Miller I never meant to insult you or your experience in any of my posts. I put great weight on the things you post here. If I disagree with one of your posts I go over it and over it in my mind. I respect you and your opinions. But I don't know anybody that I think is right about everything, including me.
I meant to challenge the assumptions that were being made by you and others as to what what degree of curve, what degree of "tolerance" you could see looking a down a barrel with a chamber, a forcing cone, a bore, and a choke. In addition to those features in almost every double bore I have measured the diameter was larger an inch downstream of the forcing cones than it was an inch upstream of the chokes.
And as far as being insulting your "third wife" analogy was acknowledged by you as being sarcastic indicating to me that you do not believe I deserve respect. When I said I didn't appreciate the sarcasm you doubled down.
I mostly enjoy the debate about this subject. But I don't know how to respond when my opponent says I have to either agree with him or insult him by not deferring to his 35 years of experience (in another field).
You still haven't pointed out why the calcs I did on the Parker thread that I linked to fifteen posts ago don't make my point. When you do that I will address the calcs on the Smith guns you did.
Certainly I should have been more tactful but I figured anybody that could post the third wife analogy would have to have a thick skin. From this sentence forward I will put much effort into being tactful. I hope I can receive the same courtesy from you but I will make the effort regardless.
In my lamp analogy I meant I discovered the light wasn't being piped in to the lamp through a hollow tube as in fiber optics. I did not mean that the electrons ran down the outside of the wire.
Certainly the time the shot spends in the 26" barrel has an effect on the rotation of the gun. But it would seem the less time the shot spent in the barrel the less the recoil and the less the rotation. The 26" barrel needs more rotation, not less.
I point out a fact against my argument. Everything else being equal, The 26" barreled Parker two-frame gun has a lower MOI than the 32" barreled Parker two-frame gun. The 26" gun would rotate faster and that could make up the additional angular rotation needed by the 26" barrels. I find it unlikely that every double that ever shot straight happened to have the perfect MOI so that the shot was sent down (or parallel to) the same line the rib was on when the shot started down the barrel. I think they were regulated in some way, perhaps by filing the chokes or the forcing cones or by bending the tubes when the barrels were assembled or a combination of the three methods.
Last edited by AmarilloMike; 05/11/14 12:13 PM.
