|
|
|
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
Topics39,490
Posts562,008
Members14,584
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19 |
So...there's not going to be a report on the forcing cone study of the early 20th century? 
Last edited by Chuck H; 11/11/15 09:35 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Actually I have absolutely no inclination to set up & pour chamber casts of a slew of old doubles just to find the exact length of their cones. With a "Practised Eye" though I can look at the shadowed cone & state positively that none of mine have an abrupt step nor do any of them have a "Modern Long Cone".
My observation thus is that 5° cone angle (10° included) is just as applicable to a 1915 (or earlier) gun as a 2015 one.
There is simply nothing "Modern" about that cone which is all I have been saying this whole time.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19 |
I think you've been waxing my Beesley all this time. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
