Has anybody tried running 4 secondary brake shoes to improve performance?
I was backing up today, and I know the drums don't work as well backward, which must be because of the little primary shoe. So......why wouldn't this improve braking? I am also going to guess it won't, otherwise it would be common practice, eh? So, why wouldn't it improve?

good food for thought. I would think that the brakes would self energize in both directions (forward or backing up) giving the same force either way. Good question on why there's a short shoe & it goes on the forward side. If I had extras (& the time) I'd put 2 long ones on, on each side & see how it acts. BTT

RR I had a few at the shop where someone used 2 shorts and 2 longs on an axle.It seems the 2 longs wore faster thatn the 2 shorts.I didnt notice a difference in braking though.Also had a bunch where someone installed the shoes backwards.Rocky

Well, I would think they "should" as you say, self energize better and give you more braking. Unless someone has a reason, I am going to try this some time this spring.
Here is a trivia question, who and when came up with this "self energizing" system. "They" may have called it servo energize or something like that. This trivia is really a pretty interesting story.

IMHO..it really does not matter...I have found them every which way that can be done over the yrs. they all worked OK.

IIRC, the longer shoe in the back is because the rear shoe is the one the park brake applys the most pressure too.

the longer shoe has more contact area to "hold" the drum from turnig.

I switched to the smaller W/C in the rear when I did my 11.75 disc swap.
I have 11" drums and they still lock up. Currently have 2.5x11 and switching to 2x11 pads for less surfacing area (not changing the drums).

I would think 2 larger pads would "grip" more. If the 2x11s don't fix my problem maybe I'll try using 2 of the smaller 2x11s on each side.