|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,496
Posts545,370
Members14,410
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,271 Likes: 202
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,271 Likes: 202 |
I have not read the calculations closely, but did they take into account removing weight from two barrels ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Daryl;
Yes, Two 26" barrels. Not having the gun in hand I roughly estimated a 2 3/4" chamber & a 3/4" forcing leaving 22½" of barrel to have .010" removed from a nominal .730" 12 ga bore. Actual measurements could vary the outcome by a Teensy Weensy amount, but would be in-consequential at most.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1 |
Miller and Daryl,
This is very helpful. As a rule of thumb then, I will estimate that removing .010 of metal from both barrels will eliminate about 4.7 oz of weight. Can I assume that this figures in keeping the chambers, forcing cones and chokes intact? Thanks.
Rich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 351 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 351 Likes: 2 |
As I read it, enlarging the bores by .010" (.005" per side) will produce a reduction of approx. 2.35 oz.
Enlarging the bores by .020" (.010" per side) will result in a reduction of approx. 4.7 oz.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1 |
Redoak, That's the way I read it too. In other words, if the BWT is reduced from .035 to .025 in each barrel, the reduction in weight would be about 4.7 oz.
Rich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Rich;
That is correct. If you reduce the wall thickness by .010" then you will of course be enlarging the bores by .020". This was based on 22½" of the barrels being enlarged which would basically be from the cones forward. Since you were speaking of this for a Woodcock gun I assumed you would not want the chokes increased by .020" so would enlarge them as well. As Lefevers normally have long chokes if you leave them totally intact your gain would be a bit less, but probably still on the order of 4 oz (¼lb).
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1 |
Many thanks, Miller. That is very helpful.
Rich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Chuck, I'm neither pro nor con on the proposed question. My point is that it is quite possible to predict the outcome with good accuracy. 2-p's calculation for weight change is a good example of how a reasonably simple calculation can predict an outcome. Only the owner can know if the outcome is acceptable and worth the price.
DDA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 742
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 742 |
I once knew a man who lightened a rifle by milling the action to the point of weakness and flexation...at the end of the day he saved the weight of two cartridges. Some things are hard to re-engineer, and there can be unintended consequences. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593 |
The best weight reduction is to buy it in a 16g.
O.M
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
