|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
4 members (375whelenIMP, 3 invisible),
625
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,531
Posts562,483
Members14,592
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 203
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 203 |
Are SxS's more difficult to regulate in their building than O/U's?
If yes, why is that?
If no, why did Ruger have so much trouble with the GL when they have built so many RL's?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19 |
Why do you believe Ruger had more trouble with the GL than the RLs?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 203
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 203 |
Why do you believe Ruger had more trouble with the GL than the RLs? Everything I have read indicates that the reason they have not been available from Ruger for so long is due to manufacturing issues, but they have continued to produce GL's during this same period haven't they?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 203
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 203 |
...they have continued to produce GL's during this same period haven't they? My error in that sentence, meant to say "RL's".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
The issue with GL barrels, as I understand it, is that the precision needed for the barrel thickness/thinness required by their handling spec is not easily done on machinery. They assumed they could automate the barrel building process and have found it quite challenging. They know how to hand build the barrels, but that is labor/cost intensive. I don't think regulation per se is the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 203
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 203 |
The issue with GL barrels, as I understand it, is that the precision needed for the barrel thickness/thinness required by their handling spec is not easily done on machinery. Rocketman, Don't what you mean here. I always thought the tubes themselves would be the same, and the handling specs the same for a field double, no matter what orientation the barrels might be in. Hence my original question. Can you educate me a little more on this, or refer me to a good article on the subject?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
DRM - Bill Ruger demanded that the GL handle like a Dixon Round Action. That model gave the Ruger engineers a weight/balance/moment of inertia spec. This spec is very different from the RL. The barrels of the GL must be relatively thiner than the RL or the spec can't be met.
Two GL's with 28" bbls and 14 1/4" LOP weighed in at 6# 10 oz, balanced 5 1/4" ahead of the trigger, had a unmounted swing effort (MOI at balance) of 1.41, and a mounted swing effort (MOI at butt)of 6.84. A Dixon RA of 28" bbls - 14 1/8" LOP had 6# 4 1/2 oz - 4 3/4" - 1.17 - 5.98. The average of many Brit game pattern guns is 6# 8 oz - 4 1/2" - 1.45 - 6.4. A W-W 101 is 7# 12 1/2 oz - 4 3/4" - 1.75 - 7.73. As you can see, the GL is very much like a Brit game patern gun. I seem to lack a RL 12 gauge - I'll fix that shortly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 203
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 203 |
Thanks Rocketman, I hadn't realized that BR had spec'd the GL that definitively. Looks like I asked the right person!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
It is my understanding that 'ole Bill gave 'em a resounding "NO!" when approached on compromising the handling spec in favor of manufacturability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
