a perfect fit ??

[jwpzx9r]

I was passing some time reading about gun fit online and came across this article. I normally don't try to pick out faults but to me at least in this particular article the graphics, I think, are somewhat misleading. For example that guy may be a great shot but that gun looks half way down his arm and what about the photos of the amount of rib you should see with the gun mounted... really? I like to see a good bit of the rib but that looks way too much. If I was a new comer looking for a way forward this, in my opinion, would not be a good article to try to gain some ideas. For example the wording at the first photograph of the rib surely the head is too low? And the photograph showing the eye I relation to the rib... it shows nothing because the perspective is from the back of the gun to the eye not the front to the eye. What the photo should be showing is the eye sitting on top of the front bead.  Any thoughts from shooters on here?

http://www.clay-shooting.com/coaching/a-perfect-fit/

 

[Sian]

I was passing some time reading about gun fit online and came across this article. I normally don't try to pick out faults but to me at least in this particular article the graphics, I think, are somewhat misleading. For example that guy may be a great shot but that gun looks half way down his arm and what about the photos of the amount of rib you should see with the gun mounted... really? I like to see a good bit of the rib but that looks way too much. If I was a new comer looking for a way forward this, in my opinion, would not be a good article to try to gain some ideas. For example the wording at the first photograph of the rib surely the head is too low? And the photograph showing the eye I relation to the rib... it shows nothing because the perspective is from the back of the gun to the eye not the front to the eye. What the photo should be showing is the eye sitting on top of the front bead.  Any thoughts from shooters on here?

http://www.clay-shooting.com/coaching/a-perfect-fit/

I don't have a problem with where is gun is situated to be honest.  The pictures aren't brilliant anyway and jwpzx9r for goodness sakes don't mention beads or eyes on beads you will start the bead or not to bead debate

 

[Ian Lawrence]

My thoughts are that the sight picture is perfect for some people, and I'm sure some will comment that it is about what they see.

For me I would have to be sitting on some sort of high seat with my gun strapped below my feet to get a sight picture like that! Not for me I'm afraid, I'm too "Old School" and just want my gun to shoot where I place it and not have to make allowances for differences in POA and POI.  (There, I said it before anybody else just to rev things up a bit???)

I like POA to equal POI exactly. What could be simpler?  (The simpleton is already behind the gun!) :smile:

 

[Dog Tyred]

John

all very confusing.

On first reading it would seem that the photos relating to rib are arse about face. If you read the blurb underneath the left hand image it says 'the head is too high' (which I do not agree with) but it also states that 'too little rib is visible' (which I also do not agree with). How can you have too little rib visible if the head is too high?   The right hand image shows waaaaaaay too much rib for me.

Also the article states 'High-ribs were certainly an advantage with Double Trap for the second target, but now the discipline has changed there will be far fewer shooting with high-ribbed guns'. I thought HR guns were a particular advantage for the first target as you could quickly see the target emerging from the trap house and ambush it. Although I guess this does advantage the second target as you get on to it quicker. As for fewer DT shooters using HR guns since the discipline changes? Errrr....no! they all still us them, well most of them.

I think someone needs to proof read what they wrote before posting!

DT

Edited because I didn't proof read what I wrote

 

[jwpzx9r]

Hi Greg,

 My comment re the head too high has to be taken in conjunction with, for it must be lower than, the photo showing the apparently the correct amount of rib... at which point the head must be off the stock :blink:   I am assuming that the gun is in the same spot on the shoulder in each pic. But as a trap shooter I don't want my gun mounted the way this guy has his but people do have good reasons for having to mount their gun in a certain way... but that said he must be a good shot and worthy instructor if he is at Ian Coley's.

agree with Sian very bad photos.

 

[Dog Tyred]

John

he is not at Ian Coley's. It was written by Ian Coley !!

Pretty poor article throughout IMO. Full of inaccuracies like 'a Monte Carlo stock, although adjustable, is one of the best forms of stock with a heightened comb. Since when are all MC stocks adjustable?

Load of drivel

DT

 

[PhilR]

I don't reckon Ian Coley wrote that article. The other thing is the people who set up the article and photographs for print are unlikely to be shooters and it's quite easy for them to get them out of sync.

Proof reading of magazine articles prior to publication is laughable.

 

[Dog Tyred]

Proof reading of magazine articles prior to publication is laughable.

Obviously

 

[Wonko the Sane]

ribs, beads, Monte Carlo, POI,  POA = = = = = = my god!  Topics in the mirror world that are untouchable