I've been tempted to try out the concept of the high rib sporter for a while so when the chance came recently to acquire a used 682EX I took it. The main reason for wanting this particular version was that it shares an identical action to my keeper gun, itself a 12+ years old 682E with 32" barrels ordered new with Trap fore end and stock. The new arrival also has 32" barrels but the stock is the Monte Carlo variety, length of pull is fully and easily adjustable on my normal gun having a PFS stock but is thankfully only marginally longer on the standard spec EX and of zero hinderance to me. The barrels/action/fore ends interchange but can't open or close easily or be shot without gunsmith adjustments.
First things first, the only real difference between these guns which you cannot alter easily is the EX's higher rib which probably goes someway towards explaining the higher weight of 1620 grams against 1420. The EX comes up beautifully but the heft is a tiny bit noticeable; on my first practice trial I shot a 94 with it using the supplied Comp-N-Chokes in LM constriction and without altering the comb in any way. It's been set up so that even though the rib is high, the eye is looking pretty much flat along the rib (unlike my old gun). I did subsequently alter the comb slightly but not in height, just raised the rear a tad to make it more parallel which I prefer and to dial out the tiny bit of cheek flip I was getting.
First impression are exactly what others report when first shooting these types of set up in that it's just an easy gun to shoot well, the visibility is excellent regardless of gun up or down stance and of course the gun itself is just a solid feat of engineering making for a very solid platform with no vibrations or looseness either whilst loading or firing. There are tiny differences like the trigger type and grip shape but if anything the PFS is a less perfect design and not so easy to alter to suit; I haven't bothered with mine.
I shot the new gun on and off in practice only until I felt comfortable enough to use it on a reg day with 86 being the result; no one else but GD made it past 90 and I couldn't moan at third, but it did expose a flaw or two along the way. In essence as mentioned earlier this gun is easy to shoot well owing to sound engineering as well as good basic dimensions and weight; certain stands seem to suit it so well it seems hard to miss such as oddly enough, fast or slow battues or very shallow angle going aways (it was designed as a Trap gun after all) POI seems near as immaterial the same as my old gun so no special treatment is necessary.
Quartering birds though were a bit of a stumbling block, for some reason I was finding that hard and easy quartering clays particularly if thrown from the left regardless of height and speed were costing me noticeable points. I can't profess to know exactly why this should be because visibility or POI issues are clearly not likely causes, I even shot one particular layout twice and sure enough mullered the missed clays with my old gun. It seems here that the lighter barrels of my 682E flat rib allow a much more instinctive engagement of these types of birds, they move faster and I see less lead - the 682EX when shot repeatedly at these trouble clays seemed to require a more visible lead.
I've taken a few pics to show the balance point differences but this isn't so huge to be a set back when actually shooting although in fairness as always with heavier muzzle set ups you do notice the weight towards the last couple of shots. Balance in any case can be altered, the main point being that to shoot this as well as my old gun I'd have to make real technique adjustments on certain birds.
It's worth also mentioning how good the EX is on tower birds, I usually shoot these near as dammit overhead but the EX seems to allow you to look through and fire at the clay much earlier if you want and I admit this has to occasionally be a real advantage. I think it's for these reasons that a lot of good shooters set their flat rib guns to show tons of rib, others think this will make the gun shoot high but in reality this isn't the case, it simply allows a more head up stance with a clearer view of the target which in turn combats the dreaded head lifting.
One other notable thing I did notice is that when in the address position with the gun just below the flight path of the bird (particularly if held high), the non shooting eye's view of the side of the high rib is quite pronounced and potentially very bad news for anyone with master eye issues. Many will be aware that I shoot off the right shoulder with both eyes open despite having a left master eye but I dare say I've learned to live with it, it's easy to imagine though how a less experienced shooter would have his eye drawn to the bigger high rib set up with cross firing results.
In conclusion am I in favour of these guns? Not completely sure truth be known, they do offer certain benefits but there aren't enough of them to overhaul the standard gun. Could they be improved? Yes I think so, if you're going to make a high rib gun specifically for ESP then make sure the barrels are as light as a standard gun and do something to make the rib less intrusive. This is one reason I think CG are potentially on the right track with their new Elipse Evo high rib seeing as the rib only has three points of attachment to the barrel although personally I think the rib could be thinner in depth as well as width.
First things first, the only real difference between these guns which you cannot alter easily is the EX's higher rib which probably goes someway towards explaining the higher weight of 1620 grams against 1420. The EX comes up beautifully but the heft is a tiny bit noticeable; on my first practice trial I shot a 94 with it using the supplied Comp-N-Chokes in LM constriction and without altering the comb in any way. It's been set up so that even though the rib is high, the eye is looking pretty much flat along the rib (unlike my old gun). I did subsequently alter the comb slightly but not in height, just raised the rear a tad to make it more parallel which I prefer and to dial out the tiny bit of cheek flip I was getting.
First impression are exactly what others report when first shooting these types of set up in that it's just an easy gun to shoot well, the visibility is excellent regardless of gun up or down stance and of course the gun itself is just a solid feat of engineering making for a very solid platform with no vibrations or looseness either whilst loading or firing. There are tiny differences like the trigger type and grip shape but if anything the PFS is a less perfect design and not so easy to alter to suit; I haven't bothered with mine.
I shot the new gun on and off in practice only until I felt comfortable enough to use it on a reg day with 86 being the result; no one else but GD made it past 90 and I couldn't moan at third, but it did expose a flaw or two along the way. In essence as mentioned earlier this gun is easy to shoot well owing to sound engineering as well as good basic dimensions and weight; certain stands seem to suit it so well it seems hard to miss such as oddly enough, fast or slow battues or very shallow angle going aways (it was designed as a Trap gun after all) POI seems near as immaterial the same as my old gun so no special treatment is necessary.
Quartering birds though were a bit of a stumbling block, for some reason I was finding that hard and easy quartering clays particularly if thrown from the left regardless of height and speed were costing me noticeable points. I can't profess to know exactly why this should be because visibility or POI issues are clearly not likely causes, I even shot one particular layout twice and sure enough mullered the missed clays with my old gun. It seems here that the lighter barrels of my 682E flat rib allow a much more instinctive engagement of these types of birds, they move faster and I see less lead - the 682EX when shot repeatedly at these trouble clays seemed to require a more visible lead.
I've taken a few pics to show the balance point differences but this isn't so huge to be a set back when actually shooting although in fairness as always with heavier muzzle set ups you do notice the weight towards the last couple of shots. Balance in any case can be altered, the main point being that to shoot this as well as my old gun I'd have to make real technique adjustments on certain birds.
It's worth also mentioning how good the EX is on tower birds, I usually shoot these near as dammit overhead but the EX seems to allow you to look through and fire at the clay much earlier if you want and I admit this has to occasionally be a real advantage. I think it's for these reasons that a lot of good shooters set their flat rib guns to show tons of rib, others think this will make the gun shoot high but in reality this isn't the case, it simply allows a more head up stance with a clearer view of the target which in turn combats the dreaded head lifting.
One other notable thing I did notice is that when in the address position with the gun just below the flight path of the bird (particularly if held high), the non shooting eye's view of the side of the high rib is quite pronounced and potentially very bad news for anyone with master eye issues. Many will be aware that I shoot off the right shoulder with both eyes open despite having a left master eye but I dare say I've learned to live with it, it's easy to imagine though how a less experienced shooter would have his eye drawn to the bigger high rib set up with cross firing results.
In conclusion am I in favour of these guns? Not completely sure truth be known, they do offer certain benefits but there aren't enough of them to overhaul the standard gun. Could they be improved? Yes I think so, if you're going to make a high rib gun specifically for ESP then make sure the barrels are as light as a standard gun and do something to make the rib less intrusive. This is one reason I think CG are potentially on the right track with their new Elipse Evo high rib seeing as the rib only has three points of attachment to the barrel although personally I think the rib could be thinner in depth as well as width.
