Which points better, the side-by-side or the over-under? This intriguing question is among the oldest bandied about by shotgunners. The argument is the usual mixture of prejudice, fact, and wishful thinking--a delightful broth!

The standard British argument (pro side-by-side, of course) is that, although the over-under preceded the side-by-side, the latter became the gun of choice in a land of devout wingshooters because it performed better. (By the way, in Britain it's "under-over.")

The other side, mostly American, says that the side-by-side is a relic, surviving out of sentiment and stubbornness. Most adherents will add, "Put them up against each other in the hands of comparable shooters, and the over-under will always win!"

Neither argument is absolutely true.

The over-under was the predecessor of the side-by-side, but many reasons gave the side-by-side the early edge. Basic among them are that the side-by-side is (or was) easier to load in the confines of a shooting butt and built with less overall weight. But the bottom line has to be this: The success of the side-by-side must be attributed to the fact that sportsmen felt they could score better with it.

Today almost all the same statements can be made, with the exception of ease in loading, about the over-under. Gracefulness is a matter of taste, but I believe that most of us would still give that nod to the side-by-side because of its sleek, low profile. Yet, for as much as I admire the side-by-side's classic lines, I was recently shooting a 16-bore over-under Boss that was as handsome a gun as I've ever held. In looks, we'd better call it a draw.

One of the common arguments is that recoil is usually felt less with the over-under than with the side-by-side. Again, this is a matter of stock dimension, weight, and a dash of prejudice. It's true that while the over-under barrels tend to move less and do so in a vertical plane (given equivalent weight in components, barrels, etc.), and the side-by-side moves a bit more in the direction of the barrel being fired, neither is really vital in a shooting situation and the effects are as imagined as they are real.

One effect that is real is the wind resistance of the over-under, as those of you who have shot trap or skeet with one on a breezy day can testify. This, again, is something most of us can live with and I'd relegate it to hairsplitting.

What the arguments are really about is this: which gun will produce the better score? It's almost impossible today to make much of a competition case for the side-by-side. I used to shoot with a few top gunners who shot Model 21 Winchesters. I did so myself for a few years, but I doubt if a shooter who has any serious intentions of winning a trophy in tight competition would choose a side-by-side in clay target competition. Why? I really can't answer. I don't think anyone could drag out a list of facts and add them up and say, "This is why." I suspect it's largely a matter of the ready availability of inexpensive over-unders, largely the superb Brownings in the period after the Second World War when target shooting grew by leaps and bounds; we got used to using the over-unders.

Another common theory is that we are a nation of riflemen (but I'm not one) and most of us started shotgunning with a pump gun, hence the gravitation to the single sighting plane. I shot a Model 12 Winchester when I started competitive trap (as did almost everyone else), then went to the Model 21 for reasons I don't remember, but shot it about as well as the Model 12, ending up, finally, with a Krieghoff. There were very few "target" side-by-sides made, with the exception of the live-pigeon guns which we'll come to in a minute. Parker was a contributor, L.C. Smith, Fox, and Ithaca as well, but in a rather limited way. Essentially the target guns, aside from the single barrels, were heavier bird guns with hand-filling beavertail fore-ends and higher ribs. A lot of shooters shot them well, and I suspect that most of our top shooters could handle a side-by-side with some distinction if they put their minds to it.

There are enough theories about the merits of both guns to fill this book, but they are only theories. Pattern elevation is claimed as a plus for the trapshooter's over-under, skeet shooters like the "lightened" recoil, and on and on. But the bottom line is they paid their money and they made their choice: the over-under.

In the world circuit of live-pigeon shooting, the picture is a bit different. As I've said before, I think this is the most difficult, by far, of all smoothbore shooting. For the most part, the sport is dominated by Europeans, mainly the Italians. Their favorite gun? Usually a double-trigger side-by-side. They say this is a faster gun, quicker to the mark, and I believe it is. Pigeon shooting is more concerned with vertical leads than clay targets, and the Italians like the swiftness of the double gun on a darting, climbing bird.

Is a side-by-side really quicker than an over-under? How would you prove it? Of course, most pigeon shooters shoot an over-under, cost being a factor in guns of this quality, as well as the prejudice and conviction that every shooter carries.

The most valid arguments in favor of either type are slightly contradictory. The preference for the over-under in competitive shooting (remember the remarks on live-pigeon shooting) is the idea of visual precision. They say it is easier for the eye to align a narrow plane against the sort of background where we shoot targets than it is a broad plane. Regardless of the experiments with a high rib on the side-by-side, the eye is still conscious of both barrels.

The advantage of the broad, eye-catching expanse of side-by-side barrels is assumed to be in the field, with its variety of backgrounds and vagaries of light.

My controversial conclusion? When the target is a relative constant (you know almost precisely where it will appear and when), the single, narrow sighting plane of the over-under is an advantage to precision alignment. When the target is random, and some exactness must be sacrificed for speed, then the side-by-side has the advantage.

I also believe that as a field gun the side-by-side has other pluses. It is easier to carry--more comfortable over the arm or with the barrels carried over the shoulder, and it generally has a better line--the hands are more parallel, especially with a straight or English-style stock, and the tendency to "track" or be too precise is reduced. This last point is somewhat critical to the gunner who says that he simply cannot shoot as well with a side-by-side.

Here I say that too many field shooters are too barrel conscious. The really top-rank gunner is barely aware of his gun barrels; he sees "through" them and his eye is always focused on the target, never down the rib of the shotgun. Why do I say that? The magnificent Italian gunners often shoot a live-pigeon gun whose stock is so high that it is virtually impossible to see the barrels at all; they are "shooting over the end of the gun." I know too well that old habits die hard and shooting styles can be so ingrained that they cannot be changed. I certainly have a few habits that I wish I could toss overboard!

My own shooting generally follows this pattern: over-unders for competition and the side-by-side for the field. Furthermore, I shoot an over-under in the live-pigeon ring but believe I might do a little better with a side-by-side except for the fact that I prefer a release trigger here, and the complication of fitting them to a side-by-side double barrel has stymied me. But I would like to at least try one someday to test my theories.

When all is said and done, I doubt if the score at the end of a year in the field would be all that different. That's fine since we don't, and shouldn't, keep this at a competitive level. One of the great pleasures of owning a shotgun is our appreciation of its esthetics--regardless of how the barrels are fastened together. One of my friends, a nationally known skeet champion, favors an old Parker side-by-side with which he has won more than a few prestigious tournaments. He admits to being a dinosaur, but explains, with a slight smile, that he "would rather turn in a 198 with the Parker than a 200 with anything else." Such is the world of the shotgunner. I, for one, hope the arguments, debates, and hairsplitting never cease.