I posted this on another webpage a few days ago and never got the feedback I had hoped for so...I'll try it here.

The topic of conversation in the shop yesterday. There are very different ideas on the subject: one being that modern ammunition (ie. w/shotcups) almost obviates the need for any choke, the other is that factory chokes (especially those with the long parallel-sections past the constriction) are the only effective choke systems. The third path is that any constriction of the shot collumn is sufficient to achieve the desired effect of full(er) patterns at distance, even if the constriction is only at the last few fractions of an inch at the muzzle.

I've had the length shortened on the barrel on an older (and, more practical than valuable) gun to achieve two things: to shorten the overall length and weight of the gun and, more importantly (to me), to change the choke from full to now about light-modified. The gun is presently at 26 1/2-inches and has 10-points of choke, which at 16-gauge should be about right for my needs in the uplands.

Anybody else here ever play this game?

Not quite that way; but I've had chokes opened up from "Full & full" to Imp Cylinder & Modified, or Skeet & Imp Cylinder(depending on the gun) & never regretted it.
I am not sure Michael Murphy was right about "no choke needed,"
but for me, open chokes work better.

Sam, that was Michael McIntosh that said that "Choke is obsolete with today's ammunition". I think that may be the statement you are referring to. I disagreed with him, and still do.

I DO think most people are overchoked with full/full, using modern ammo. I, however, lean toward more choke. I compete with .020" and .020" fixed chokes in NSCA tournaments, and with .018" and .018" in my main competition S x S.

I have opened fixed chokes a little bit several times, and only regretted it once.

SRH

I believe that it was McIntosh where I read that statement, probably in the same book where he sang the praises of his late father's Model 31. I have found his supposition on both items to be argueably correct. At least in 12-gauge. For sub-gauge guns (20-bores), I do find that a bit-more choke is useful for keeping patterns from becoming splotchly and uneven. What I'm curious about is how that needs to be achieved.

IME, it is mostly trial and error, Lloyd. The "formulas" for really nice patterns are few and far between. A pattern plate is really a good investment, if one is concerned about getting nice patterns out of one's gun(s). What works in one won't necessarily give the same results out of the next (seemingly) identical gun.

Ain't all this fun?

SRH

Lloyd3,

Lloyd, my comments are based on my experience and advice from bird hunters (quail hunters) when I was growing up. I have opened many many old side by sides and closed a few via jug choking. My experience relates to 20 and 28 gauge guns and a few 16 gauges. Based on my experience the smaller the gauge the more important the choking for good hunting results.

I was taught to pattern your gun with the brand of shell and size shot at the distances you plan to shoot because different guns with the supposedly same constriction may pattern differ brand shells or shot size differently.

I like playing the game and believe each gun, especially older ones, have to be adjusted according to observed results.

Take Care,
Riprap

Stan,

I just reread your last comment and I certainly agree with you. I think you just gave the "short and sweet version" and my long winded approach wasn't necessary. I just should have said Amen Stan.

Take Care,
Riprap

Thanks folks! I kind of figured that it was truely a "hit or miss" proposition, but trimming that barrel back a bit made me delve into the lore of chokes more deeply than normal. Lots of people have very-closely held convictions on the subject (at least in what they write). I figure that if I've made a complete hash of it, I can always cut another half-inch off and go with choke tubes. The true test will be the patterning board or the dove-opener, whichever comes first.

The proof is in the pudding, Lloyd. I've altered chokes on a few and changed the barrel length on a gun that had a Cutts on it. My experiences have been good, and I'd do the same thing to both guns today all over again. I still own them both. My Dad opened his full choke A5 to modified when I was a kid, and shot it just as poorly as he did prior to that operation.
I suspect shotgun barrels are often unique unto themselves. There is a lot of hit or miss out there (pardon the pun) on modification to them.

Best,
Ted

A complicated subject: First we have to classify whether we are talking breaking clays or killing birds.
A choke that will break a clay may only wound a bird.
I shoot several thousand rounds a year at sporting Clays and a LOT less than that at birds.
I use a .012-.015 choke for about all Sporting up to 45 yds and it breaks everything that I think should have broken. I shot the same choke last weekend at a Station which had an edge on 50 yd clay and I am confident my choke was too open. Of course a bird
would have been wounded if hit at that distance with that choke.
when we are shooting birds at distance over about 25 yds , I do not agree with McIntosh either. I have wounded Quail and Dove with a choke too open when the distance is too far for the constriction. I use IC for Quail and Mod usually for Dove and Duck.

Stallones: Very interesting that you make such a distinction between clays and birds. I believe that's a "first" for me. And, even though I haven't considered it before, I have to strongly agree. My primary use of this particular firearm (as with all my guns) will be on game. Clays for me have always been tune-up for the real thing. Fun to shoot, but too-clinical for my tastes to invest much more time in. I don't doubt that I would have benefitted from doing more, but there was always a time and money component that kept me focused elsewhere.

0.10 in a 16 would be fine for all-season grouse/WC here in Maine. That is saying something.

Choke configuration does matter. One .010s may be better than another.

Regarding use of open/no/almost no chokes (whatever the heck MM meant by that) for everything, there may be a better way to guarantee you will never develop as a SC shooter...but right now I can't think of one. That was one of the most poorly considered pieces any shotgun writer ever put on paper. Using only open chokes is like betting against yourself, encourages such things as shooting twice at the close target, and provides fallacious input to the brain by way of misses on distant targets that were correctly pointed. You can groove and break a 40 yd target with a .005 12 ga often enough to convince yourself it can be done. But this is no way to develop in SC. Of course, to know this last part is true one would need to actually pattern at distance. I suspect MM did not pattern much, if at all.

I am 100% with Stan on this.

Sam

Two great resources on this topic:

Sporting Shotgun Performance, Dr. A.C. Jones
The Mysteries of Shotgun Patterns, George Oberfell & Charles Thompson

Both books do a good job put some quantitative analysis into this subject and dismiss various wives tales along the way.

Oberfell & Thompson tested five different shells out of the same gun and found an 11% variation in patterns (70-81% at 40 yards). So the shell in the chamber is as relevant as the constriction at the end of the barrel when thinking about this stuff.

I did a lot of Quail hunting(wild south Texas Birds) with a friend who used only cylinder bore. He was as good a shot as I who was using .012-.015 chokes in my F. Zanotti double 12. There was a noticeable difference in wounded and dead birds. After a couple of years he gave the gun away to a friend and bought a nice Parker reproduction 20 with chokes.

Stan wrote, "IME, it is mostly trial and error, Lloyd. The "formulas" for really nice patterns are few and far between. A pattern plate is really a good investment, if one is concerned about getting nice patterns out of one's gun(s). What works in one won't necessarily give the same results out of the next (seemingly) identical gun.

Very true and I have used my pattern board to identify some very good and consistent patterns,

I have had some success improving my patterns by using different reloading recipes. Spreader devices, harder/softer shot or a buffering agents can make a
remarkable difference in pattern performance.
My hunting buddy bought a Parker 16 Ga, mfg. in 1917. The guns chokes measured a tight Full and a tight Mod.
We went back to the old way using card and fiber wads + low antimony shot. That combo was pretty good, but still a little tight for his shooting distances. Then, we used two OS cards, cut slits about 3/4 of the way through each card and put them together in an X shape with the shot dispersed equally between the petals. The chokes opened to IC and Mod. RMC all brass hulls were the hull of choice and albeit slow to load, wonderful patterns were produced.

McIntosh was not the only writer who thought highly of cylinder bore. Bob Brister had very positive comments to make about "no choke" as well, although he also touted the value of a whole lot of choke for long shots. But if you're hunting upland birds and you're only average to slightly better with a scattergun, cylinder isn't a bad choice. It should pattern 70% at 25 yards (same as full at 40 yards), and with some work at the pattern board and proper shell selection, you can certainly make cyl work out to 30 yards. I'm talking bird hunting here, not sporting clays or trap. Most people simply aren't good enough, or even close, that they should be taking 40+ yard shots at birds. They'll be very lucky to deliver a killing shot at that distance. In fact, the best thing would probably be a miss, because all too often a few feathers get pulled and the bird keeps flying.

It's harder to get the necessary experience hunting wild birds these days because of declining populations, but if people spent a fraction of the amount of time with a decent dog learning how to hunt upland birds, they'd find that they'd seldom need 40 yard shooting skills. Most of the time, 30 will get the job done.

For those that want to read the entire McIntosh article: "More Things We Can Do Without", Shooting Sportsman, Sept/Oct 2010. But to summarize, McIntosh points out that choke isn't as necessary these days because of modern ammunition, primarily the plastic wad. Remember when, in a 12ga, standard choke constrictions went by .010" intervals--and full was .040 constriction? It's a good bit more open than that today, thanks mostly to improvements in shotshells. Thus, cylinder today isn't cylinder from a century or more ago, with black powder or early bulk smokeless and cork or fiber wads. But McIntosh makes it clear that he's focusing mainly on upland hunters, pointing out that turkey hunters and those who shoot waterfowl at long range need more choke.

I think highly of cylinder bore myself, where it is needed. I just do not find myself gunning in very many situations where cylinder is called for.

Kinda like Quigley said of the Colt .................. "I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it."

Never particularly gave any more significance to what writers say than anyone else, either. They're just better at putting what they don't know into words.

SRH

Much confusion concerning chokes is caused by the shooting community's acceptance of expedient, if incorrect, definitions of choke. Thus we see choke tube makers making hay not just with .005 (sometimes less) incremental tubes, but also with fallacious nomenclature assigned to each increment. There is, factually, no such thing as a "mod" choke tube or section. Mod is a performance, defined as a specific percentage at 40 yds.

The .010 16 ga could quite possibly give mod choke, depending on ammo. It also could give a skeet pattern.

The McIntosh foolishness is in full bloom (no pun) on pp 120-121 of 'Shotguns and Shooting'. Chapter is titled 'Practical Chokes'. He describes with great clarity long-distance ("just a hair over 50 yds") grooving with guns having "little or no choke" (he means constriction). The interesting thing concerning this section is that his observations are quite believable. It is his conclusions that are so precisely incorrect and detrimental.

Like Stan, I am not knocking cyl/skeet/IC for all purposes. This goes in spades when we are talking of 12s.

Sam

Totally agree, Larry. I would bet a fair bit that the vast majority of shot and recovered birds are taken at 30 yards or less, probably more like 20.

I don't understand the focus on 40-50 yard shots when almost nobody can make such shots with any consistency in the field. And even if a guy can stone a pheasant at 50 yards, I hope he's got a good dog to dig it out of the cattails.

For the 90+% of the population without both the skills to hit 50 yard shots and the dogs to recover them (I count myself part of this population), using open chokes and getting close to the birds sounds like decent advice.

A couple comments: When I said I opened chokes; I was referring to a Parker repro 28" 28 Gauge that was choked over 40/1000ths
in the "full" barrel. I opened it up to 15/1000.
For me, and only for me, a very average shooter; that was much better. For me; I thought 42/1000ths in a 28 Ga barrel just waay too much. I don't open them up to Cylinder, as I think a bit of choke works a lot better..at least for me.
Larry, I agree with you.....You and I both know about guys who talk about those 300 yard to 400 yard shots on deer, when the guy who was with them says "Maybe 125 to 150 yards."
I just don't take 40 yard shots at birds; having been raised by a wonderful old shooter who would say "What the h**l did you take that shot for?" (He also had a wonderful bird dog.)
Sam Ogle, Lincoln, NE

You can indeed make chokes shoot tighter or looser patterns, and that's without stuff like spreaders. Don Zutz was a big fan of mod, because he realized it could shoot patterns ranging from IC to close to full depending on shell selection. Take a load of small shot with a cork or fiber wad, compare it to a load of larger shot, with a plastic shot cup. Maybe toss in buffering. You'll get some significant variations in pattern.

But McIntosh's point--although he didn't go into great detail--is that you can also make cylinder shoot IC or tighter patterns if you feed it the right ammo. But it retains the advantage of being able to throw true cylinder patterns without resorting to spreader loads. And per Mr. Brister--a fair hand at both game and clay shooting: "I do know that at 25 yards a pure-cylinder barrel will throw one of the deadliest game-getting patterns you ever looked at, more efficient at that yardage than a full-choke barrel at 50 yards." He also pointed out that Oberfell and Thompson found that cylinder patterns tended to be more even than those from guns with choke. When you add to that the fact that in some types of upland hunting, 25 yards is an unusually long shot--certainly true of grouse and woodcock!--the value of cylinder becomes even more apparent. It's obviously not the choice for guys who are shooting 50 yard clay targets . . . but then only a tiny % of upland hunters can hit 50 yard birds. And based on my own experience--using 3/4 ounce loads in a 20ga--you don't need any choke at all to break skeet targets consistently.

QUOTE By SAM
""[Regarding use of open/no/almost no chokes (whatever the heck MM meant by that) for everything, there may be a better way to guarantee you will never develop as a SC shooter...but right now I can't think of one. That was one of the most poorly considered pieces any shotgun writer ever put on paper. Using only open chokes is like betting against yourself, encourages such things as shooting twice at the close target, and provides fallacious input to the brain by way of misses on distant targets that were correctly pointed. You can groove and break a 40 yd target with a .005 12 ga often enough to convince yourself it can be done. But this is no way to develop in SC. Of course, to know this last part is true one would need to actually pattern at distance. I suspect MM did not pattern much, if at all. ""}





Sam, Let's clarify this here:
What you wrote above is absurd and I doubt if you even read the article.

McIntosh's article about open chokes was about "upland bird hunting" for the "average gunner". His audience for this was not us on this forum who are so anal as to analyze every minute detail about shotgunning.
Also, the article was not meant for sporting clays, FITASC, or goose pass shooting.
It was meant for the average upland bird hunter. This is the first thing to keep in mind when reading it.

The average guy, not us, probably shoots with too much choke from lore of years ago.
McIntosh's intent was to educate those folks who handicap themselves with too much choke and not enough skill.
It was also an article written to inform the reader of the technological advances of the shotshell.

Nowhere in the article did he ever say to use cylinder for every shotgunning situation!

Here is an example;
I shoot grouse, and quail over a pointing dog with a 28 gauge Arietta that has no choke, Cyl/Cyl.
It does the job with stone dead kills and no choke.
McIntosh also had a 28 gauge bespoke Arietta he had choked Cyl/.007.
I know because he told me. See, he used some choke ordered in his own gun!

When I was thinking of ordering a 16 he recommended to choke it .004 and .010 for it's intended purpose of pheasant and prairie grouse. He didn't advise to have it open bore and he didn't tell me to go full/full either.


Also Fyi, even though my grouse gun is Cyl/Cyl, my sporting clays Perazzi is fixed choked .023/.023.
However, if I could change chokes, I'd put in cylinder for 35 yard full belly in comers and battues. I'm sure that that would be OK with Michael too!

Vernal.

Based on research and testing that Oberfell and Thompson did, Cyl chokes offer the same performance at 25 yards that modified chokes do at 35 yards and full chokes do at 40 yards (70%). If you are comfortable shooting 40 yard targets (or birds) with a Full choke, then a Cyl choke should work just as well at 25 yards.

Doverham.

Thank you!



Vernal

Vernal,

Did you bother to read my followup post? I made a couple of points. First, I demonstrated that I did read the article. Second, I pointed out that cyl/skeet are not useless. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of upland birds I will ever shoot were taken with a .000 12 ga.

The thread has taken some different turns, some toward target shooting. The two McIntosh illustrations on those pages involved target shooting.

A cylinder 20 ga pattern does not have a sufficient core at even 35 yds for the type of targets McIntosh was describing.

Your last paragraph reveals you do, indeed, understand target presentations. That means you understand the targets he was describing are not suitable for your cyl/cyl grouse gun.

Thanks,

Sam

Sam--Maybe we're reading different articles, but in MM's piece in Shooting Sportsman, he scarcely mentions clay targets--other than saying that flyers are basically useless either on live birds or clays--let alone describing any specific target presentations. And while I agree that cylinder with a standard 20ga 7/8 oz target load is a pretty poor choice for a 35 yard clay, that might well change if the shooter decided to use a 1 oz load, or got really carried away and used a 1 1/8 oz short magnum load of 7 1/2's. Wouldn't be that much difference from shooting the same load through a 12ga with no choke.

Vernal,

Since you have some mystical "insight" to what MM's intent was when he wrote that article, which by the way, was in the Sept.-Oct. 2010 issue of SSM, I am going to include here two inarguable things printed therein.

The title of the article is "More Things We Can Do Without"

and

A quote from the article ........ "An upland hunter can do himself a treat by installing Cylinder bore tubes in both barrels and losing the others".

One question. Do doves, desert quail and wild pheasant fall under the category "upland birds"?

SRH

It seems to me a lot of folks tend to forget there are several degrees of choke between Full Choke & No Choke (Cyl). Several of them are in my opinion much more versatile than either extreme. I am not a writer so can't really say what I would have written if I were, but I don't think I would ever have made the statement MM did.

'Shotguns and Shooting' - Ch 13, 'Practical Chokes', pg 116: "Instead let's take the fact that it does work as a given, and talk here about practical application and the importance of choke to a bird hunter and recreational target shooter" (emphasis added).

Author goes on to exclude rigorous target shooters, and include relatively new shooters. What are they shooting? Hmmmm... His illustrations involve target shooters.

I have a group of kids who are eager to develop shotgun skills. Let's pretend I can choose either of Vernal's 20 ga guns for those 35 yd face-on battues. Which would a good coach select? I mean, let's assume I actually give a crap about whether they develop confidence and skill. The question here: which gun provides the more effective pattern at 35 yds on any target. That's right, I said "any target".

It's not even close.

Now lets talk about that over 50 yd, maybe 1/4 to 1/2 belly showing crosser. .000/.000 with a 7/8 oz 20, eh? "Absurd" is more like it.

Sam

Larry, Pretty much agree. The reason I was successful with my old .000 12 was I fed it 3 dram #7.5 factory traploads. My experience was I was fine on most any live bird presentations to 25 yds, crossers to 30 yds, and incomers to 35 yds. And, as you have noted, most of our shots at game are (or should be) under 35 yds. My issue, above, is that MM was most certainly not talking merely about game shooting, as quoted above.

Am also very aware of Miller's point. We could give MM a small "benefit" here, as we do not know what ("the heck") he meant by "little or no" choke. MM's lack of precision, really, is one of this nitpicker's complaints about his pieces. Obviously, I like him overall - as I've read most of his stuff pretty carefully. Just don't think every piece deserved to be bronzed.

Sam

Very well put, Sam.

SRH

Sam,
This is the first thing you've written that makes any sense. Everything else is jibberish and loses the context of his article.

If a writer is any good at his game--and the late Mr. McIntosh was better than most--he knows his audience. If I recall correctly--and I'm pretty sure I do--there used to be a specific column in Shooting Sportsman aimed at target shooters. That wasn't McIntosh's column. His was simply "Shooting". And in the article referenced, while he didn't write--maybe emphasizing in bold type--"CLAY SHOOTERS, PLEASE DISREGARD EVERYTHING CONTAINED HEREIN", he did make it pretty clear (by scarcely mentioning targets) that the column was aimed at upland hunters. As in: "For upland hunters, choke now is more bane than boon."

If one excludes doves, which are shot more like waterfowl than they are upland birds (over dogs), the most popular species in this country are pheasants, ruffed grouse (mixed with woodcock in the eastern half of the country), and bobwhites. On all of those, your average upland hunter, choosing his loads well, can kill plenty of birds with no choke at all. Having lived in Iowa when it was the #1 pheasant state in the nation, I had a chance to hunt them frequently. I seldom killed a rooster--or even took a shot at one--beyond 35 yards. I'd say I hit probably 80-90% of them inside 25 yards--at which range cylinder performs pretty much like full does at 40 yards (70% patterns).

McIntosh also understood--having coached a lot of shooters and participated in a lot of hunts (like those sponsored by Shooting Sportsman) with a pretty broad cross-section of hunters--that most are not very good shots beyond about 30 yards. And inside that distance, a gun with no choke has two clear advantages: the additional pattern spread compensates for aiming error; and the wide open pattern lessens the possibility of blowing a centered bird to pieces.

He specifically excludes turkey hunters and "crack long-range wildfowlers". Perhaps he should have also excluded the guys who are aces at trap and sporting clays. But not having addressed target shooting AT ALL in the article, I would have thought that would have been clear to readers.

But you can't please everyone with everything you write, which is something I learned myself pretty quickly when I started writing for various magazines.

Vernal, I provided supporting evidence flatly contradicting your assertion as to McIntosh's intent.

Have a day.

Sam

Mr. Stan,

My insight isn't "mystical", it's analytical , and I discussed it with the author personally.
The point of the article was to explain the effectiveness of today's cartridges compared to those of yesteryear which is why nobody orders double guns choked full/full anymore like your classic Fox was.
It's not necessary!


In my state pheasants and doves have to be hunted with nontoxic on public land so I typically just use steel in a 390 which has a skeet choke screwed in, just because I don't have cylinder. And I don't take 45yard shots, unless dove shooting in Mexico when the Paz takes the trip.

What choke constriction do you use for pheasants, desert quail and doves?


Vernal

I am 72: As a boy growing up in Nebraska in the 1950's; the shotgun every man owned was a 30 inch full by God choke. Any person who hunted with a Modified Choke was unusual, and probably believed to be some kind of sissy. We hunted Prairie Chickens, Pheasants & Ducks...we never saw geese.
I would bet that today, those guns hanging unused in the house are still 30 inch full choke Model 12's. Then, over time, the "Chicken" population dwindled, the Pheasants disappeared, and the ducks seem to have changed their flyway patterns. Now, as an old coot, living further east, I have been blessed to hunt doves, quail, and a few pen-raised pheasants, with an occasional trip to Winner, SD for pheasants.
I just don't shoot as good as a 30 year old guy, and over time, my choke selection has become more "open."
McIntosh probably overstated the cylinder case, but he hunted behind good bird dogs, and, I understand was a hell of a good shot. The pendulum swings.....but with modern ammo we no longer need a 30" full choke gun as we once did.
An old "Sissy."
Sam Ogle

Sam, you are right about the popularity of full choke back in the "old days"--although you're MUCH older than I am (about 3 years). A lot of those guns did double duty in the duck blind, then in the cornfields for pheasants. Back then, we hunted corn a lot for pheasants. Much "dirtier" than it is now, with a lot more weeds and stubble left after the pickers. Not nearly as clean to start with as today's corn, and significantly dirtier after the picker made its pass than after the combine cleans the field.

Also, dogs--except maybe the same Lab used for ducks--weren't all that common among pheasant hunters in places like NE and IA, where we had a LOT of birds. You wanted them to come down dead, and the belief was your chances were better of a dead bird with full.

Then came CRP in the mid-80's, by which time I had pointing dogs and was doing most of my shooting with a 16 choked IC/M--which worked just fine. I later found that for most of the pheasants I shot at, even less choke was good. If a bird flushed well out there, you could just let him go--because you knew there'd be another one, probably closer, before long. And it was just that much more opportunity to walk those big CRP grass fields and watch the dogs work.

Since you asked .......... I don't hunt pheasants. I don't like to eat the things, and they are not wild where I live, but I shoot doves and ducks, a lot.

I begin the dove season with a .410, with full and full, with 11/16 oz., or full and modified chokes. After the first couple shoots I go to a 20 ga. with 7/8 oz., in the early season with a LM in one barrel and an IC in the other. By the second season I go to a IM and a LM. Late season, big purple-necked migratory birds get shot with a 32" 16 ga. L.C. Smith with full and full chokes, and 1 oz. 7 1/2 shot. On a rare day in the late season I will take one of my 12 ga. Foxes, which will have at least M and F chokes. I pride myself in providing edible doves, as I dearly love them, and all this talk about blowing them to bits is pure BS. The choke does not control my trigger finger, I do, and I don't shoot them in my face. I am ready for the high flying doves of the late seasons, though.

For ducks, it's easy. If I am shooting woodies in a little beaver pond I shoot the most open choke I can get my hands on. I have been known to use a -.005" (that's commonly called a "negative"), with 1 1/8 oz. of the cheapest steel loads I can buy. Doesn't take much to deck a woodie at 15 yds. For decoyed big ducks I use my BSS which is choked .018" and .018", with 1 1/4 oz. of steel at 1550 fps.

I've done this long enough to know what I need and, McIntosh notwithstanding, cylinder rarely is it. Only for the ultra close woodies. What really bothers me the most about that article is that he feels he needs to dictate to experienced upland hunters his mantra of no choke. Everybody is not a freakin' grouse/woodcock hunter!

Results? No "shot to pieces" birds here. Good table fare.



For wild quail of all types, M and IC in a 20 ga., or M and F in a .410.

I disagree with your perception that MM was trying to educate us about the effectiveness of today's shells as opposed to yesteryear's. I think he was trying to "stir the pot". Reread his opening statement in the article if you think I'm wrong.

SRH

Stan: Well, I am a grouse hunter and I want a little choke in my gun, at a minimum, skeet choke. Grouse aren't like quail, you rarely step on one to flush. Most get up at least 10 yds out, even under a point. They run, then flush......a lot, I think. Woodcock are a different matter. They fly slow, yet erratically and the more open the choke, the better. I don't like to eat woodcock very much (dark meat) and let lots of them just fly away. In terms of dove, I had a great time hunting them once with my Perazzi single barrel handicap trap gun. Of course I only had one shot, but talk about reaching out there. Now for the most important question to you.......You say you don't hunt pheasants because you don't like to eat them; so are you really saying you would rather eat dove and duck than the nice, white meat of pheasant??? Really?????

Yep, really. I don't consider pheasant white meat, something somewhere between dark and white. Bobwhite is white meat. I absolutely love dove and duck. I can eat a limit of grilled dove breasts at one sitting. I eat woodcock and enjoy them, too, though not as much as dove and duck.

You don't get to step on wild quail, either, buzz. Especially not desert quail, and wild bobs will make you wish you had a modified in the second barrel, with a 16 or a 20, around here anyway. I won't even stoop to talk about put-n-take quail.

SRH

Within this discussion there has been much said about the pattern percentage improvements with "modern" cartridges. This was apparently the gist of the article by MM (haven't read it).

My question is, who has measured the implied differences? And if so how significant are they?

From memory Andrew Jones reckoned that a plastic cup wad delayed the opening up of the pattern by about two yards; which isn't very significant. A BASC study some time back comparing "modern" fibre wad shells to"modern" monowads with the same shot load found no difference at all. The variation from shot to shot was much greater than people imagine, certainly more than two yards worth. Does anyone have any numbers?

On the general premise of open chokes for hunting JEM Ruffer recommended true cylinder and Brit No 7 shot for all game shooting. I don't think he was much of a wood pigeon shooter, when I tried it I put a lot of birds into the bag, but no more than any other combination and as has been said I needed (and had) a good dog. Changing up to quarter choke and No 6 made a significant improvement in birds clean killed. This was over a number of seasons and some thousands of pigeon.

The lesson drawn was the same as others have stated; that the nature of the quarry trumps all theory.

Eug

Mr. Stan
Thank you for sharing your bird season hunting routine.
It sounds like you are enjoying your retirement properly. Hope I'm fortunate enough to do the same in a few years.

Obviously with a 410 a tight choke in required.
In fact I'd say that the choke selection in your game guns are"just right", for you.

Best wishes,

Vernal

Great post Mr. Brown
MM gets accused of just being a writer with no clue as to what he's doing, like Mr. Hoggson intimated.
McIntosh would shoot up to 20,000 shells per year at clay targets in his younger years and probably that much later in life at live birds. And coached hundreds of novice students and studied every aspect of the sport. I'd say that's enough experience for him to know what he was writing about.

Also, Do you think he saw just a few guys show up at a lesson, or attend one of those bird hunting excursions with a full choked model 12 or Parker and struggle to hit anything? It is likely that those shooters were his intended audience, not an experienced gunner who is adept at killing birds with a full choked 410. That is a rare level of skill not shared by many who take to the dove fields on September 1.


Vernal Pike

And to you as well, Vernal. One minor correction, tho'. I ain't retired yet. I still work everyday. I do take a long weekend occasionally to go to a sporting clays tournament. We're taking the Fourth and the rest of this weekend off, and I'm gonna shoot some clays to get ready for a tournament next weekend.

All my best, SRH

Not to mess with this thread; but re-reading this thread this morning I see where I said Michael Murphy when I meant McIntosh! Oh, Wow......I am getting fuzzy! This has been a most interesting thread with some really good opinions.
Again, I am sorry for using the wrong name in my first comment, and to think, McIntosh's writings have been read by me extensively.
Sam Ogle

Wondering if Fox had this choke thing figured out well over a hundred years ago. The early The "standard" chokes for a Sterlingworth Brush were cylinder and modified. Someone figured out even back then with no shot cups that no choke was needed for hunting upland birds in that first barrel. Believe all the "Brush" models came with 26" barrels.

Looking again at the McIntosh article, I don't think his first sentence (assuming the reference is to the "Choke" section of the piece) was an attempt to stir the pot at all. Rather, it was in anticipation of the strong reaction he'd get from those who didn't agree with him. And we can see in this discussion that there's no shortage of people who disagree when it comes to straight cylinder.

But if you're mainly a duck and dove hunter, you're not his target audience anyhow. Pheasant, grouse and woodcock, quail . . . I've already addressed pheasants--which, at least in my experience, require less choke (and, for that matter, lighter loads) than most people use. A lot of people go to South Dakota and end up hunting the birds in very large groups. Group hunts tend to make for longer shots than if it's just a couple of hunters following a good dog or two.

Grouse and woodcock: I doubt anyone who's hunted doodles much would disagree with cylinder for them. But Steve Smith, in an excellent little book called "The Whispering Wings of Autumn", which he and the late Gene Hill did for the Ruffed Grouse Society, refers to the average distance at which he shot woodcock over several seasons: 13 yards for first barrel kills, 19 yards for second barrels. Smith hunts grouse mostly in Michigan. Veteran outdoor writer Nick Sisley hunts them mostly in Pennsylvania--thus covering the two major regions of the country where ruffs are hunted. Smith's average distance to grouse: 22 yards first barrel, 28 yards second. Sisley, reporting on a season in which he bagged 33 grouse while shooting 78% (which he admits was unusual!) gave his average kill distance at 23 yards. That was with a Franchi AL-48 20ga auto with the barrel cut off to remove all choke. Those distances line up well with the range at which we break skeet targets, which should not come as a surprise when we recall that skeet was a game invented as off-season practice by William Harnden Foster and some of his grouse hunting friends.

Quail . . . it's been too long since I've encountered good numbers of wild birds. But I did have a couple good trips to TX, back before the weather went to heck and their birds crashed. While I didn't measure the distance to dead birds, I'd be surprised if I killed many any farther away than 25 yards.

So while not all of us can live without choke for all of our upland hunting, I think quite a few of us can. The Fox Sterlingworth 20ga I plan to use for grouse and woodcock is already quite open, choked close to skeet 1 and 2. And I'll use spreaders in the right barrel to open it even more. Early grouse and woodcock are typically "shoot close or not at all" because they're quickly out of sight in the heavy leaf canopy, and--liking to eat both--I don't want to blow them to pieces.

There is still plenty of shot in the center of a 25 yard cylinder pattern to blow a bird apart.

For me, shooting a two trigger double, cylinder and mod, will do for quail, pheasant, huns, sharptails, and dove.

Gough Thomas / GT Garwood wrote that the plastic shotcup and plastic wad, compared to fiber wad system, had the effect of tightening "one degree of choke" in the tighter chokes. I took that to mean in the English system of 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and 4/4 chokes that it would make 3/4 choke shoot 4/4 and 1/2 choke shoot like 3/4 and 1/4th choke shoot like 1/2. I have assumed that 4/4 is about 40/1000ths of choke.

The most fun I had shooting decoyed dove last year was with Parker Repro 28ga with 30/1000 and 38/1000 chokes. But I would have been more effective with cylinder and mod.

I have never hunted roughed grouse or woodcock.

When hunting wild pheasant with my Brittanys I would be perfectly happy with cylinder and mod even though the wily bastards will sometimes flush at 40 yards as I am walking up to the point.

For NSTRA field trials I prefer cylinder and mod.

Even though they aren't I consider skeet and cylinder equivilent.

?? "Happy with cylinder and modified, wily bastards sometimes flush at forty yards??" What range do you normally shoot those forty yard flushes with your cylinder barrel?

I love this semi-friendly discussion. . It is probably the longest running debate in the history of firearms. By my reckoning it began around 1875, which means its going on 140 years with no consensus yet! I think the Brits came to the most logical compromise--often one barrel was cylinder and the other full. Offered a little something for everyone. I guess you could average the two and say "well, on the whole it's modified."

If, in that case, I shoot it would be with the back trigger and the mod barrel. That is what I like about two trigger, differentially choked double guns. I can pick the choke appropriate for the situation.

I have never been able to get off two shots with guns that have barrel selectors. Not so with double triggers. Two triggers, two chokes.

Good points about the ability to make an instant choke selection with a DT gun. I don't think it's of much value for birds like grouse and woodcock, but with open country birds, it can come in very handy. I don't know how often I've done it on pheasants, but plenty of times for sure. On one pheasant hunt, I went straight to the rear trigger on 3 birds in a row. Worked fine on the first 2; missed #3.

Re cylinder patterns: Like anything else, density is a function of shot charge and shot size as well as choke. With something like 7/8 oz 8's, you're only going to put about 250 pellets in the 30" circle at 25 yards, and they'll likely be pretty well distributed. 1 1/4 oz 6's, pretty standard pheasant load, you're probably looking at something under 200 in the circle. But if you were to shoot a 12ga 1 1/8 oz target load of 8's (or worse yet, 8 1/2's or 9's--and I'll use both of those on woodcock, but in lighter loads)--you could well put more pellets in a grouse than you'd like. So you do need to look at the load you're shooting, because depending on your choice, cylinder can still give more density than you want at 25 yards.

Huh???? #9 shot gives more pattern density than #7 shot through a cylinder choke, Larry?? It's a well known fact that larger shot size renders a tighter pattern than small shot. #9 might be more dense due to sheer number of pellets, but won't be as tight as #7. And along these lines, and if what you say is true, then why does RST make #10 shotshells to shoot through your favored cylinder choked guns, at Woodcock?? I buy most of what you have to say, but this one is a hard pill to swallow, at least for me. Plus, at say 15 yards, do you think 5 or six pellets of #9 shot would really tear up the meat of a quail or a woodcock more than say one pellet of #4 shot? I seriously doubt if the more #9's would be as devastating as a single #4 shot, but I must admit, I've never done the experiment, in practice.

This thing has really taken on a life of it's own, hasn't it? It speaks well of the depth and breadth of knowledge and experience here. Two schools of thought are well represented here; the target shooters and the hunters, as well as the folks that do lots of both. My only mild disappointment is that the core of my question really hasn't been addressed: can you change choke effectively by cutting a barrel back? There may not be an answer, as the best answers I've heard so-far were essentially "maybe". I now see why polychokes were so-popular in the 50s and 60s. That in itself might be an answer, as they only "constricted" the shot charge for a very short distance before leaving the muzzle.

Changing from #7 shot to #9 shot will increase the number of pellets in a given weight load by about 200%. Thus if your gun threw a 50% pattern using #9 to get the same density with #7 it'd have to throw Every single one of those little round "BB's" in that 30" circle. You really think it'll do it my friend. Yes going to a smaller size shot increases pattern density even if it has a slightly lower percentage, but that is not an automatic given.
I do not live in prime woodcock country but some years back after a TVA lake was impounded a shift in their flight patterns gave me a few seasons of some shooting. The vast majority of what I killed, along with some wild Bobwhites were taken with a 12ga J P Clabrough having 28" ¼ choked (.010") damascus barrels (Both barrels the same). Load was 1 oz #8's @ about 1150 fps. Shooting was short range, never felt handicapped by being "Over Choked" in any way. I ate them all, none were mangled but they were killed cleanly. The same gun & same load but shot size shifted to #6 was a most excellent cottontail combination when hunting the brush & Briars with a pack of Beagles.
As I said before when folks go to hollering up the advantages of Cylinder bore they virtually always compare it to a full choke.
My personal belief is that modern wads have not really reduced the spread of the pattern to any great extent. What they have done is to eliminate a lot of flyers & put them in the pattern, thus giving that slight increase in density. Haven't done enough pattern counting to be certain, but likely 5% would be more realistic than a 10% increase.
Whether they actually achieved it or not I simply do not know but Lefever advertised 85% patterns with their "Taper Bored" full chokes. Several of their guns which I own & "Presume" to have been bored full choke have only about .030"-.032" constriction. That's about what modern standards are using modern shells.
I said it before & will say it again, A Slight Choke is generally better & far more versatile than either a Full Choke or No Choke.

2-Piper answered your question, Buzz. I'm talking about density, which is raw pellet count, not pattern percentage. Indeed, larger shot will often pattern tighter, all else being equal . . . but with far fewer pellets, assuming the same shot charge.

The problem with looking at patterns from very open chokes is that not many people shoot really short-range patterns, which is what you need to be doing if you're thinking about birds like woodcock. (Remember Steve Smith's average distance to 1st barrel woodcock kills: 13 yards. And if you're going to tell me "Well, just let them get out further!", my guess is you haven't shot very many woodcock. Particularly not early season birds, which are an example of "Shoot when you see them, because if you wait, you won't see them.")

Researching an article on close range shooting a few years back, I shot patterns at 15 yards. I had a 20ga Sauer at the time on which I'd had the chokes opened: Cyl in the right barrel, IC (.007) in the left. Disregarding pellets at the very periphery of the pattern, where a woodcock would've received perhaps only a stray hit if that, the cylinder barrel threw a pattern with a diameter of 22" compared to 18" for the IC. 4 inches doesn't sound like much, until you review your high school geometry and recall the formula for the area of a circle--at which point you'll find that the area of the cylinder pattern is about 50% greater.

If by IC being more versatile you include the possibility of using spreader loads to give you cylinder patterns for very close shooting . . . indeed, IC does have an advantage at longer ranges. The same test included patterns shot through an Ithaca Classic Doubles 20ga, also marked IC--except that one had a constriction of .010, which is on the tight side of IC for a 20. It produced a 14" pattern at 20 yards--and looking at that pattern, shot with 7/8 oz 8's, a centered woodcock would have been pretty badly shot up. Using one of the Polywad discs to make a spreader load: 21" pattern, close to what I got with a standard target load in the Sauer's cylinder barrel.

So there you go, Miller--and that's comparing cylinder to IC.

Somebody help me out here, but at this point I can't get my head around how the total area included in that extra 4" of radius is such a big help. You can't miss a bird on all sides of the pattern at the same time. All you can do is miss at one place on the circumference. You might say, "Yes, but how do you know which side you're going to miss on?". I don't (with the possible exception that the greatest majority of misses with a shotgun are over, and/or behind), but that doesn't change the fact that I cannot utilize that entire area at once to help prevent a miss.

Looks to me like the advantage is the 4" itself, not the total area. How 'bout it Miller?

SRH

Lloyd3, wrote, "can you change choke effectively by cutting a barrel back?"

My answer is yes, to what extent I don't know. There are several elements to pattern distribution. Shot hardness or lack thereof, shot protection or lack thereof, wad configutation, velocity, and forcing cone/choke constriction.
To open up a pattern, especially in a gun made before 1960, I avoid 1-piece plastic shot cups unless they are the spreader type, instead I use card and fiber wads. Soft lead, card and fiber wads will not protect the shot and aid in pattern spread. Shot with high antimony and buffering in a 1-piece plastic wad should tighten patterns.
This thread has continued for 6 pages and I congratulate the forum members for their civility and willingness to give freely of their time and knowledge.

Some light historical reading for the holiday weekend
The Field March 7, 1891 Vol 77:325
"Mr. Griffith on Shot-gun Patterns"
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA234

Lloyd: the answer is of course yes; less constriction = wider pattern. However, the barrel specialists of the past knew what they were doing with the admittedly inferior 'machine-made' U.S. guns, and the pattern may be deformed or the POI changed. Cut with caution, and get thee to the pattern board thereafter.

And what we could do today with the 2" chunks of barrels littering the floor of turn-of-the-century machine sheds

The allowable error of aim will be based on the radius of the pattern or how far it is from its center to the edge which still contains adequate density for a kill. Since the pattern diameters have been stated at 22" & 18" respectfully the permissible error of aim is half that or 11" vs 9" for a 2" difference.
In my humble opinion if one is getting a high percentage of more kills with a 22" spread than an 18" one they need to concentrate more on their shooting than finding a more open choke. As to the versatility I can't recall that I have ever shot a Spreader load in my entire life. At 15 yds about anything you can hit the bird with will kill it. You don't need to buy heavy loads or use Premium shot etc for this type of shooting. Also I do not go for super small shot for short range as that just puts an excessive number in what you shoot. A slight increase in shot size does not increase the mangling of the bird near as much as an increase in the number which hits it. There are only about 10 more pellets in 3/4oz of #8's than 1/2oz of #9's but the former is certainly a far more versatile load.

Even if we only look at the radius of the pattern to determine the aiming error/allowance, a 22" pattern will still have 22% more error/allowance than an 18" pattern.

Exactly right, which is what we should be looking at, as you put it. Not at a 50% increase in total area, that is if we are trying to evaluate our increased chance at hitting a target by opening choke constriction.

Miller, that is what I meant exactly, with the exception of my dumb error of stating the actual 2" increased radius as 4".

SRH

You can't use the entire area at once, but you can use the entire area IN EVERY DIRECTION--up, down, left, right. So no matter which direction you're off, the additional area helps. Take a compass, stick the point either end of your 18" diameter line running through your IC pattern, extend it 2", draw a ring around your 18" pattern--turning it into a 22" diameter pattern. Thus compensating for a small aiming error no matter where you make it.

The other advantage you get is that if you use the same shot charge to produce both patterns, the cylinder pattern is significantly less dense. Less chance to blow up a woodcock at 13 yards. And remember, if the AVERAGE 1st barrel kill is 13 yards, some are going to be even closer than that. Sure, you can go with a lighter shot charge in your IC choke, which gives you a less dense pattern at closer range--but then you start to lose the advantage IC gives you over cylinder for longer shots, because you cease to have an effective pattern out at ranges like 30 yards, where IC should still be effective. But only if you don't go with really light loads to give you a less dense pattern for closer shots.

Just found this on the Chuckhawks site:

"Most quality chokes today are of the “conical parallel variety,” meaning we have a tapered conical section that gives us the desired constriction or squeezing effect on the payload, followed by a straight section that is parallel with the bore, containing no taper. After the initial forcing cone area, the parallel section tends to align and stabilize the payload before it exits the muzzle. It is this parallel section, particularly an extended parallel section, which has typically given the best patterns with heavier payloads, larger shot and steel or no-tox shot. "

and

"By closing the fingers in an attempt to give more choke effect, it creates a steeper taper. After that taper, there is no parallel section, out of the muzzle flies our shot cloud. Rather than a conical-parallel type of choke system, the Poly-Choke is actually a “conical only” choke, with a conical section the same length at all times, but varying taper. I believe is it the complete lack of a parallel section that contributes to the poor performance I experienced in the course of this review."

Fellow by the name of Randy Wakeman wrote it. He claims that he spent lots of time and money on the subject.

Since trimming a barrel back effectively eliminates the parallel section Mr. Wakeman is writing about, there is a good chance my "bobbed" barrel will shoot less cohesive patterns.

I still agree with Miller's statement. He stated above ........ "In my humble opinion if one is getting a high percentage of more kills with a 22" spread than an 18" one they need to concentrate more on their shooting than finding a more open choke."

I totally agree with that. It's just like when I shot a lot of billiards in my younger days. I laid off pool, shot snooker for about a year, regularly, and it made a heckuva better nine ball player out of me. Same principle.

SRH

Woops . . . ghost of my geometry teacher spoke to me in my sleep. What I described there doesn't work. You stick the point of the compass in the midpoint of the 18" diameter line, extend it 11" rather than the 9" radius, then draw a ring around the pattern. What you end up with is a ring, 2" wide, surrounding the 18" pattern. That's the extra area covered by the 22" pattern. But in terms of area covered, it does give you an additional 50%. It's just that it's all on the periphery.

Everyone can work at shooting better. But in the meantime, until they become the second coming of Digweed, they will benefit from larger patterns. Especially true on birds often shot at very close range, like woodcock--because even if they don't need the additional pattern spread to hit the bird, it's less likely to destroy the bird. And yes, I have destroyed woodcock with an IC choke.

As for the effectiveness of cylinder on birds at somewhat longer range (20 yards plus average kills), I submit Mr. Sisley's season total of more than 30 grouse with a shooting average pushing 80%. Please raise your hand if you've shot at least a couple dozen grouse in a season with a percentage approaching that. Assuming they're not sitting on limbs or picking grit along the road when you pull the trigger.

You still don't get it, Larry. They WON'T get better, at least not to their full potential. Tightening up patterns has proven to work for shooters to improve their shooting. I plateaued at sporting clays until I quit trying to match the choke to the distance and presentation and shot nothing but modified choke at everything. My scores immediately began to improve and I began winning. There is nothing special about my experience. It works universally. There are just entirely too many huntress who are not willing to put in the effort necessary to learn to shoot better, so they use no, or very little, choke as an excuse. Nothing wrong with matching the choke to the game bird and the situation, heck, that's the sensible thing to do. But, don't expect your game shooting to get better by shooting open chokes all the time. Going through lots of shells only takes you so far.

SRH

Amen Stan. +100

So Stan . . . that explains why the really good skeet shooters shoot modified chokes? In fact, it only makes sense to match your choke to the TYPICAL shot you're going to take AND are capable of hitting, whether you're talking hunting or target shooting. McIntosh understood quite well--as a fairly well-traveled instructor in Fieldsport's wingshooting schools, and as a participant in a number of hunts involving a broad cross-section of hunters--that most hunters are over-choked. Either for the shots they're getting or for the shots they're capable of making. Or both.

We've previously discussed the "effort" necessary to improve, which--if you're going to shoot very much, and especially if you don't live near any gun clubs, or are maybe limited to trap--can also involve a fair amount of expense. Sometimes I think people with enough money to buy relatively expensive guns and burn a lot of ammo, and with a sporting clays club or two in fairly close proximity, think everyone's in the same boat with them. I sometimes wonder whether a lot of people slept through the last several years' worth of the American economy. Prices have gone up while middle class income has remained stagnant, which means--for a whole lot of people--they're going just as fast or faster than they used to, while falling further behind. At our club in Wausau, if you're a member--and membership is cheap enough that if you shoot very much at all, you're money ahead--you can shoot 100 sporting clays for less than $17. On a typical Monday evening, we probably have 12-15 shooters. Where I lived in Iowa, I had no sporting clays facilities in close proximity. The nearest trap and skeet club was about 25 miles. Which meant that while I shot a fair amount of skeet, most of the SC shooting I did was when I traveled somewhere for a sxs shoot.

Not that much of the above has a lot to do with the use of cylinder by upland hunters, who were McIntosh's target audience in his article. Clearly not aimed--for the umpteenth time--at target shooters. Which you can tell because he doesn't talk about target shooting.

I thought we were talking about upland hunters, Larry. Now you bring skeet shooters into the mix, not I. Every target on a skeet field can be crushed with a negative .005". Anybody that rises to the top in skeet has to be praised, for their ability to memorize leads and not be bored to death with the game. Skeet has very little in common with the kind of wingshooting I do. McIntosh was guilty of writing to grouse and woodcock shooters, not upland hunters in general. I liked Mac, conversed with him at times about doves in Cordoba, but his accuracy in writing left a bit to be desired at times, IMO.

I challenge you, Larry, try what I say. Give up all your open chokes for 6 months, and tighten up, really tight. Modified or tighter. You seem to shoot enough targets to give it a fair try int he off season. Then, tell me that I am wrong. You are arguing against something you seem to have never tried. I'm not. I tried the "Use open chokes to make up for poor shooting" game. Then, I went the other way. I am reporting results. Many others here have said the same thing. But, you insist it can't be, even though you have never said you have given it a fair try. Maybe you have, but I don't remember you ever claiming to have .

SRH

I'm still waiting to hear how a 20 with .000/.000 could work on 50+ yd crossers. Hevishot, maybe?

I sold most of my fixed cyl guns after attempting to eliminate WC and grouse sized holes at dead center of pattern past 20 yds with #7.5s. I managed 25 yds with the Miroku 28 by going with B&P 15/16 oz loads in their small #8 size.

Larry correctly notes you can push the envelope by using buffered baby mags. 20 ga WS1s usually have around .003 and that combination will get to around 30 yds in the field, IME. After that first box I never purchased another. Guess I don't really want to stuff 1.125 oz buffered loads in my 20s.

Still have a "cyl" M-12 20 that has .002. About the only use I have for it is to get kids off the ground shooting station 1 and 7 incomers with weenies. Even during the first week of Oct I have better options in the field. We can take grouse right up to Dec 31. A .000 20 is a just silly when the leaves are down up here. The birds know when I have one, and then I can bank on getting a 35-40 yd opportunity down a woods road. I consider that .010 16 discussed earlier a very good season-long choice.

Again, a .000 12 is a different beast, mostly on the basis of payload.

Sam

Stan, we have to remember the heritage of skeet: Invented by grouse hunters for off season practice. So, it's a game that relates closely to upland hunting. Usually, those attacking chokes like cylinder or skeet for upland hunting drag out the "well, how about pheasants?" argument. To which I respond: "Well, how about them?" I averaged between 65-70 wild roosters per season for a lot of years, back when Iowa was the #1 pheasant state in the nation--and I went to chokes that were progressively more open. Sure, you can take 40+ yard shots at pheasants--but you seldom HAVE to take those if you're in good pheasant country, and most pheasant hunters aren't capable of killing birds reliably at that range anyhow. Add to that the fact that if you happen to just take out a wing on a rooster you drop at 25 yards, your dog stands a better chance of recovering that cripple than one you drop at 45 yards--with more of a head start. So, since you admit that you don't hunt pheasants, I guess I've got a bit of an edge on you there--with the very bird that's usually cited as "Why I need a tight choke for upland hunting". The kind of wingshooting you do--you stated mostly doves and ducks--is not what McIntosh was talking about in the article. And he clearly wasn't talking about targets.

Stan, I could do a lot of things that might make me a better target shooter. Like shoot targets with guns that weigh more than 6 1/2 pounds. But for me, targets are a game. Hunting is not. I shoot targets with the same guns I take hunting. I shoot a lot of low gun at targets, because I understand that practicing gun mount on a regular basis will help me when I'm shooting birds. But then if I were young and really serious about target shooting, I'd make a lot of changes--starting with switching from right-handed to left, since I'm strongly left eye dominant. But I've learned to compensate for that, and since I'll turn 69 next month, I figure I'm too old a dog for that new trick.

Sam, I'd eliminate holes in 20ga cyl patterns beyond 20 yards by going to smaller size shot. I don't think you need 7 1/2's to kill grouse until you get out beyond 30 yards--never mind woodcock--and that's a pretty long poke at a grouse. But I don't think it's a bad idea to leave your L barrel choked IC and shoot something like an ounce of 7 1/2's. In my case, the vast majority of the woodcock and grouse I take are first barrel kills; there's frequently no followup shot possible if I miss, because the bird has disappeared in the cover. But I wouldn't suggest a gun with no choke in BOTH barrels, except maybe for woodcock exclusively.

As a former and now occasional registered skeet shooter, I Agee with Stan that skeet does very little to help the game shot. Even though it was invented by grouse hunters to help their shooting, it has now evolved into a mounted heavy competition gun game, a precision and robotic form of shooting. A totally different style than that used by the game bird hunter. In fact, in 2014 I see little resemblance to game shooting on a skeet field. And sporting clays has headed in the same direction. It was invented with the hunter in mind, too.

Skeet has helped me be a better wing shot, but not as the game is usually played. From station 1 on, I tell the button pusher that he can't make me miss and it is his choice to delay, not delay, throw singles or doubles or both.
I begin with a low gun and don't shoulder the gun until the bird is in the air. Also I tell him that I'm ready when I close my gun. It worked for me.

Amen to Buzz & Wyobirds.
Sam Ogle, Lincoln, NE

I agree that American skeet, as shot competitively, has evolved in such a way as to have minimal value to a hunter--IF he plays the game the way it's played in competition. On the other hand, it can be played with a variable delay and starting from low gun--both of which were part of original skeet competition. And you can play it with a 5# 28, and not take much of a backseat to someone with an 8# 12--at least as far as a 28's capability to break birds goes. You are putting yourself at a disadvantage, as far as score goes, compared to shooting premounted with no delay--but skeet does give you excellent practice on crossing birds. You learn to lead, and if you don't shoot premounted with measured, sustained lead (which is of minimal use when hunting) but shoot either swing-through or move-mount-shoot, it will make you a better shot in the field.