A good gun for a small female shooter?

[jonk]

As a general observation, I have taught several women of light frame how to shoot. To a one, they all wanted to have light, petite firearms that would be easier for them to handle. To a one they all found the greater perceived recoil from the light gun problematic and ultimately preferred a heavier gun, even if harder to manage.

Consider that your average soldier of the 18th and 19th century was statistically just over 5 foot tall in many cases, and was required to field a smoothbore that was nearly as tall as they were, and much taller if bayonets came into play.

The "chick lean" is usually due to women trying to shoot guns with a stock profile that does not lend itself to their body shape. Women tend to lean back to try to compensate balance, and thrust their hip forward. Men tend to hunch their head down, when what they really need is a gun that fits them properly, combined with coaching and practice. After all: while over many shots fatigue comes into play, even a 10 year old can lift 12 pounds without difficulty, which is what our heaviest guns may weigh.

This isn't to say that it is a criticism that the young lady in question would probably do better with a shorter firearm. She likely would. But I wouldn't take it as gospel. One of my teammates is a woman who is of fairly short stature and moderate build and she prefers a 3 band.

My advice is, rather than trying to find the absolute shortest lightest legal gun, at a skirmish let her handle some weapons. I'm sure your teammates and any others at the skirmish would let her do so. Find a style that fits her, that she finds comfortable to hold. Maybe it is the shortest available, maybe not. Go from there.

My general rule would be a gun where most of the weight is near the back end. The sharps is a good candidate except you said her head is too low. So I think the best question here is: what guns have a fairly minimal comb?

As to eye dominance, I am left eye dominant. I simply close my left eye to shoot. Not ideal. Ideally both eyes should remain open and if you are right handed, if your right eye is dominant, you should be able to not close the left and still get a good sight picture. This said if her dexterity with her non dominant hand is enough to shoot left handed she certainly can.

[Hal]

Jonk is right about the recoil.

My wife would have to be the exception. She is, dare I say, "stubborn" about the weight of a three band rifle musket. She SWEARS it's too heavy to hold up. But takes bruising on her shoulder in stride. Actually, I believe the bruising is more a function of not holding it tight enough, but at any rate, she will deal with that, but refuses to shoot a 3 band unless its off the bench.

[MR. GADGET]

What about an 1851 Cadet rifle?

Smaller good balance, lighter.......

[Maillemaker]

Hi guys. I appreciate all the suggestions.

We went through holding all the guns that I own. Armisport 42, Pedersoli 1859 Sharps, Pedersoli 58, JRA Richmond Carbine, Euroarms P53.

She preferred the Richmond Carbine over all, and it was the shortest gun. It's also probably my most accurate gun, and it shoots a moderate load (RCBS Hodgdon with 44 grains 3F Goex. Also shoots the Moose Molds Wilkinson well with 50 grains 3F).

Any suggestion is going to have to be available as a reproduction arm. I can't afford originals.

Steve

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

There isn't much difference between a Musketoon 25" and a Whitney or SN&W TC in length 30" / 31" She can't shoot the Musketoon on Sunday with you as its a Carbine not a Rifle. The Enfields have a straighter stock and are not as balanced as a Springfield type. The previous message about a rifled 1851 cadet is a good idea too.

[Joe Plakis, 9575V]

ORIGINAL VS REPRODUCTION.......

If you pick up 90% of reproductions, unless they are built with original barrels and custom wood, are going to be heavier. I had a brother-in-law that used to shoot a cut down 1861 Euroarms Springfield, and the weight was totally different than the original one that I had that was a "cutdown."

The same goes for the original 1863 SNWTC vs the one I bought from James River when they were in business.

In most cases you cannot truly compare the weight of an original vs a repro.

Try to find an original....

[Lou Lou Lou]

I have two original ?cutdown? Springfields that weigh between 8-9 pounds. Very light and easy to shoulder. Agree with Joe.

[Muley Gil]

I believe my 1863 Springfield artillery rifle weighs about 7-7 1/2 lbs. It is a lot lighter than my P-H 1858.

[John Bly]

The variations in weight of original muskets is due to the weight of the wood. The 2" of barrel from a standard artillery model to an SNWTC makes almost no differrnce. If she likes the Richmond carbine then a '61 or '63 artillery model should work OK.
One thing to consider is the length of pull. A small stature person may not be able to handle a full sized musket. The 1851 cadet has a shorter length of pull and the 1858 Cadet musket has a 1" shorter length of pull and a shorter barrel. They are scarce but there have been some hand made repros built.

[2kycav]

I may be mistaken but I believe I once owned a '63 Springfield cut down to artillery length that I believe the SAC card called a "Short rifle"....I believe I was told it was the shortest and lightest firearm legal for musket competition.....and it DID weigh less than my Springfield carbine......Good Luck!