rifles and fowlers

[streetsniper]

This may seem like a dumb question but what exactly is the difference in stock shape between rifles and fowlers? to my untrained eyes they don't seem that much different. What am I missing?

 

[Keb]

As a rule, rifles usually have a cheek piece, patch box, sights & a flat toe.
Fowlers generally have a rounded toe.

There are always exceptions to the rule.

 

[streetsniper]

I'm aware of those components. but I've heard that a smoothbore with rifle architecture is not good for upland game, fowling in the purer sense of the word. is it the drop of the comb, lop, shape of the wrist?

 

[Mike Brooks]

I'm aware of those components. but I've heard that a smoothbore with rifle architecture is not good for upland game, fowling in the purer sense of the word. is it the drop of the comb, lop, shape of the wrist?

It's the rear sight that I can't get past when wing shooting. I also prefer a trigger guard that sits flat against the wrist. Weight is also a big factor, rifles and smooth rifles being much heavier.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Drops and other measurements differ on individual guns. I expect most of the comments that rifle stocks don't work for shotgunning is in reference to the later crescent butted rifles.
A rifle type stock that fits correctly in drops, cast, pull, etc,, even if it has a cheekpiece (like many Euro fowling pieces had)will work if it's butt has a design that is easily mounted. Some the rifle type TG's might be problematic for wingshooting I would think.
Many of the cheaper "semi-custom" guns being sold today by various makers use a lot of rifle architecture and hardware.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

It's the rear sight that I can't get past when wing shooting. I also prefer a trigger guard that sits flat against the wrist. Weight is also a big factor, rifles and smooth rifles being much heavier.

I could not shoot with a rear sight either and I seriously doubt that most would be able to shoot as good as they could without one. Most of the early rear "sights" on fowling pieces that I have seen were designed more for sighting the plane as opposed to being finer for aiming.
I just posted a similar thought about the TG's.

 

[Vaino]

Looking at fowlers vs LRs through my untrained eye, it's apparent to me that w/ fowlers, the combline is more parallel w/ the bore w/ less drop at heel and comb but the comb is lower to account for less drop. Fowlers or shotguns have to point "quicker" and the cheek has to remain on the same level even when the shooter is turning or pivoting and only a staight, nearly level comb will allow for this....modern shotguns have adopted the butt shape of the fowlers....Fred

 

[Mike Brooks]

It's the rear sight that I can't get past when wing shooting. I also prefer a trigger guard that sits flat against the wrist. Weight is also a big factor, rifles and smooth rifles being much heavier.

I could not shoot with a rear sight either and I seriously doubt that most would be able to shoot as good as they could without one. Most of the early rear "sights" on fowling pieces that I have seen were designed more for sighting the plane as opposed to being finer for aiming.
I just posted a similar thought about the TG's.

I have an original german fowler that has a rear sight like you refer to. If I get around to taking pictures of it I'll post them. Big winged brass affair.

 

[killer]

I have a buddy that uses his 12 guage slug gun with rear sights as his primary bird gun. I thought he was jokeing when he told me about it, but he consistantly out shoots most of the guys we bird hunt with. He is very fast and consitant with it. That gun is especially good for grouse in tight cover. Crazy I no but it works for him.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I know some people who can wing shoot with a rear sight too, I'm just not one of them...of course I don't use a front sight either! :idunno:

 

[paulvallandigham]

A man names Buzz Fawcett once had a shooting school out in Idaho, or Montana, where he taught a "low mount" way of shooting shotguns accurately at both clays and game birds. Basically, the shooter did not have his face against the stock, but instead held the gun to his shoulder's pocket, and looked over the barrel a few inches. The front sight, if there was one, appeared in the lower peripheral vision of the shooter, and was simply a reference for windage side-to-side alignment) purposes. Buzz retired from his business a couple of years ago, and I have not seen an ad for the school since. He was working at one time to write a book on his shooting method, and may still finish it. I hope he does, as I have wanted to know more about it.

Years ago, A Hollywood stuntman, and shooting coach to the stars took some stars like Jerry Lewis, and Buddy Hackett out into the desert and used this same technique to teach the students how to hit accurately at long range, shooting rifles, without either a scope sight, or iron sights. Buddy Hackett told John Carson- a very Anti-gun Hollywood personality --- about it on his Tonight Show one nite as Johnny's guest. Its one of the few times that Johnny didn't have anything funny to say to his guest. Buddy told him that they were hitting small targets out at 300 yds, with their rifles at the end of the "clinic", shooting off-hand.

So, its possible to learn to shoot moving targets with iron sights, if you learn to look over the top of them. Oh, I read an article by someone who interviewed The late Ed McGivern, the famous Pistol and Revolver shooter, who wrote his seminal book, Fast and Fancy Pistol Shooting. They asked him how he could possibly use the sights on his revolvers and pistols to shoot multiple clay ( and other aerial) targets. Ed indicated that he did not have the time to align the front blade in the notch of the rear sight, but used them as a base reference to align the gun in his hand before the targets were thrown. Once he had established his grip, he looked OVER THE SIGHTS- not at them, as he fired his guns to hit the flying targets.

I have shot thrown clay targets with my .50 caliber rifle shooting shot loads, and found I could only do it Looking OVER the sights- not at them. If I tried to align the sights, I missed the target every time. :hmm:

 

[killer]

I know some people who can wing shoot with a rear sight too, I'm just not one of them...of course I don't use a front sight either! :idunno:

Mike i'm with you i usually dont use a front sight either when im shooting birds. I have the problem of not haveing a dominant eye so i usually have to shoot with one eye closed. or things look really funcky. But the good thing about haveing no dominent eye is that i can shoot right or left handed guns with the same amount of comfort and accuracy. Which really helps in hunting situations. It dosent matter which side the game comes from I can get them :wink:

 

[Mike Brooks]

I have the problem of not haveing a dominant eye so i usually have to shoot with one eye closed.

Same problem here.

 

[streetsniper]

so I take it, the only real difference is the shape of the butt? A fowler's butt is quicker to shoulder, while a rifle butt is steadier for actual aiming due to it's more concave shape? Aside from barrel weight and rear sights of course.

 

[paulvallandigham]

You would be the first human born without a dominant side and dominant eye, if you are correct. Only when one eye is blind does eye dominance come into question, whether you are born that way, or lose an eye later in life.

You not only have a dominant eye, but you have a dominant foot, too. Its evident in how you walk, and in your foot prints. See:
http://www.wildwoodtracking.com/limbdominance/pveyedominance.html

 

[paulvallandigham]

Its not that simple. See the excellent pictures and text in Tom Grinslade's "Flintlock Fowlers: The First Guns Made in America", and compare to George Shumway's "Pennsylvania Longrifles of Note", or even the guns for sale on the Track of the Wolf website. There are lots of design differences to both the stocks, and the furniture used. :thumbsup:

 

[Capt. Jas.]

You would be the first human born without a dominant side and dominant eye, if you are correct. Only when one eye is blind does eye dominance come into question, whether you are born that way, or lose an eye later in life.

You not only have a dominant eye, but you have a dominant foot, too. Its evident in how you walk, and in your foot prints. See:
http://www.wildwoodtracking.com/limbdominance/pveyedominance.html[/quote]

Now it is known that some have a neutral center type dominance and some have shifting dominance depending on presentation. This is fact only in practical usage of course, which is what we are talking about with shooting.

 

[Mike Brooks]

and some have shifting dominance depending on presentation.

That's me, dominance shifts back and forth. I just shut one eye and go on with life. :wink:

 

[Vaino]

I agree w/ your "dominant" facts asre eyes and legs. Early on my parents through a very non-obvious persuasion turned me into a righty but I still retained some lefty traits and habits. Sad to say, I shoot right handed but my left eye is dominant and my solution to this problem is to close down my left eye half way...still look w/ both eyes but the right eye then takes over. Many people when lost in the woods go in a circle and this is caused by one leg being stronger than the other. My uncle who traveled on foot all over Alaska on his own and also as a guide compensated for his "weaker leg" by purposely taking steps in the "other" direction. The "half closing" of my left eye has served me well seeing I shot in 2 trap leagues and 1 skeet league and shot my fair share of ruffed grouse, pheasant and woodcock. Whether or not my parents should have let me be a lefty has always been an entertaining thought now that my right eye has macular degeneration and using iron sights is only possible shooting left handed...Fred

 

[killer]

That's me, dominance shifts back and forth. I guess i spoke wrong. but you get my drift.