The American shotgun

_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 liab