head position

[ips]

first off it goes without saying that the head should remain on the stock at all times.....BUT.....in reality when shooting a driven target, game or clay are you more likely to release cheek pressure therefore effectively lifting the head or are you more likely to plant your cheek tighter onto the comb ??

 

[ChrisPackham]

As 'bird' gets near to 11o clock then your head naturally starts to lift from stock, unless you have some weird ET neck.

 

[ips]

As 'bird' gets near to 11o clock then your head naturally starts to lift from stock, unless you have some weird ET neck.

aha, that is exactly what I thought ?

 

[Sian]

first off it goes without saying that the head should remain on the stock at all times.....BUT.....in reality when shooting a driven target, game or clay are you more likely to release cheek pressure therefore effectively lifting the head or are you more likely to plant your cheek tighter onto the comb ??

I really hate driven but my best high fast  driven where there is no possible way of taking it as a crosser, chanting the barrels etc is  usually when I let my barrels go so to speak and my cheek barely touches the stock.  If it were driven low I would naturally be on the stock and try to cut it off.  I'm still trying to find ways for different types of driven, the fight continues.

 

[Wonko the Sane]

Disgraceful!  Think a pack of Limeys would know why classic game guns for driven have the stocks configured like they do.  Shame on you all!

 

[Salopian]

Wonko,

 I think the majority of people would not have a clue about stock configuration.

History shows that Americans never had a clue until educated by the master race from Brittania 

Perhaps more should read and enjoy  * Gordon Carlisle's book * , and for the younger generation who do not have the attention span to read a book , just watch Richard Fauld's style.

* Shotgun Marksmanship  by Percy Stanbury & Gordon Carlisle *

Wonko ,

" have a nice day , hold the rail , mind the step, this is not fake news. "   :wub: :wub: :angel:  

 

[Maria_H]

High driven are one of my worst ones, my cheek never touches the stock. 

I'm now going to try and take them as a high crosser, tried it and it worked until I lost concentration.

 

[ips]

High driven are one of my worst ones, my cheek never touches the stock. 

I'm now going to try and take them as a high crosser, tried it and it worked until I lost concentration.

this is really my point.

set a gun up for walked up or general sporting stuff but is it then right for driven. I have found that the sight picture is different ( even if you retain contact with the comb) once the gun is at 10 o'clock. Could be bad technique of course but begs the question of having a low comb height on a specifically driven gun. ??

 

[Bebo]

Not a game shot so this may be a stupid question - on a driven day, do you only shoot birds coming straight at you or are you also taking birds that are quartering or crossing?

 

[ehb102]

Not a game shot so this may be a stupid question - on a driven day, do you only shoot birds coming straight at you or are you also taking birds that are quartering or crossing?

Depends where everyone else is. What looks to you like a perfect crosser might be  the perfect driven to a gun further down the line (if the line curves a bit). 

 

[Westward]

first off it goes without saying that the head should remain on the stock at all times.....BUT.....in reality when shooting a driven target, game or clay are you more likely to release cheek pressure therefore effectively lifting the head or are you more likely to plant your cheek tighter onto the comb ??

I think the general idea is to keep the same cheek contact and bend the body rather than the neck.

 

[Bebo]

Depends where everyone else is. What looks to you like a perfect crosser might be  the perfect driven to a gun further down the line (if the line curves a bit). 

In that case, any gun set-up for driven birds would be a compromise for crossing / quartering targets.  The decision would then be based on whether it is more of an issue trying to take driven targets with a standard set-up than taking crosser / quartering birds with a gun tailored for driven birds.

 

[Wonko the Sane]

Wonko,

 I think the majority of people would not have a clue about stock configuration.

History shows that Americans never had a clue until educated by the master race from Brittania 

Perhaps more should read and enjoy  * Gordon Carlisle's book * , and for the younger generation who do not have the attention span to read a book , just watch Richard Fauld's style.

* Shotgun Marksmanship  by Percy Stanbury & Gordon Carlisle *

Wonko ,

" have a nice day , hold the rail , mind the step, this is not fake news. "   :wub: :wub: :angel:  

Would the " master race from Brittania" be the krauts that took over your monarchy?  And if you could elucidate the content of that education I'd be most appreciative.  Seems as tho in the international scene the colonials are doin' pretty OK but I admit that my interest there is marginal and I might well be misinformed.   :console:

As to Stanbury and Carlisle -  it's been a couple decades since I read that but IIRC I found nothing new there that Churchill did not already set out.  Better outfits tho.

 

[ips]

I think the general idea is to keep the same cheek contact and bend the body rather than the neck.

yes ideally but in reality !!!!

In that case, any gun set-up for driven birds would be a compromise for crossing / quartering targets.  The decision would then be based on whether it is more of an issue trying to take driven targets with a standard set-up than taking crosser / quartering birds with a gun tailored for driven birds.

exactly ?

Would the " master race from Brittania" be the krauts that took over your monarchy?  And if you could elucidate the content of that education I'd be most appreciative.  Seems as tho in the international scene the colonials are doin' pretty OK but I admit that my interest there is marginal and I might well be misinformed.   :console:

As to Stanbury and Carlisle -  it's been a couple decades since I read that but IIRC I found nothing new there that Churchill did not already set out.  Better outfits tho.

I have stanbury and Churchill books. Fundamentally the only difference really is that Churchill method relies on "feel" for the shot with no conscious thought given to lead. That and obviously stance is different. I seem to use stanbury stance but Churchill mentality.

both excellent reads though

 

[Westward]

yes ideally but in reality !!!!

No head lifting here...

 

[Hamster]

No head lifting here...

Yes but that is a particularly well trained spaniel. 

 

[schmokinn]

No head lifting here...

Wonder he doesn't fall over on the dog!

 

[ips]

Yes but that is a particularly well trained spaniel. 

pmsl. ?

and probably staged for the pic

the point I am making is this.

if one was to accept that there is a degree of head lifting on a driven bird not so much looking for the bird but because of the gun hold / stance etc then a lower comb would compensate for this .....maybe !!!

 

[Westward]

if one was to accept that there is a degree of head lifting on a driven bird...

http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/shooting/instruction/lesson-driven-grouse-targets-58501