest skill of the
most expert gun. The tyro can kill some quail, and the practiced shot
will fall far short of securing them all.
The marked characteristics of quail are that he lies best to the dog
and rises nearer the gun than any other game bird of the uplands; he is
found both in the open and in heavy cover; he can be pursued on foot,
on horseback, and sometimes in wagons; the bevies break away all in
a bunch, with a tremendous rush and whir of wings, with a startling
rapidity only rivaled by the ruffed grouse; and he is a winged athlete,
capable of swerving and dodging when occasion demands in a manner to
shame a jack snipe. Parenthetically permit me to venture here the
opinion that quail do not dodge maliciously, their powers in this
respect being merely called forth by circumstances.
In an open, level, ragweed field, where the vegetation is from knee to
waist high, Bob sails away on an even keel, as straight as an arrow,
whereupon a right and left should be within the powers of the average
shot. However, let trees and brush intervene and the course of the
little bird is beyond the foresight of man; then, too, he will swerve
so quickly as to escape a charge of shot that has been sent direct for
him.
One of the difficulties of quail shooting lies in the very fact that
would apparently make his killing a simple proposition, his rising near
the gun. Let me illustrate: If a quail rose within ten feet of the gun
and continued sailing around the shooter’s head at a mile a minute
gait, the chances are that he couldn’t be killed in ten shots, both
the bird and the gun changing angle with a rapidity beyond the ability
of the mind to calculate. In the same way a close springing bird may
change his angle with regard to the gun so rapidly as to entail a long
and accurate swing before he can be covered.
He may rise within twenty feet of the gun, be killed within fifty feet,
and yet meantime he has half boxed the compass. For such a shot as this
the poise of the gunner’s body must be maintained very nicely, if he
is to turn half about without disturbing the balance, and at the same
time cover a small, rapidly moving object with precision. This lengthy
swing is a mechanically troublesome proposition on the principle that
anything at all hard to accomplish becomes more trying the longer
continued. Making a long and accurate swing with a shotgun might aptly
be compared with rifle shooting at a thousand yards. Any rifleman could
hit the bull’s-eye if you put him close enough, and the shotgun shooter
could best place his charge upon the mark when he did not have to
swing the arm at all.
[Illustration: Turning on him]
The nature of the quail’s flight frequently makes this long swing
unavoidable. The bird may rise to the north, pass to the west, and be
killed to the south. Had it been possible to foresee that the bird
would swing about to the south before being killed, the gun might have
been pointed there, rendering unnecessary a complex gun movement, but
meantime the quarry would probably have gone in some other direction.
The quail work that calls for care and skill is cover shooting, and the
only safe rule there is to point your gun as near the bird as you can
when he breaks and shoot as quickly as you can get on.
It is all well enough to give the trite advice not to shoot too
quickly, give the bird time enough to straighten out, but half the
time that this is done no shot will be fired at all. An old German
hunting axiom covers this ground: “Any time you fail to shoot you have
made a miss.” We have all been out with the individual who withheld
his fire because he “couldn’t get on to that fellow,” and he is a
most exasperating companion where the other gun is waiting for him
to shoot. The promptest possible work is requisite in quail shooting,
the nerves of the gunner awaiting a rise being really keyed up as high
as those of a sprinter on the mark listening for the pistol shot. A
trained quail shot can be made to fairly jump into the air by roughly
imitating the rush of the bird’s wings.
This idea of waiting for a quail to fly a certain distance reminds me
of the advice of dear old Frank Forester. His scheme was never to cock
his piece until the bird was on the wing, then raise the left hammer,
shift and pull up the right, by which time the shooter would have
recovered his coolness, and the mark would be just the distance to be
killed with ease and absolute certainty. I tried the plan when a boy,
and can fully believe an old market gunner who said that Frank Forester
never could shoot quail. The time to shoot a quail in the brush is
when and where you can see him; the opportunity perhaps not lasting a
quarter of a second.
The quail shot must possess mechanical steadiness, rapidity of action,
nerve force, and nerve control. Mechanically there is no comparison
between following, making a half turn and cutting down a quail at fifty
feet, and throwing up the gun with a five-inch swing to lead a mallard
ten feet at fifty yards. Which of the shots will be the more difficult
of accomplishment is a matter of training and experience. The quail
shot must possess mechanics and nerve, the duck hunter, shooting
knowledge. Personally I believe that quail work takes a great deal
more out of a man, so that killing fifty quail will result in a nerve
exhaustion that would not accompany bagging a hundred ducks.
Sporting writers are disposed to dwell upon the necessity for holding
high in quail shooting, didactically stating that nearly all misses
either go low or fall behind. Our literary gunners either get this
idea from one another, accepting it without question as people do most
of their wisdom, or their logic, so far as they have any, is that as
the bird is rising from the ground, the charge must necessarily drop
beneath unless care be taken to hold above. This theory really applies
to pigeon shooting from the traps, originating from the demands of that
sport.
The plain principle that should be remembered is that any bird flying
away from the gun, beneath the line of aim, demands high holding
whether or not the mark is rising; on the other hand, a target above
the level of the eye may require low holding even when it is gradually
rising. Let us make this plain. A bird rises near the gun and the
weapon is pointed there, the muzzle being directed down toward the
ground. Now the mark may fly away nearly along the ground, as pigeons
often do, and yet the line of aim must steadily rise until the gun is
nearly in a horizontal position.
On the contrary, if the bird rises sharply at the first bound to a
height some distance above the gun and then goes off level, or even
rises somewhat, the gun will first be elevated to an angle of perhaps
forty-five degrees and then with the receding target must drop until
near the horizontal. Applying this principle we find that shots must be
directed high for all outgoing birds that are beneath the level of the
eye and low for all outgoing birds that are above the level of the eye
unless they continue to rise at a very sharp angle.
I shall call attention briefly to the shots that are liable to go high;
those in which the tendency is to fall under; the manner of flight when
the charge often strikes behind; and where the error will be leading
too much. To begin with, permit me to repeat a statement previously
made that in upland shooting only the occasional bird requires any
great amount of lead. The obvious reason for this is that any target
which rises close to the gun must in the nature of things go away from
it and cannot maintain a right-angled flight for any great distance.
A bird may be readily overshot when he is flying straight away and
perfectly level, in consequence of the line of swing being so very
short. The gun comes to the shoulder pointing but a few inches beneath
the target; then if it is brought up quickly the probability is that it
travels above the mark while the trigger is being pressed. The problem
of the shooter here is to start his line of swing sufficiently below
the mark so that the finger can receive fair warning before the time
comes to pull. Another shot often going high is when the bird rises
to some little elevation and then drives away with a lowering flight
before the aim is secured.
One of the most troublesome of open quail shots to gauge is when the
little chap rises near the gun to a height of twenty or thirty feet and
then goes off level. The natural inclination is to swing after him,
unconscious that he is really going down toward the horizontal line
and that the aim must in many instances be taken at least a foot low.
Another quail shot in which few ever become proficient is the incomer.
Flying low as this bird does, should he be allowed to approach within
less than forty-five feet it is almost impossible to strike him owing
to the rapidity with which the gun must be moved to keep pace with the
flight. The nearer the bird comes to you the faster the muzzle swing,
and at that the bird either outpaces you or you jerk ahead blindly
without any aim and kill only by accident. The incomer should be fired
upon when fifty feet or more away, should he be seen in time, or,
failing to get in the shot there, turn on the bird and take him after
he passes by. When attempting this last feat always hold under such a
distance as would appear a sure miss, usually a foot and a half unless
the bird is rising.
Naturally the shape of a man’s gunstock will modify his holding for
any of the shots that should go high or low. This particular flight,
the bird passing overhead and going away, was the most successfully
accomplished with the use of one peculiar weapon which the author
owned fifteen or twenty years ago. It was a straight stocked gun to
begin with, made emphatically so by the addition of a Monte Carlo comb
which caused it to shoot high and to the left. With this piece there
was never any of the trouble with the incomers that I have experienced
with other arms. The incomer was allowed to pass and then the aim taken
about two feet low and four inches to the right, and down he came stone
dead, seemingly the most certain shot that could be taken.
[Illustration: Shooting high for a quail topping the brush]
Shot charges should be delivered high when the game rises so wild as
to require snapping before reaching the end of its climbing bound,
the snap shot being demanded to prevent the quarry getting beyond
range. Under such circumstances the line of aim would not follow the
line of flight with a swing, but would pass straight up in front to
the connecting point. Such shots as this more often occur in prairie
chicken shooting than with quail. Another problem that necessitates
quick perception is when the bird meets some obstruction to his flight.
The inclination of a quail is always to jump over rather than dodge
under anything that comes in his way, the rise beginning some distance
ere he reaches the obstruction. Hence watch your mark closely, should
he be winging toward a low tree or brush, for he is nearly certain to
rise, and it is then a safe rule to hold over anyway.
It should be known that the majority of under shots are due, not so
much to the flight of the bird, as to the nerves of the gunner. When
there is need of quick action, in a semi-snap or rapid swing, with the
sportsman’s nerves tensely strung, there is more than a possibility
of the finger betraying the judgment by letting off ere the piece has
quite traveled up to cover the mark. In every instance of this kind the
charge must either go low or behind, and usually both.
Take it for granted that in upland shooting two-thirds of the misses
that fall beneath and back are the result of rebellious nerves. Nerves
are especially hard to manage where the swing is a long one, which we
have shown it must often be with quail, and hence the pigeon shooter’s
axiom of “shoot high and in front” might apply to Bob White, only it
should read “don’t pull until you are on.” If you cannot avoid doing
this, harden the trigger of your gun.
Individuals differ, and the personality of the gunner must always
govern largely, but the writer has always had his best success in quail
shooting by firing a semi-snap shot with the first barrel and swinging
after with the second. With practice, too, it will be found that the
gun can be swung with greater ease and certainty, and a better view
maintained of the mark, when the head is held upright, free of the
gunstock.
PRAIRIE CHICKEN SHOOTING
Chicken shooting was once such a simple business as scarcely to deserve
the name of sport, for the half-grown chicks were killed in August
while still under charge of the old hen. At present the hunting of
these grouse begins with October, and the work upon the mature and
powerful fowl is not only elegant sport, but of a nature to test the
skill of any man. The bevies now become broken up, scattering about
singly, in pairs, and small bunches, and then with the approach of
winter packing into coveys of several hundred. The larger the packs or
the colder the weather, the wilder chickens become.
The very finest of prairie grouse shooting is to be had on the
occasional warm, sunny days that come in November and December. Then
while the big fellows are not tame, and certainly not tame shooting,
they will frequently permit the gunner to approach within half gunshot,
and a few brace of the powerful birds in the strength of their lusty
growth and the beauty of their winter plumage will afford intense
satisfaction to any sportsman who prefers quality to quantity. We will
treat of bagging these strong, brown fellows rather than the September
fledglings that even the tyro would require no special instruction to
kill.
The full-grown pinnated grouse is rather more powerful of wing than a
quail, though from his size he seems to move slower. He is, however,
not so sharp in getting away from the mark as his little cousin, and
hence if he lay to a point like the latter would be easier shooting,
but the late fall chicken doesn’t lie as close as a quail, the rise
being anywhere from twenty yards to a long gunshot. It follows that
straightaway chances are the exception rather than the rule, and the
distance of the spring makes it needful that nearly every shot be well
judged and given its proper allowance ahead. Almost invariably daylight
should be seen between the point of aim and the bird, the lead being
anywhere from a foot to eight feet where an old cock is crossing at
forty-five yards.
In the course of a day upon the prairies nearly every description of
shot known in wing-shooting may be afforded. Occasionally a bird will
rise under your feet and drive away low over the short coated prairie,
but the majority will be quartering shots at every conceivable angle
from a straightaway to a direct incomer. Frequently the cackling chaps
will spring to a height of thirty or forty feet, and then drop away
with whip and twist and flash of wings toward the distant horizon--the
most careful gunner finding plenty of empty space along these curves
of flight. Numbers will cross at right angles, demanding as much lead
as a mallard duck, and sometimes a pack will come stringing along like
English driven game, yielding the sportsman as hot a thirty seconds as
he ever experienced.
The chicken being a heavy bird cannot reach top speed so promptly as
a quail, and they have a way of climbing for the first few yards that
keeps them within gunshot, when a quail or ruffed grouse would be
putting such space between himself and the gun that shooting at him
would be useless.
I should estimate that a quail would fly forty-five feet the first
second after his jump, a ruffed grouse from forty-five to fifty-five
feet, a chicken perhaps not above thirty, though in doing this he might
rise to a height of twenty feet. As a consequence pinnated grouse
can sometimes be bagged that take wing forty yards from the gun, but
it calls for a high degree of shooting skill to gauge both his speed
away from the gun and his angle of elevation. With these long range
shots the gun should always come up to the point of discharge with the
least possible lost motion, something of accuracy being sacrificed
to prompt delivery of the charge, care being taken to shoot plenty
high--sometimes as much as two feet above the climbing fowl. This work
has more resemblance to jumping ducks than anything quail shooting
develops.
The mature chicken is suspicious, preferring rather to trust in the
strength of his strong wings than to any ability to hide. With the
wild fellows it is better to chance a miss with a rough snap that has
power to drive the pellets home in place of a precise aim that could
only rattle the shot upon his stiff wing feathers. Nevertheless, I have
found the quick half snap to be the most killing style, care being
taken to steady the gun before lifting it to the mark.
The second barrel will naturally follow the first in a quick swing and
should snap in after the first with the same celerity as in pigeon
shooting from the traps. The best policy in all wing-shooting is to
consider any bird near enough for the second barrel that was within
reach of the first. Otherwise an indecisive second barrel will grow
upon you to the detriment of all your shooting.
Where the utmost rapidity is requisite the obvious thing to do is to
get your weapon to shoulder with the flash of the springing bird; then
in the slight interim needed to steady the piece the calculation for
lead can be made, and the charge sent there instantly, care being taken
not to jerk the weapon with uncontrollable roughness. With the shooter
walking up his bird, and of course without having gun, legs, or body in
shooting position, a grouse can be stopped by a fast man within five
yards of where it breaks cover, the time taken to accomplish all the
separate, complex movements not being over half a second.
Only the wisest old chicken dog will be found serviceable on November
grouse, an animal which can scent his game at from fifty to two hundred
yards and one that will not attempt to approach it except in close
company with the gun. On birds that have packed and become excessively
wild, two men may often work together to advantage, the one hiding in
the grass while the other drives the game over him.
There are times when not a single chicken will permit an unconcealed
gunner to approach a foot within one hundred yards. Under the
circumstances the only recourse is to either drive the birds or to
endeavor to shoot them from horseback or wagon. A horse can sometimes
be galloped right among the fowl, especially in a country where they
have become accustomed to the unmolesting cowpuncher. A driven wagon
sometimes proves equally serviceable, but the second time you endeavor
to drive up to a flushed pack you will learn that the wise birds have
sized up the situation perfectly, and chickens can fly about over the
rough prairie faster than horses can trot.
THE RUFFED GROUSE
The ruffed grouse is the wisest of all his tribe, of which all have
brains, and as a winged sprinter is the quickest away from scratch
of anything that flies. The quail dodges with phenomenal suddenness
when anything obstructs his path, the wind sometimes unbalances a
jack snipe, giving his flight the acme of eccentricity, but the
partridge does it all deliberately and maliciously. With gunner and
ruffed grouse, as with pitcher and batter, it is a guessing game, and
whichever outguesses comes off the victor. Flush a quail in the thick
woods and should there be an opening he may fly straight down it; a
partridge might, too, but be sure he will not. I have seen one of
the birds sitting before a dog’s point in a perfectly open spot, but
there was a tree within twenty feet. I planned to get a shot at him
before he could reach that tree, and ordered the dog to crawl in while
I stood with gun ready. The wise old scoundrel got up with provoking
deliberation, spread his tail, legged it around behind the tree and
then took wing with a tremendous hurrah.
In partridge shooting, knowledge of the bird’s habits will avail more
than shooting skill. The hunter should have that rare sort of partridge
wisdom that few are born with and less ever acquire. One man always
luckily selects the spot where the fish will bite if there are any,
and the old partridge crank can forever place himself in just the spot
to get his opportunity, while all the other fellows have to take what
happens to come.
The thing for the ruffed grouse hunter to do is to shoot and never
count shells. Should the bird fly behind a tree and not reappear, shoot
the tree in two if you can. When he simply roars in beyond the limbs,
make no hesitation, for that is the very place to kill him. Swing along
on the line of flight, so much of it as you have seen, take it for
granted that he is still going the same course, at the same rate of
speed, and when you know you are right pull with as much confidence as
though the bird were yet in plain sight. Then listen for the bird to
fall--and sometimes he will. If he doesn’t simply blame the limbs, they
have no shooting conceit to be aggrieved. Seeing sparkles and flashes
of light glinting through the woods, left there by the partridge’s
wings, shoot as far ahead as your conscience will let you, and more
than likely another bird will be added to the bag.
In the rare times when you catch a ruffed grouse in the open, as in
little isolated clumps from which he must fly, or along old, overgrown
fencerows, he is no more difficult target than a quail or chicken. He
is quicker away from the gun in heavy cover, but in full flight has no
greater speed than either of the others. Generally no great amount of
lead need be taken, but the shots he affords are of such diversified
character that there can be no such thing as systematic partridge
shooting. The marksman must simply suit his style to the nature of the
shot as it comes. At the odd times when an easy shot appears, make
sure of that bird, with all the precision and steadiness possessed, for
he is the bird that should add weight to the back coat pocket.
When there is but a ten-foot opening in the trees snap the bird there
no matter what the odds against a kill, that is where the fun comes in
and the rare pleasure of a kill that occurs rarely. The ruffed grouse,
by the way, is the only bird upon which the ethics of sportsmanship
should tolerate the use of a cylinder bored gun. When this bird is
killed fairly upon the wing I should not feel disposed to lecture
the man who used a bell muzzled piece. Like the grouse hunter, the
partridge dog just happens to be one. If nature hasn’t done a great
deal for him man can do little. Training can teach the dog to hunt
close to the gun, to flush to order, and to be stanch, and then he may
or may not be a partridge dog.
It is well to hunt ruffed grouse with a reliable companion, one that
can be depended upon not to shoot you first and feel sorry afterwards.
The right kind of a hunting partner will enable both guns to secure
better results, since the second gun will often get its chance while
the wily bird is out-maneuvering the other. Further advantages, such as
marking the birds, will be obvious without dwelling upon them.
Next to purely open shots the easiest partridge problem is when
the bird is climbing through the thin limbs or just as he tops the
undergrowth; the hardest is where he drops, like a bullet, out of a
tree and skims the ground. One partridge killed in three shots is good
shooting; fifty per cent. on quail is of about the same order, and
three out of four chickens.
SNIPE SHOOTING
The writer once hung a jury because he knew the other eleven fellows
were wrong. They wished to clear a man of the charge of murder who
had shot another in the back, the plea being self-defense. Utterly
regardless of the risk of being in a minority of one, I propose to
maintain now that snipe are the easiest to kill of all our common game
birds with the exception of the rail which at best doesn’t deserve to
be listed as game. That the snipe is a difficult shooting proposition
seems to be one of the popular sporting errors that appear to have
been accepted as an inheritance. Naturally the fiction writer and the
book-learned gunner perpetuate the error, considering themselves surely
upon safe ground when dwelling upon the difficulties of snipe shooting.
It is true that jack sometimes flies very erratically on windy days
when he finds trouble in balancing himself while gaining sufficient
momentum to progress steadily. Like other birds, too, his temper is
affected by cold, raw weather, or when he is hungry and food scarce; at
such times he has little hesitation about getting up well out of range
and leaving promptly for some more genial snipe world. When flushing
wild it is quite a literal statement of fact that snipe are hard to
hit, for if tied to a post out of gun range not many would be hurt. It
appears, too, that a snipe really requires some ballast of fat if he is
to sail upon an even keel, the thin little chaps surprising themselves
with aerial gymnastics.
But in actual snipe weather, warm, sunny days, with cover good and food
plentiful, jack snipe shooting is little more of a feat than smashing
clay birds, than which there is no simpler shotgun work with which to
compare.
The statement often made that the shooter should always withhold his
fire until the bird is from twenty-five to thirty yards distant is
the height of absurdity. The same shooting principle applies to snipe
that holds with any other game bird, catch him before he becomes hard.
When these birds are lying well to the dog and gun they get up lazily
and float away with long, easy bounds. The first jump may carry his
snipeship twenty feet, and then with a twist of his body he covers half
a dozen yards at a more or less acute angle, but at the end of one of
these aerial leaps the bird hangs for the fraction of a second, and
there you can almost catch him with a rifle bullet.
The preliminary spring with accompanying saucy “scaipe” should warn
the gunner and the end of the next leg of the zigzag ought to find
poor jack ready to be smoothed down and placed in the bag, the man of
ordinary quickness striking his mark inside of sixty feet or not over
forty-five from where it broke cover. The motion of a snipe is really
something like that of a skater who shoves out first upon one foot and
then the other, the bird, however, making longer and quicker strokes,
which become very choppy when he is sprinting.
There is a bit of up and down movement to the flight of a snipe under
some conditions, but not a great deal, and when he is passing or
circling the gun, the in and out motion is little in evidence, and he
flies practically as level as other birds. When going straightaway his
criss-cross style is most apparent, and such shots are the hardest in
consequence. It is this feature of his flight that makes hunting down
wind the most effective, since the bird has a preference for rising
against the wind, and will then beat back, affording a crossing shot,
while should the shooter walk up wind his target would likely be a
straightaway. Nevertheless, up wind or down wind, should the quarry
rise within twenty yards, he cannot escape without hazarding both
barrels, one of which will generally suffice.
The movements of a snipe should never be followed by the line of
swing. To do so would render his flight as hard to solve as sporting
literature has pronounced. Get the gun up pointed under him and then
snap ahead on one of his long bounds before he can tack. The thing is
so easily done that I will leave it to any experienced snipe shot
if there is any great feat about cutting down twenty of the little
beauties straight.
Indeed, this bird is one that calls for a hunter’s forbearance in the
matter of bag. Some years ago immense bags of snipe were common. The
record so far as I know was something over six hundred birds killed
by a Louisiana planter in one day. In the vicinity of St. Louis two
hundred snipe a day were not considered shooting worthy of special
note, and no snipe were in unless fifty could be killed. To-day
twenty-five longbills should be considered the limit per gun, though
the number may be secured in a few hours’ shooting over favorable
ground.
Jack is the gentlest and most unsuspicious little vagabond in the
world. Should you miss him he will pitch about for a few minutes,
perhaps to settle down again within fifty yards of the gun for another
hazard with the death whistling lead.
A clever shot on snipe should account for eighty per cent. of the birds
shot at, a performance not to be expected with any other upland game
bird. They are not only a simple proposition to hit but are easily
killed, which permits the use of lightly charged and small gauge
weapons.
WILDFOWL SHOOTING
Duck shooting is the billiards of work with a scatter gun. The uniform
flight of the fowl, the absence of any interference with the aim, the
preparedness of the shooter from having been given due warning of the
approaching bird, tend to place every factor of the shooting problem
at the gunner’s command. Always, however, the hunter’s skill and
experience must equal the demand, the whole situation resolving itself
finally into a knowledge of where to hold. In quail shooting a man’s
difficulty lies in being unable to place his charge to the spot which
he knows is right; in duck shooting the main question is where to point
the gun, the pattern being readily sent to the estimated lead. It is
nearly as easy to direct the aim ten feet in front of the mark as two
feet, always provided you know it should lead ten feet and not two or
six. Therefore, conclude that every successful shot must be made with
an absolutely correct estimate of speed of flight and distance of mark.
When this can be done with regularity the pleasure of verifying the
judgment with a long, clean kill is superior to that connected with any
other style of shooting.
The most that I can do here is to call attention to some of the various
shots which the wildfowler will be called upon to solve as primary
lessons in the duck shooting game.
[Illustration: Shooting an incomer]
The overhead, incoming shot is made by throwing the gun beneath the
target and pitching it rapidly upward until it passes the bird, firing
the instant the mark is quite hidden by the barrels. Little conscious
allowance ahead will be found necessary in making this shot, but the
speedier the mark the more rapidly the gun should be swung. It can
readily be understood that with a rapidly moving muzzle a greater lead
will be taken automatically at a long distance than a short. In any
event it has been found in practice that swinging the gun from beneath
to cover and hide the mark will usually result in a kill. This is
probably the easiest shot made in duck shooting for the first barrel.
No sooner, though, has this first load been fired than the second
charge has its work cut out for it. Many species of ducks will tower
with the bang of the gun, maybe rising straight into the air or even
beating back upon the course they came. In consequence the left barrel
if not sent in promptly will have to be fired well above and possibly,
paradoxical as it may seem, behind the duck, considering the route it
was traveling when the right was pulled. Most likely the scared flock
will merely sheer off, mounting at the same time, and the new angle of
flight must be instantly reckoned with if the shot is to go home.
A duck that is coming at a high clip which he deflects into a
sheering, curving tower is about as hard a nut to crack as comes under
the wingshooter’s mallet. One half second may take the mark out of
range, and a man’s thinking apparatus must work fast. Certain other
varieties of duck, like the bluewing teal and the canvasback, will not
flinch or tower, but continue directly on with redoubled speed. Now
the bird will pass the gun which must turn on him, affording quite a
different shot from the other. Then in order to lead the hold must be
low--well under--sometimes as much as three feet, but the farther the
mark is allowed to go the closer it is covered, since with distance it
comes more directly into the line of fire.
Many birds passing well out will also swerve and rise with the report,
which necessitates a lessening of the front lead to direct the second
charge higher. A certain duck might be killed by shooting eight feet
ahead of him, but to kill his mate with the second barrel it should go
only two feet in front and two feet high. On firing the right barrel
an experienced shot ought to be able to foretell pretty well what the
remainder of the flock would do by knowing the species of fowl. The
acme of duck shooting is to make both shots tell, the indifferent
performer frequently being effective with the first.
It will usually be discovered that birds which pass to the right call
for a greater lead than those flying to the left, because a right-hand
gunner swings less freely and rapidly in that direction. In the
case of the writer, a third more lead must be given when swinging
to the right. Of course the opposite would be true were the shooter
left-handed.
The surest double is to be made while the birds are approaching the
gun, never permitting them to pass by. Turning to shoot in a restricted
blind is trying and more so from a duck boat. If the ducks are close
up take the leader first, but if farther out select the rear fowl and
those closer up can hardly escape being shot at. There is room for
coolness and good judgment in this. Should you choose the leading bird
and fire too quickly, those behind him may climb out of reach, while
trying for a rear fowl after they are well in may force a difficult
turn on the others.
A descending bird is a hard shot, both by reason of his increased
speed, and because a gun cannot will be swung down, and the descending
line of flight must be met by a still gun, as in snap shooting, causing
a loss of all the advantage of swinging with the target. A rising bird
is far easier, and hence it is well in decoy shooting to pull just as
the fowl is hovering to alight, or take him in his upward climb away
from danger.
In jumping ducks close study should be given as to the variety of fowl
we are starting. A mallard usually climbs nearly straight upward, a
shot just in front of the bill should get him. On the contrary, a teal
scurries off low along the marsh, and the holding must be well ahead
and only a trifle high. A widgeon makes one great bound upward and
then goes off at a sharp angle. If quick enough the hunter’s surest
shot on the widgeon is at the end of this leap when the duck will be
about ten feet high. Any dwelling upon the aim here is fatal since the
bird will change his line of flight acutely, and a long swing will have
to be made after the speeding mark.
A pintail climbs and gradually bears off, at the same time circling the
gun. When jumped he is one of the easiest birds to kill, because of
this circling habit which keeps him within range of the gun for such
a length of time. A greenwing teal behaves very like a mallard but is
quicker in action. It is seldom that any except fresh water ducks are
killed by jumping them from the edge of a marsh.
CHAPTER VIII
FIELD ETIQUETTE
I am aware that in writing of field etiquette the chapter must have a
didactic ring with its consequent dullness. My advice, therefore, to
all who are fully acquainted with the unwritten laws that govern the
sportsman on field and marsh, is to “cut this out.” However, I do not
feel that it would be right to close this book without a word on the
subject, for there are two classes that I wish to reach, the novice who
thinks he is privileged to shoot at everything that moves, saving only
those guides who wear red caps, and the veteran shot who thinks that he
_must_ make a bag.
There is no place where the golden rule can be better applied than in
the shooting field. If we govern ourselves by this old precept in the
treatment of our fellows and apply the principles of a “square deal” to
shooting the game, there need be little fear of any hunter forfeiting
the title of sportsman.
Some wise man has said that every man is a barbarian at heart, and
only a gentleman from policy. There is just enough truth in this to
make the saying disagreeable. Whatever he may be by nature, military
discipline gives to every soldier the semblance of a brave man, the
needs of business and civilization force us all to masquerade in
garments of courtesy, the one suit much like another, but a man’s true
nature shows through his hunting clothes, and it has been aptly said
that you never know even a friend until you have gone camping with him
a week. Certainly pursuing wild things is an elementary sport, and
the elementary in us is liable to be thrown into relief, betraying
qualities good and bad that were never seen before.
Too many men afield are governed by the idea that it is every one for
himself and the devil take the hindmost. Put them in a pen and they
will have the biggest ear of corn, though they know that in the nature
of things this will lead to their dining alone in future. Courtesy
afield is bread cast upon the waters which will surely return, but many
seem bent upon eating their own bread at the time, taking chances on
picking up that of someone else as it comes back.
The absolutely selfish individual can get along nicely in all his
shooting and fishing trips, with the greatest satisfaction to everybody
with the possible exception of himself, by going entirely alone. Should
he need human companionship a darkey or well-trained English domestic
will serve him best. He can then take the first shot at every bevy, and
every bird that follows belongs to him; he can have the choice duck
blind and all the decoys; the best boat or the only boat is his; he
can have the snipe corner all to himself; there are none to question
his superiority as a marksman, and paid servants will be more pliable
than any good-tempered friend whom he may draft for the purpose. Such
a man will require no instructions in shooting etiquette or any other
etiquette, for the uses of politeness are only to make companionship
agreeable.
So far as the ethics of game shooting in a sportsmanlike manner are
concerned, a few words on the subject will suffice. With the possible
exception of the wild turkey, which should really be made the target
for a rifle only, no game bird should ever be fired upon when not in
full flight. This rule must never be broken under any circumstances
except to finish a cripple. I have known men who considered themselves
good sportsmen who would shoot a quail or a grouse out of a tree though
they would not fire upon him when on the ground. Their defense was that
the bird had forfeited his life by taking to a tree and thus refusing
them a fair shot. This is merely whipping the devil around the stump,
and such hair-splitters might be greatly tempted to take a potshot in
the first place were no one present.
No more should a wild duck ever be killed upon the water or at rest,
no matter how difficult the stalk or how scarce the birds may be. A
bag of birds killed in any manner except fairly upon the wing must
be regarded as having afforded absolutely no sport, as not a whit
better than an utterly blank day. Indeed, the latter can bring no after
regrets and the former surely ought to.
The only possible excuse for shooting a bird at rest is that we may
feed our vanity by displaying him, or that he is actually needed to
satisfy hunger--few modern sportsmen are going about hungry these days.
If the bag is of prime importance, if it must be filled regardless of
the laws of sport, there is nothing to be said further than that the
man who so feels is purely a meat hunter. Let the conscience of a good
sportsman govern your actions when out all alone where there can be
no policeman to knock you over the head for a failure to consider the
rights of others.
Rabbits should never be shot unless going full tilt, and squirrels are
not a fair target for a shotgun, not even when running. For that matter
many hold that nothing wearing hair or fur should ever fall before a
smooth bore, and they are not very far wrong, either. The rifle is the
proper arm for such game.
Shoot no immature birds in season or out, and never make a target of
anything that is not recognized as game. The temptation to shoot small
birds is great at times when the shooting is poor, but sportsmen will
not do it.
In flight shooting wildfowl the greatest pleasure comes from
selecting your bird and cutting him down stone dead. Flock shooting
is permissible because sanctioned by custom, but there is no great
satisfaction in letting go into the middle of a flock of ducks without
aim, however many may be bagged. This is especially true of shooting
shore birds which frequently fly slowly and in large bunches. Cripples
should always be knocked over where at all possible before another shot
is fired at the living birds. Taking wild shots that are admittedly
beyond the range of the gun is unsportsmanlike, though nearly all of us
must plead guilty to that.
It seems a waste of words to say don’t shoot quail, snipe, woodcock,
or any species of grouse upon the ground. As a sportsman, the man who
would do this has nothing in him worth appealing to.
SHOOTING IN COMPANY
Man is a gregarious animal, especially in his sports and games. Even
the solemn individual who plays solitaire likes to have an audience
to see whether he beats “bogy” or not. Few would enjoy shooting and
tramping alone for many days in succession, yet to enjoy the company of
another we must make ourselves agreeable. No rule of thumb will make a
selfish man generous, but possibly a word of warning will prevent the
novice from dropping into bad habits. Shooting I have found to develop
three characteristics in a great many: hoggishness, jealousy, and
envy, any one of which is liable to become a spoil-sport.
If your friend is a better shot than you, keep your mind off it and do
the best you can. Should you excel, then for sport’s sake give him a
show, for taking advantage of one who is weaker is not to be excused
under any code of ethics.
There are two abominable fellows to shoot with: the man who is a good
shot and thinks he must sustain his reputation at whatever cost, and
the “claimer.” Sometimes they are compounded in one, and the mixture
makes a bitter dose. This man knocks down your bird as well as his own
with the expressed fear that you might have missed. He takes all the
singles for the same reason--“feared you might lose that fellow.” He
sends his friend around to beat the brush for him and drive the game
out while he takes it in the open. His shooting companion always plays
dog when one is needed; the chump invariably pulls the boat and he
does the shooting. All the birds at which both fire are his because he
never misses and you probably did. At the close of the day’s shooting
he counts your birds and his own with ill-concealed triumph, and then
goes away to tell of how thoroughly he bested you. Have none of him; he
is playing you for a sucker, a foil to his vanity. While the individual
illustrated is known to all and will be with us always, yet it is not
necessary for the novice to pattern after him.
Such simple rules of procedure as I may give here are dictated by
common sense and a proper regard for the rights of others. They are in
such common observance among sportsmen that it might seem a waste of
time to put them in type, but I have seen them violated so often that
it is fair to assume that ignorance is as often to blame as selfishness.
Beginning with the wildfowl, in duck shooting upon public waters,
the first man out in the morning is entitled to choice of blinds, or
his pick of location for a blind. He is then not to be interfered
with either by another gun stopping near enough to scare his birds or
by getting upon his line of flight. Willfully spoiling the sport of
another without benefitting himself is the game of a city tough or a
country “rough neck.” Of course this has no reference to the friends
who may from choice shoot from the same or adjacent blinds.
When two guns are shooting from the same hiding place the leader of an
incoming flock of ducks should be given to the rear man who is also
entitled to fire the first shot. If only one duck or a pair come in
they belong to the man upon whose side they approach. If a flock of
birds are passing, the gunner they reach last is entitled to give the
word to fire. Should a pair of blinds be situated a short distance
apart, as usually happens, one marksman must never be tempted to shoot
at birds that are passing directly over the other gun until its owner
has discharged both barrels. Few things are more provocative of ill
feeling than to have one gun take birds that plainly belonged to the
other, either killing them or driving them away. The shooters who will
do this belong to the impossible class--the go it alone and be hanged
to them. Neither should a man call to birds that are evidently decoying
to another.
Where two men are shooting from a boat, as in jumping ducks, the one
pulling while the other handles the gun, nothing should tempt the
oarsman to touch his gun--not even stopping cripples that are otherwise
sure to escape. For the time his sole business is to manage the boat.
With a fixed time to begin and desist from shooting upon a marsh,
whether the hour was set by law or a club, never fail to observe the
rule to the minute. Should the gunner permit himself to be tempted into
shooting previous to the prescribed time, he would be infringing upon
the rights of others by starting the fowl to flying before the blinds
had been occupied. Shooting after hours is also an unwarranted liberty,
as it may injure the sport of the following day.
If any man kills a bird that was undoubtedly your shot, claim the fowl
and place it in your bag; it may teach the selfish shooter a lesson.
In field shooting two are company and three a crowd unless the trio
of guns are very steady and accustomed to working together. More than
three guns should never follow one brace of dogs.
When two men are shooting together, each over his own dog, the bird or
shot belongs to the man whose dog found it, and his friend should never
fire first unless invited to do so. It is nothing short of dishonesty
to take the bird that has been found by the dog of another except
with the owner’s express permission. Should but one of the party own
a dog the duties of a host fall upon him, requiring that he give his
companion a fair share of the shooting.
In covey shooting an imaginary line should be kept in mind, the birds
going to the right of this belonging to the gun on that side, and all
upon the other to the left gun. A disagreeable thing that will happen
now and then is to have both guns discharged at one bird. This should
occur but rarely if care is exercised not to shoot upon the wrong side
of the line, and when it does the bird belongs to the man upon whose
ground it fell.
The business of “wiping the eye” of another, as it is called, is not
to be commended. The bird belongs to the man upon whose side it breaks
until he has fired both barrels, neither is he to be interfered with,
hurried, or rattled by the fear of another charge cutting in. When he
has finished shooting it will generally be too late for the second
man to deliver a killing shot, and one that merely pricks or wounds
is very unsportsmanlike. A continued and deliberate attempt to kill
game that has been missed by another can only result in developing
unpleasantness. Shooting at the bird of another before he has had time
to fire both barrels is an indefensible proceeding.
The owner of the dog which is standing game has the right to point out
the positions which other guns should occupy when the bevy breaks,
but his duty as host would demand that he did not select the place of
vantage for himself. If necessary for someone to walk the game up he
can delegate this duty to another or assume it himself. For the time
being he is master of ceremonies.
In cover shooting, at least, two guns hunting together should be the
limit, and these must keep in close touch with one another. When of
necessity they are forced to separate constant signals should be
exchanged. The man who violates this rule endangers both himself and
his companion. I can recall shooting quail with a friend in the hazel
thickets of Illinois. We took separate paths and lost sight of one
another for a few seconds. Looking down a hazel lane I saw my dog
pointing. As I started for him a quail broke, taking a course straight
for my head. I dodged and at the same time the other gun cracked,
overshooting the bird and thus missing me. My companion violated two
rules in thus shooting: flushing birds to the point of another’s dog
without permission, and firing at all without absolutely knowing the
whereabouts of the other gun.
In a nearly similar occurrence a fine young sportsman of St. Louis had
both eyes shot out. Remember that there is little time to think after
the game is on the wing, so every precaution must be taken previous to
flushing the bird, and the man who is willing to take the slightest
chance of injuring another for the sake of shooting is a criminal in
the guise of a sportsman.
I doubt if there is one experienced gunner who has not at some time
or other had his ears split with the sharp crack of nitro powder.
More than one gunner has had his hearing permanently injured by this
fool’s trick, and many a day has been spoiled by it. The author vividly
remembers shooting with a man who was partially deaf, and who, not
being able to hear much himself, was utterly reckless about other
people’s ears. When the gentleman did catch a sound it seemed that he
heard it most plainly, and finally while he was busy aiming I let off
my gun behind his head. The one lesson was enough.
When field shooting in a settled community never fire a shot within
less than forty rods of a house, or of people at work in the field.
There may be ladies and children about the place who will be rendered
nervous by the sound of a gun, and this will finally provoke the owner
into forbidding all shooting. That express permission may have been
given to shoot where you wished is all the more reason why the rights
of the generous proprietor should be carefully guarded. For the same
reason keep out of stock pastures and away from teams; half the ill
will of farmers toward hunters is engendered by reckless shooting that
_might_ do damage.
[Illustration: Right way to carry a gun afield]
In shooting by invitation over the lands or marshes of another,
carefully obey the instructions of your host. Should he send you to
a part of the estate where you know birds are scarce, go there and
nowhere else. Neither go outside of the grounds he marks out for you,
remembering that he and not you may be held responsible for your
conduct in poaching on forbidden lands. In the same way accept the
poorest duck blind without question or complaint, taking it for granted
that your host is doing the best he can for you and that your time will
come later. The position of host to a party of gunners is sufficiently
trying without your adding to it by grumbling even to yourself.
A word now as to the manner of carrying and handling the gun: The one
big thing to remember is never to point an unloaded gun at anything
you have no private reasons for wishing to kill. Little need be said
relative to carelessly handling loaded and cocked guns--they never
kill anybody. The man who keeps forever covering you with the muzzle
of his gun should be regarded simply as a vicious lunatic and proper
precautions taken.
In the field three positions for carrying the gun are recognized as
safe and good. The first is over the shoulder with the side of the
stock resting upon it and the muzzle of the gun pointing upward; the
second is over the hollow of the arm with the muzzle directed away
from your companion; the third is under the right arm with the barrels
pointed toward the ground. Carrying the arm across the back of the neck
is unsafe and marks a rowdy with the same certainty as tilting the hat
on the back of the head.
When walking up to a point, if on the left, hold the weapon across the
body nearly at right angles with the muzzle a trifle high, but if on
the right keep the piece directed straight out and down. A right and
left-handed man shoot together with greater ease and security than when
both are right handed.
Here are just a few things to be remembered: It hurts just as much to
be shot accidentally as with evil intent. You cannot impress anybody
with your skill as a shot by beating him through unfair means. You
cannot obtain a shooting reputation by telling people how well you have
shot or can shoot. It is easy to see hoggishness in the other fellow
and his eyes are as good as yours. Don’t borrow a dog or a gun or loan
either. Don’t exceed the bag limit or shoot out of season. Stand for a
“square deal” yourself and other people will see that you get it.
[Illustration: Proper position in waiting for a shot]
THE END
Transcriber’s Notes.
Italic text is indicated with _underscores_, bold text with =equals=.
Small/mixed capitals have been replaced with ALL CAPITALS.
Evident typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected
silently. Inconsistent spelling/hyphenation has been normalised.
Half-titles and other title reiterations have been discarded.
To improve text flow, illustrations have been relocated between
paragraphs.
Some tables have been reorganised.
Cover art created for this eBook is granted to the public domain.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE AMERICAN SHOTGUN ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
