Weight/Balance Conversation
 

Hi all,

Question for the group on where you like your Parker to balance and if you have a preference for balance point based on different purposes. I recently picked up a very nice 16 gauge GH in a 0-frame. It’s a very lovely gun, but the balance is much more toward the rear than I’m used to. Total weight is 6lbs 7oz, which seems on the heavier side for a 0-frame, and while that doesn’t especially bother me, the barrels and forend only weigh 3lbs 1oz while the receiver and stock weigh 3lbs 6oz. This results in a gun that seems to “tip up” while I’m holding it, which is different from the other 3 Parkers that I own (2 16s on 1-frames and a 12 on a 1-1/2 frame).

Curious of this group’s experience with guns that are balanced toward the rear and how you may apply those guns in different ways than guns that are balanced toward the front. I believe I favor guns that are front heavy, but it may be that I just don’t have as much experience with guns that are the opposite.

Adam, that's a great 2:00 a.m. question, and one to ponder when you can't sleep. I'm sure you'll get lots of answers here that are thoughtful and based on lots of experience.

Obviously the gun that you have confidence in is the one that has the "best" balance, but what's the fun in using only one gun?! Here are my thoughts on my own shooting experience (which is exclusively at game birds -- my Forum friends who shoot clays will have very strong and knowledgeable opinions based on lots of shooting).

For game like grouse and woodcock I can shoot a rear-weighted gun as well as any. The shots are quick and seldom do I get the chance for long crossing shots. This kind of weight balance is great for helicoptering woodcock in very tight cover.

For birds in more open cover where I can be a bit more deliberate, I like the weight between my hands...or slightly weight forward. For the wild quail we most often hunt, longer barrels and weight stability works best for me. Shots are quick, but more deliberate. (For wild Bobs in the timber, I recommend leaving the gun home and just watching.:crying:)

For birds like dove and ducks that I can generally be more deliberate about, I shoot a weight-forward gun as well as any, especially on longer crossing shots (which I might add I am terrible at because I don't take many). I've noted that once I get the gun's speed up, that extra weight helps keep it going in the split half-or-less second I have to pull the trigger.

For snipe I like a gun that lets me get on the bird quickly before it starts "juking." A between the hands weighted gun works well for me here.

For rail, I've learned that a gun balanced to the rear works well. I also shoot guns that have more drop than my usual high-stocked guns work well, as often the birds get up close and drop almost immediately. (A gun that you don't mind getting muddy is also a plus.:whistle:)

For the record, though, I can miss birds with any gun balance, and prefer to do so with a Parker.:)

Garry has spelled out a strong case for a variety of handling nuances. If your gun doesnt seem right to you, you could explore altering the balance a bit. For one thing, dense fancy grain stocks and rubber butt pads do generally make the stock a bit heavier. Experiment with adding weight up front and see if it shoots better for you. If so, you can explore shifting the balance without altering the overall weight much. Other fit factors can also contribute to the tip up effect.

I have found that I can remedy “butt heavy” guns by shooting lonnnnnng barreled Parkers!! :cool:

As a trap shooter, I prefer a gun in the 7 1/2 to 8 pound range weighted slightly to moderately forward. An extra benefit of the BTF. Given it is a pre mounted gun game, it helps with a smooth and deliberate swing/movement to a target that is rising and traveling away from you.

I don’t think I can “define” what works best for me or I like best as to balance point . I can say if I pick the gun up and using a very vague term “like the way it feels” I can generally do fine with it on clay or feather targets . In the past changes in drop from gun to gun didn’t bother me in the least . But over the past several years it seems less drop is my friend . Obviously I don’t want an over eight pound gun typically for quail or grouse or walk up pheasants , but for clay targets , tower shoots , pigeon ring , skeet and trap heavier is okay . Although if it’s hotter than hell and I’m rushing around at Koneski’s or somewhere like that the 10 pound 10’s and the 15 pound 8 become a bit much in the heat . I shot a10 1/2 pound hammer 10 at a tower shot in October and by the end of the day that gun got heavy but it was in the low 70’s and I lifted and closed that gun easily 150 times in two hours . And no I didn’t fire each time .

Thanks everyone! And thank you Garry for your very thorough and thoughtful response regarding your experiences hunting. Most of my time is spent chasing ol’ ruff and the timber doodlers and that’s how I expect I’ll be using this most of the time, so hopefully my experience is the same as yours in that regard and this gun ends up being especially well suited for the occasion.

Does anyone have any insight to the production approach Parker took regarding balance? Would a gun have been intentionally balanced forward, rearward, or between the hands because of a customer request or any other reason? Although I know nothing of their production, I would expect they would have had a process to match barrels with frame and wood to give consistent results unless built for various purposes or as requested by a customer.

I realize that we’re only talk about a few ounces, so maybe I’m overthinking it. Just curious if anyone has any insight on the topic.

I don't ever want to be aware of a gun's balance - rather, I want only to be aware of a fast mount where the bead lines right up to what I'm looking at, without having to be distracted by whether or not it is muzzle or butt heavy. I guess what I like best is a gun, regardless of weight or barrel length, that balances at about the hinge pin or within a half inch forward of it, Behind the pin the gun is too whippy and too far forward makes it an effort and a distraction to bring it to the target.





.

Thanks Dean, I appreciate the input. Has that been your experience with the smaller gauges as well, or does it become harder to find guns that balance over the hinge pin as the gauge goes down?

In my experience, original Parkers with original barrel lengths and original buttstocks all balance quite well for me... That's the way they were all made, unless ordered with specific balance points out of the norm. I have found that oftentimes a restock might radically alter the balance point and we all know shortened barrels most certainly will contribute to a change in balance from how the gun was manufactured.
Wood density is the major factor in poor balance after a restock... sometimes.






.

Adam on some skeleton butt guns you can actually see two plugs in the stock. I think they used those holes to add weight and then plugged them. That was what I was told. I will check my Parkers and see if any have those visible plugs. I will post a pic if I find anything.

The extreme in weight forward is a 36" 8ga but it's amazing how well our small group of 8ga enthusiasts shoots them. Given a little bit of practice you can adjust and they feel good and break targets.

Adam, Reggie is correct. Parker would drill out stocks to create balance a gun. The matching of pre-struck barrel weight barrels to desired weight characteristics is another method they used. In my experience, Parkers are generally on the heavier side and have what I'd call a "stable" balance. Even 24" 12s have great balance.

:shock:

This is what I must be missing, no wonder some guns I tend to do better with than the other.

I can't honestly say that I've ever checked the balance of a gun, but then again there's not a bunch of money on the line and I'm just shooting for fun.

Interesting topic

I need a gun, whether it be a SxS, O/U or even a rifle, to balance pretty much evenly between my hands. I call it perfectly balanced when balancing at the hinge pin she stays horizontal.

Out of boredom (or whatever else you might call it), I started keeping a spreadsheet a while back to try to understand common themes about which guns I like the feel of better than others and which ones I may shoot better than others. I track weight of different components (barrels, forearm, stock & receiver), the stock dimensions, chokes, and balance point.

To give a consistent point of reference, I always measure balance the balance point distance from the front trigger. On the gun in question (0-frame 16 GH), the balance point is 98mm ahead of the front trigger. For my other two 16s (1-frame VHs) the balance points are 105mm and 107mm ahead of the front trigger. For my 12ga 1-1/2 frame GH, the balance point is 118mm ahead of the front trigger and almost exactly under the hinge pin - this 12 is the one that I think I like the feel of the most and the one that I believe I shoot the best.

Have others seen that as the frame size gets smaller the balance point moves for they’re toward the triggers? Or is it that my modest collection shows trends that only hold true because of my small sample size?

My new 16ga GH is almost identical to my 12ga GH in every variable except for balance point and weight - the same stock dimensions, the same chokes, the same barrel length. I’m taking it shooting tomorrow and I’ll be curious to see how the balance point effects my shooting

In 63 years of buying and selling Parkers, way more than 100 of them, and shooting every one of them, I have reached a conclusion. Don't whine, and learn to shoot. Oh, that's two conclusions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing those who don't learn how to shoot well and those who find excuses for missing. I'm just explaining that there are many shooters who do just fine with poorly balanced guns, guns with too tight chokes, guns with ill fitting stocks. They just work harder at it and shoot a lot. I will be the first to admit that some Parkers feel better balanced in the hands than others, but there are a bunch of additional factors contributing to hitting the birds. I remember a thread a while back about learning to shoot well with a .410. I didn't recall much advice about the gun, the ammo, or the shooting procedures. It seemed to boil down to expending more rounds. I don't agree with that simple explanation, however. I believe learning good procedures goes along with shooting lots of shells to make a good shooter.

IMO, You can learn to shoot just about any gun but that doesn’t mean you are going to shoot consistently good scores with it. That requires a gun that fits you. And lots of practice.

Bill, my dad had a saying: get a gun and learn to shoot it. He’d say that whenever somebody obsessed about something about a gun or blamed the gun for poor shooting. Kinda what you’re saying I think.

Without a doubt when I had the first K-32 I shot very well be it skeet trap or what little sporting I did . But that gun had three barrels and Kolar subgauge inserts for the other three skeet gauges . That gun had a moderate Monte Carlo stock and stayed the same for all three games . Now it’s a bit different deferent shooting 4-10 guns at a shoot and all at the least are slightly different .

But that K-32 should have balanced identically and perfectly regardless of which barrel set it wore.





.

Exactly :bigbye:

Almost a pound less when the 12 gauge was in use without tubes. Balance point moves forward also when tubes were installed. Of course, most four gun skeet shooters use an under barrel weight when using the 12 gauge. Also, a Krieghoff with tubes balances like a mature snapping turtle on the end of a shovel. I shot tubed Krieghoffs for decades and never thought much about balance. At nine pounds plus, balance wasn't as important as upper body strength and thousands of rounds of practice.