doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com What's the biggest problem ..........updated

............facing a buyer of a new double gun today? Is it price, or getting the options he wants, is it simply finding the right gun?

My opinion is that the very biggest problem a new doublegun buyer faces is that of regulation. I am a bit of a perfectionist about regulation. I have read writers who propose that as low as 50% "overlap" (their words) is acceptable. That is totally unacceptable to me. Their idea is that, if the patterns of the two barrels are not perfectly overlapping it doesn't matter, because no shooter is good enough to perfectly center the bird in the pattern everytime anyway. That is an anathema to me. What if you are "off" on the wrong side? A miss results, that should have been a hit with a regulated gun, or worse, a cripple.

Another reason that this is the number one problem, IMO, is that regulation cannot be checked, in almost all cases, until after you've bought the gun. Remember the 3-day NON-FIRING policies? You can walk into a gun show, or gun shop, and find the "perfect" gun, shoulder it to see if the dims are close to suitable, drop in snap caps and test the triggers, etc. but, you cannot test it for regulation.

I built a pattern plate about a year ago, and it tells the tale. There are waaaay more doubles floating around that are not regulated than most would believe. What's the big deal? Nothing, unless you're a serious shooter who likes to hit what he shoots at.

SRH

Stan, what's your method for checking regulation at your pattern plate? Thanks

I agree completely that poor regulation should be more of a concern than it is. Actually, I think most doublegun shoppers have no idea this problem exists and they believe both barrels will hit smack dap center always. Most shooters never pattern their gun and because as SRH states, they can't until they have laid down their money. That may be best, at least they'll think it was the bird's skill not wasted money.

I think if more people knew about the regulation issue more pumps and semis would be sold and though the prices would rise, even more, the regulation issue would get better. Maybe?

Probably why IC is so popular too!

Stan what distance are you checking convergence? Most check POI at 16 yards because the math is easier and patterns still small and well defined. Since a double that is set up to converge at a certain distance it will also cross over at a longer distance the point where the barrels converge is important to me. If you have a gun which has 75% convergence at 20 yards does it overlap by 40? Maybe the 50:50 at 20 yards is 75:75 and 30 and 100:100 at 40 yards. What I don't want is for convergence to be too close for any gun I'm going to be using for long crossing shots. Don't want to be shooting behind a bird because my right barrel is set up to place my pattern two feet to the left at 40 yards. I can miss enough birds with out help of my gun.

I found the right gun for my current hunting. A pump.

An old beater Model 12 that is mechanically sound. Trying to find a old beater Model 21 for a decent price was impossible.

You can't test regulation prior to purchase.

Well . . . you're not going to cross-fire with a pump or auto, for sure. But does that guarantee the gun shoots where you aim it? If we assume that the barrel is perfectly straight on a pump, auto, or single barrel, then why do we bother checking where a rifle shoots? After all, the spread of a shotgun pattern is going to compensate for some degree of impact error. In other words, while you may miss (or just chip) a target or a bird you should have hit had it been just right, you'll also hit some you shouldn't have hit had it patterned dead center. You don't have that same margin of error with a rifle, but you still check.

The only problem a double can have that a single barreled shotgun can't have is cross firing.

I think the biggest problem is the price, particularly for new. A person can't even decide what particulars are important for them if they can't afford the entry fee.

I've never tried them, but I've wondered if anyone has found any predictable correlation between optic bore sighters and firing preferred live shells from the shoulder.

Ok, I would recommend 12ga from reputable maker in very good mechanical order. Besides wide variety of loads the good ole' 12 is more forgiving in regulation department.

Price and finding the right gun are the two big ones for me.

I'm a perfectionist at some things and slob at others. Your gripe is last thing I'd think of buying a new gun. Practically, fit is a bigger issue than regulation: mounting the gun properly during all seasons, wearing a T-shirt bluebird days and dressed for foul weather as a Michelin Man, clothes ranging from slippery nylons and oilskins, cotton and canvas parkas and snow smocks. I see your point for rote trap/skeet performances but not for the real thing.

Since the question starts with the potential buyer "wanting" a double gun, the pool is limited.

I'd say the biggest "problem" facing a potential buyer is justifying the purchase.
Whether it's cost or utility.

There are fabulous guns out there at several price points that will function in casual use for decades.

For a dedicated shooter, not so much.
So, service availability is a real issue. They are going to break in heavy use.

Stan is right.

In the mass production world, products are sold that are simply defective because of lack of effort on the part of the manufacturer.

Barrel sets that are simply brazed up in a jig are not 'regulated'. 'Regulation' is a process whereby a gun maker adjusts his product to shoot to point of aim with a specific load.

Patterns do not 'converge'. Barrels converge at the muzzle to make the axes of the bores and thus the flight paths of the shot clouds parallel to each other at bore exit.

A shotgun is a second class lever like a wheelbarrow. Forces during barrel travel cause torque. 'Convergence' compensates for the torque and points the gun at the aiming point at bore exit.

Ideal regulation results in patterns that have centers the same distance apart from the muzzle to infinity. That distance apart is the same as the distance between the muzzles, and is so small that it just gets lost in the noise. Observable cross firing at any distance is an error.

A cursory search found this thread:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=88393&page=1

Pay particular attention to the posts of Jim Legg and 2-Piper.

Are shotgunjones and I the only two shooters on earth that understand that "there is no converging of a shotgun pattern"? There is no convergence simply because the distance from bore center to rib center is less than a half inch. Someone may claim to know what the difference is in two patterns with centers a half inch apart, but I sure can't see that difference.

I'm here mostly for what I learn about shotguns and what others do and think about them. Thank you.

As an amplification -

Suppose a well-heeled man places an order with (insert favorite custom shotgun maker here).

They ask him which load he wants the gun to be regulated with.

Seriously, they do. If they forget to ask, the customer should tell them. He should fully expect that for his (insert vast sum here) and several year wait that the gun should shoot as specified.

Now, suppose the load chosen was the classic 1 1/16 oz. 1250 fps Eley Grand Prix.

Should our sport now choose to warm up for the season with the ever popular 7/8 oz. hand load that the books all run at 1300 fps he should not be shocked when the gun cross fires a good bit.

When stuffed with a 1 1/4 oz. load running at a lower velocity, say 1125 fps, to 'tame recoil' that gun will spread fire, ie the right barrel will shoot to the right. Guaranteed.

Bore time trumps mass of ejecta. A heavier bullet will cause a pistol to shoot higher.

So, field guns that crossfire with target loads are not necessarily built wrong. Neither are trap guns that throw duck loads off to the side.

Eightbore in theory you are right. I've seen doubles that had patterns not together at any point. I had a 20 bore which sent the left bore pattern down six inches and left a foot at 21 yards when you compared it to the right barrel or the point you were aiming at. The right barrel was dead on at 21 yards. The left was not. Those patterns did not converge or stay together. They diverged. At 35 yards the left barrel was useless. Don't know if it was poor regulation or chokes being poorly cut. I sent it down the road.

We assume barrels are regulated but have no way to know this without patterning them. Gun makers use a jig to align barrels for joining and statistically it must work almost all the time. I've seen screw in choke tubes which were certainally cut off bore so much that eccentric choke tubes were required to correct where the pattern was. When in doubt go to the pattern plate.

It might still have more to do with the bore time than the heavier bullet.

Which is what I said.

Or thought I said.

One would perhaps expect a heavier bullet to shoot lower, because it's going slower.

It does not, due to 'bore time'.

You have to see where the pattern is being thrown from each barrel. Where's the POI in relation to the POA and where is the pattern in relation to those two plus how uniform is the pattern for a particular payload.

Is it low, high to the right to the left, a lot goes into patterning a shotgun.

I wish more people would pattern their shotguns and post the results for discussion.

You also have to ask yourself how close is close enough.

Correcting a 5" impact error for a guy who can't consistently point within that tolerance is, pardon the pun, pointless.

That's roughly the diameter of a clay target. Can you tell if you're pointing at the forward edge of the target or the trailing edge?

I can't.

This can be rather like a piss poor shot blaming choke selection for a pattern that's 6" too small when he just missed the friggin' target by 6 feet.

There's no excuse for the enormous lack of regulation reported by some, but I've only encountered one gun that was truly made wrong and utterly useless. It was a Rem Choke installed sideways.

Biggest problem for me is getting the right stock dimensions, My guess is many regulation problems come from altering chokes without patterning as part of the process.

Boats

Nothing elaborate or complicated. I just shoot the right barrel on a S x S, or the bottom on an O/U, while aiming at the center spot I built onto the plate, at 15 to 20 yds.. See if it is centered. Take a pic if you need to, and number it. Then shoot the other barrel and do the same. If both are centered, or if both shoot to the same point above or below the spot, it's regulated. I'm not overly concerned with where they are hitting in relation to the spot, at this point, as long as they both hit in the same place. I can move the POI after establishing that the gun is regulated.



Nope, there's at least one more. Barrels converge on a S x S gun to compensate for the "off axis" recoil effect, if they are set up properly, but not patterns. If they are not set up with exactly the right amount of convergence you get cross firing, or the opposite.



While this is entirely true, it does not always work out that way in practice. I have in my possession right now a .410 gun that crossfires. It crossfires the exact same amount with 1/2 oz. loads as with 11/16 oz. magnum loads. Frustrating. Why is this important to know? I did not know it wasn't regulated when I bought it, obviously, and shot doves with it a couple years before building my pattern plate to test the guns. I couldn't understand why I missed more, and crippled more, with it than my other S x S .410. Now I know why, and something will be done about it.

Another thing. Do not assume that O/U guns are more likely to be regulated than S x Ss. They're not. Beretta says if their O/U guns put the individual barrel's pattern within 8" of being on top of each other it is within their tolerances. IMO, 8" is pretty bad, and I will not tolerate it on a gun of mine. Both the Perazzis I've owned were regulated. I've never patterned an A H Fox that wasn't regulated. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm forming opinions of certain brands of guns based on my findings.

SRH

When and if you get the time and inclination Stan...

I'd be interested to know how much if any a 3/4 oz 3" 410 load running at 1100fps or a little less effects POI on your Dickinson.

I would love to check that load. But, I'll have to load some up to do so I guess. Are there any factory loads available with those specs? Nothing would make me happier than to find a load that the gun is regulated with.

Here's the patterns it shoots with RIO 11/16 oz. at 1150 fps.

Rt. bbl.



Left bbl.



Classic cross firing.

SRH

I can't believe that this conversation is still progressing since it is very obvious that "convergioning" is a non event in double gun building. All double guns are built to pattern center on the pattern board. Both barrels are patterned to center. There is no difference in "center" between the two barrels since the "center" is less than a half inch between them at the muzzle.

If the gun is built correctly Bill, you're right.

We're discussing ones that aren't such as Stan's above.

Stan I have one box left of Winchester Super X 3" 3/4 oz. 8 1/2. It shows 1100 fps.

Hopefully, they still make those.

If not, we have one box to try and I'll UPS it your way.

Let me work on trying to locate some of those. If it's impossible, I'll contact you about getting maybe 6 shells. That will tell us all we want to know.

Thanks much, SRH

OK.

Hodgedon lists loads using 296/H110 also.

Should be fairly easy to make up, if you can get them to close.

I might cut it a grain to increase 'bore time'.

3/4 oz should do a dove at 30 yards even if launched at 1050 fps I would think.

Winchester still makes them. Several online ammo dealers have them, but want to ship the a flat at the time. I'd rather try a few to see if they work before I invest in a bunch of them.

Plz check your pm(s), Shotgunjones.

SRH

A "VERY SIMPLE" look down the barrels of a SxS double will plainly show the barrels "Converging". they are wider apart aat the breech than at the muzzles. If that's not converging then one of us doesn't understand what "Converge means. Also I have taken several sets of barrels, measured their OD's, then measured across their outer diameters, They are "NOT" swamped together, they maintain a steady convergence for their entire length.
Plans & specifications for te L C Smith gun show this convergence to be about .011 per inch of barrel or .330" on a 30 inch barrel. If their axis' were extended in a straight line they would cross between 5 & % 1/2 feet from the muzzle. At 40 yards their axis' would be a bit over 15 inches apart. I measured some of my Lefever barrels & found their convergence to be almost identical. Due to the torques involved in shooting as mentioned above this is"NOT" where the charge actually hits, but this convergence is built-in to compensate
for that torque. Data was listed here for the 12 & 20 gauges but none for the .410.
Stan I highly suspect your problem with your .410 is one of two things. Either the gun is heavy enough in proportion to the shot charge that it is simply not being torqued around, or the barrels were jointed closely enough at the breech & due to the thinness of the muzzles they were given too much convergence at build. A careful measurement of the C/Ls of the bores at breech & muzzles might give some insight on this. I would think it should be less than that for the 12 & 20.

Good idea about the possibility of the gun not being "torqued around" enough. I never considered that. I just automatically assumed that it was built with too much convergence in the barrels. I'm going to try shooting the plate with it again and play around with holding it more loosely, to allow it to recoil more, instead of gripping it so tightly. I can't believe I didn't think of that already, understanding the dynamics of it as I do. Sometimes it's right there looking at you and you can't see it.

This is very interesting, Miller. Can't wait to make time to try this.

Thanks, SRH

Just curious Stan, do you consider that this is a gun that fits you properly?

I'd think that if you can correct pattern placement by changing the distribution and amount of pressure that the different parts of your body apply to the gun, that it might be a bunch more easy just to mount the gun normally and hold off on the target.

I'm not trying to argue with your line of investigating, but if I had a gun that quirky I doubt I'd even pull it out to use, worried that I'd feel like heaving it for distance.

It fits me really good, Craig. It's got a long pull, which I need, and the drop is fine, too. Other patterns shot with it, when I fast mount and shoot, hit in the same place as those I posted that were shot from the sitting position, like a rifle.

All that will be necessary is for me to hold the gun a bit more loosely, to see if it makes a difference. Little guns like this may well be way more susceptible to eccentricities in mount than a big 9 lb. + gun like my MX8, or my Fox HE.

This may not be the best way to resolve the problem, but it will be very interesting to see if it makes a difference, and if so, how much. I may still have to deal with the company to resolve it.

Good questions.

SRH

Hell Stan the solution is simple, shoot birds going to the left with the right barrel, birds going right with the left. Don't shoot incomers or one going away.

That's a solution alright, James. Just not the kind I want.

Along that line of thought ......... I've got a couple sporting clays and dove shooting buddies, Charles and Charlie. Charles is struggling with getting the hang of sporting clay shooting, and is shooting in the upper 60s to low 70s, while Charlie is a M class shooter and very observant of other's shooting styles. Charles "floats" the birds, because of a heads up style of shooting that causes his gun to shoot high for him. Charlie tells him he needs to keep his head down on the gun and stop floating the bird, for consistency. Charles says "If I shoot at that pine cone in that tree like that, it works". Charlie replies, "Yep ........... about 70% of the time". Charles hangs his head in recognition of the truth.

Point being, precious few can compensate for a gun's faults by "holding off", and shoot well. I'm not about to venture there.

SRH

Every combination of shooter, shell, gun, and conditions will produce a slightly differing torque reaction. The fact that we shoot shotguns successfully a high enough % of shots taken to keep doing it says gun designers have largely mitigated this issue. However, cognoscente (like Stan) may well recognize this issue when they encounter a large enough variation. Even so, only a few will take the time/effort to investigate, analyze, and effect a cure. My hat is off to Miller for the suggestion and Stan for enlightenment. Stan, keep us posted, please.




DDA

It would still seem to me that an important part of good consistent shooting, muscle memory, gets thrown out the window.

I believe some assumptions might be made here. First, that the gun is properly regulated, and that it's up to the shooter to apply unique torque control for the situation. And, it would seem that gun fit becomes significantly less important.

I think there is a real world application for the thought. It may not be necessary to alter classic guns if a little enlightenment can accommodate for less than ideal stock dimensions. It wouldn't bother me to connect at fifty percent on ducks shooting head up on something with too much drop. I'd have my doubts though if a top shooter could maintain a high performance level.

Definitely only thoughts, and I'd fully agree about hat's to the handful that would take the time and make the effort. It is interesting, and I would be surprised if Stan doesn't come up with a few things to try that might move a pattern.

A single barreled gun is infinitely easier to get to shoot where you are looking than are two barrels, joined together, that are not properly regulated. You can make several changes to the single barrel to get it right, not so with a non-regulated double. You can get one barrel right, easily, but how about the other? The idea that you will hit some birds with a non-regulated gun, that you wouldn't with a properly regulated one, is true, but is so alien to my way of thinking that I can't assign it any import. Why make allowance for misplaced impact? I just cannot get my head around that. To me, it's like the guy whose pickup pulls badly to the right, and he has to drive with both hands applying pressure to the steering wheel to keep it straight on the road. When asked why he doesn't have it corrected he says, "Well, it takes a right curve in the road beautifully!". No man alive can do his best shooting if he knows, in the back of his mind, that his gun is inferior. And, IMO, a non-regulated gun is inferior.

I also disagree that the only problem a double can have, that a single barreled shotgun can't have, is cross firing. Any misplaced impact that causes the barrels not to print their patterns on top of each other is a problem unique to doubles. They do not have to be cross firing, they can be doing the opposite. Or, as is it the case with an O/U I saw patterned, one barrel can be shooting to the POA while the other is off half a pattern or more.

All reasons why, for me, lack of regulation is the biggest issue facing a double gun buyer.

SRH

Stan, I'll be interested to see more patterns from your .410. Right now, it's very clear that they don't shoot the same place. About the only thing positive you can say is that they're pretty much equally off center . . . and I don't think that's the "positive" you look for.

I didn't see you mention the distance at which you were shooting. If you're at 15-16 yards . . . wow. Back when I was shooting quite a few 35 yard test patterns, if I'd found a gun that was that far off, I would've been pretty much clear off my pattern sheets. The only one I ever found that bad via pattern sheets was a Hunter Special 16. Don't know whether the Hunter folks were regulating their boxlocks. Back in those days, I'd guess they were regulating their Elsies. But that Hunter Special might've made your .410 look good.

I have been using sxs guns for turkey hunting for some time now, and I've spent a lot of time testing them much like one would test a rifle. When I shoot a turkey, I want him standing with his head up so that I can center the pattern on his neck and head. My guns have about a 16" wide kill pattern at 40 yards, and it's about 16" from the top of a gobbler's head to the base of his neck, so I would aim halfway up his neck and hit the center of his vital area with the center of the pattern.

Obviously, this is a different use of a sxs than what 99% of other users are doing, but it is absolutely essential that both barrels shoot to the same point of impact. I've found it extremely difficult to get a sxs gun to do this and would not recommend anyone to try it.

I've tested 8 guns and am yet to find one that would shoot both barrels to the same POI without modifications. I have used mostly cheap guns, but I don't think the cost of the gun has a whole lot to do with it. Two of the worst ones were Berettas, and the best one was a CZ that cost $550. Much of the problem is that I'm shooting heavy loads and the guns were designed for field loads. With a heavier load, the tendency is for the right barrel to shoot to the right and the left barrel to the left. The problem is also made worse by the fact that I am using short, light guns so that they will be easy to carry.

I found only one exception to that tendency, and it is a cheap Spanish gun made in the early 70s. With it, the left barrel shoots way to the right, and the right barrel shoots way to the left. It does this with any load, and the only thing I can figure out is that it was improperly made with too much convergence. It was so bad that if you shot at a can at 40 yards, neither barrel would put a single pellet in it. It was in excellent condition; I'll bet every previous owner experienced a whole lot of frustration with the gun.

My belief is that it is impossible to make a sxs that will shoot every load to the same POI. The gun is designed with a certain amount of convergence to center the patterns of both barrels with a certain load, and when you use heavier or lighter loads you are going to have issues. I think the problem is not as bad with a heavier gun, but I don't want to walk 5 miles with an 8 pound gun when there are much lighter alternatives.

I have managed to make 2 of my guns usable for turkey hunting and have posted pics on here before. My primary gun is a $486 Yildiz with an eccentric choke in one barrel. It weighs 5 lb 6 oz and is ideal for what I want. I also made the Spanish gun usable by taking a chainsaw file to the chokes. It isn't hard at all to move a pattern in any direction you want if you file the very end. I'd much rather do this on a gun with screw in chokes, but the Spanish gun was worthless without modifications.

Stan, the biggest barrier to me buying a new sxs is that one like I want doesn't exist. With my Beretta down, and me about to go on a long anticipated hunt, I would go buy one tomorrow if it met my specifications and was a reasonable price. I'm not spending more than $5k on a field gun, and there isn't one like I want sold anywhere.

Excellent thought, coosa. I think you re right about it being impossible to have a S x S that is perfectly regulated with all loads, especially turkey loads like you're using. They can be regulated for the majority of field loads, however.

I totally agree that regulation can't be determined by the price you pay for a gun. My little Yildiz Elegante 4's regulation is as perfect as anybody can ask for, with anything from 1/2 oz. to 11/16 oz. loads ............... and it was on sale NIB for $400 about five years ago.

I'd offer what I mentioned back in a previous post on this thread, that most of my vintage S x S guns have been nicely regulated, and I've never patterned a Fox that wasn't. Your issue is that you're probably trying to get them to regulate with very heavy turkey loads, and few, if any, are built to do that.

Thanks, SRH

Higher powered load + lower swing effort (lower MOI) = higher torque effect. Lower powered load + higher swing effort = lower torque effect.

Cross-firing = lower torque effect + higher convergence. Divergent firing = higher torque effect + lower convergence.

DDA

I remember ready an article in one of the popular outdoor magazines many years ago. They were testing the point of aim as the barrel heated up. From cold to hot the POA changed by 8 inches. I can't remember the distance they were shooting at or the gun but it was a single barrel gun. Wonder if that can be repeated and it it has any effect on double guns?

Stan, I agree on all points and understand that my biggest problem on turkey loads is that I am trying to use the guns in a manner for which they were not designed. Most of the guns I've tried have been very cheap, but I am yet to find one that isn't decently regulated for field loads as far as right/left. I have a couple of guns that shoot low and that is a difficult problem to fix. But they both shoot everything low; it's not the too heavy load issue.

Even with the barrels chopped off to 24" and rethreaded for the Tru-choke system, my little Yildiz will center 1 oz loads. Obviously, that's what they made it to shoot.

If you are real perfectionist, you can spend some time testing your sxs with different loads and likely find a load that each barrel will center. I've found that with some of my 20 gauge guns the left barrel would center a 1 oz load and the right barrel would need a 7/8 oz load. But these differences were usually only an inch or two and not likely to be an issue for any sort of wing shooting. Being off center 8 to 10 inches at 40 yards was not unusual with my turkey loads, and that won't work.

I had some idea of what I was getting into when I decided I wanted a very light sxs turkey gun. Now I have a couple, but I would have to admit it's been much harder than I expected. I would guess that the L-R issue would not be so bad in something like a Winchester 21, but I haven't tested one so that's just a guess.

Great discussion. I learned quite a bit. Thanks to all who participated. Gil

Just to put my perspective on things I have only been able to go to the expense of having one shotgun regulated. It was my Purdey Bar in wood and the only reason that I considered having this done was the barrels where not in the best of condition at the start of its restoration some 50 years ago. Both top and bottom ribs had to be removed plus a replacement forend securing loop had to be fitted. It was a no brainer to have it done the point of impact for the two barrels was to be tested and adjusted if necessary, but more importantly was the pellet density in a 30inch circle at forty yards, seeing that both barrels were of true cylinder. The outcome came between 119 and 128 pellets in the circle so you could assume you should expect results somewhere between the two given figures. Though more importantly was the fact that the gun would only be consistent with the cartridges that where used at the time, with a recommendation that the same cartridges should whenever possible in the future. I was billed for 100 cartridges and when the gun was returned after restoration two boxes of unused cartridges accompanied the gun, I somehow never wanted to use them so they will accompany the gun together with the documentation to its next owner.
As the gun is chambered for 2 � inch cartridges I can only assume that the best results were with these Eley 2inch number 7shot 1oz load having Fibre wads and rolled turnover.
Though I have found 2 � low velocity cartridges with 1oz 6 or 7 shot loads having crimp closure and felt wads give very good repeatable results.

Damascus, I can understand using traditional cartridge design similar to the ones used at the time the gun was built. However, would it not make sense to try modern plastic wads or maybe you have already done that. I have not tried comparing the results but according to the reading of various threads on this board the plastic wads will give you the equivalent of a tighter choke. If this worked, it might make the gun more versatile, maybe for longer shots.

I would like to read that article if you ever run across it again, Tamid. I'd be willing to bet it was a ribbed barrel on which the rib was "hard fastened", and not floating.

I could not tell any impact shift on my Beretta 687 SPII Sporting 20 ga. in Argentina. I would shoot hard for three hours at a time, averaging a round every 6.7 seconds, according to shell count. That is purely anecdotal, but if there had been a big impact shift, and I call 8" big, I think I would have noticed something amiss, especially on incomers at 12 o'clock.

SRH

I found it to be worse in O/Ur's....

Stan,

Tried to find that article on line but no luck. There is lots of information on POI shift in rifles and some reference to shotguns but not a dedicated research article just pertaining to shotguns.

Stan,
Not to marginalize your point about regulation, but my biggest concern in the last few years has been non-tox shot capable Guns. Here in California, they are most of the way thru their phased elimination of lead. I haven�t seriously explored solutions for my 410s, since I was not hunting much in California.

Maybe this is an opportunity for picking up a few shortened barrel guns without choke for shooting steel

Yeah I agree with Stan's point about regulation and the "3 day non firing" policy of most sellers.

That said my biggest growing concern is what Chuck H. said. Shooting non-tox capable guns and/or finding the right non-tox shells for my guns - without making alterations to my guns like opening up the chokes and so forth.

I don't always get the concern with opening chokes, other than on vintage guns that are very collectible and have the chokes marked on the flats (or you have a factory letter). Most vintage doubles, especially American ones, tended to be choked pretty tight. While I'd prefer to find one with the chokes I want--almost always more open than M/F--I won't hesitate to have them altered to best suit the kind of hunting I do.

Chuck is right, but, always a but. I had a Berretta Silver Hawk that the barrels were shortened. It made a great skeet gun, and broke long targets at wobble trap. It would blow steel patterns so bad you could throw a pheasant through them unscathed at25 yds. ymmv

Your reply is not marginalizing it at all, Chuck. I asked a question, and you provided a cogent answer. It is one I had not considered, not having to deal with that particular problem myself. Thanks, for reminding us that y'all are going through a dog mess out there.

SRH

Shoot Bismuth and they'll be no need for any concern in any gun.

jOe are you sure about that? Even in Full choke barrels? Thanks!

My experience with Bismuth on pheasants was so dismal I gave away all I had. About $200 worth of the stuff. Were the older loads that came in the Green boxes and I do not remember the manufacturer. Perhaps the newer loadings are better?

Steel???? Go with the Tungsten Matrix and never look back.

1cdog, I have been loading bismuth for years and shooting it out of my Fox doubles, including my HE grade which has .042"-.043" choke in each barrel. It kills mallards like lightning. The only thing I can tell that is fractured is duck bones.

SRH

So did I. I don't even want to look at another Bismuth round, all TM now.

I'll just pay their price especially after seeing one of those bastards knock a big fat Canadian out of the air.

First one with my new to me Model 12 built in 1927 with its 28 inch Modified barrel that patterns perfectly with these rounds.

I shoot steel 2s when I can, but bismuth in my old doubles just because they're old doubles. The green box stuff worked fine for me, but Rio and now Kent produce a superior Bismuth product in my limited observation...Geo

Chuck is mostly an upland hunter. Pretty tough on quail to use TM, ain't it?

SRH

He could go with Nice shot by RST or something also.

But casually observing the rather brutal ballistics of the Kent rounds,
I came to the conclusion that I just hit that bird with the equivalent of a German 88 mm anti-tank gun.

http://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/12/14...f-world-war-ii/

Where am I when these people are giving away Bismuth ammo?

Killing ducks with it I guess, or loading some more to kill ducks with.

SRH

Uhh, sorry Stan. To make it worse about half were 3" buffered loads. Ouch. The ones I shot were 2 3/4" ounce and a quarter loads. And these were on planted birds for an old dog's last hunt. Is / was the only time I have ever "hunted" a preserve. The old girl had a terrific time, though. This was about 8 or 9 years ago. I found one of the old boxes and they are dark green and they are labeled "The Bismuth Cartridge Company" out of California. I probably purchased them in 2003 or 2004.

Those three-inch 20ga in green box No. 3s on geese over decoys work great---I stocked up and still use them--- but Kent Bismuth and TM even better results for me. Downside is 2 3/4 TM or bismuth in 20 or 12 are too stout for my old classics, in my opinion.

The 12 gauge 1 1/4 oz. loads generate 9,900 psi chamber pressure and well within the norm for when those guns were being built.

The only concern of mine is the old wood. But next step is something like this,


http://www.highplainsgunstocks.com/winchester-model-12-premade-stocks-for-sale.html

Eat your heart out, doublegunners!!!!

I even bought three bottles of old ARCO bismuth shot that were quality control samples and were auctioned off a couple years ago. I tested it for frangibility when I got my hands on it, and it squashed just like lead. Whew!

SRH

I think the youngest of my old doubles is 75-plus years. Some more than 100. Old wood. I believe Kent bismuth is around 9,900, more than I want for my Elsies and Parkers. Kent TM must be considerably more from the way it pushes me back.

I have had tremendous success shooting both the current Rio Bismuth 2 3/4� and 3� rounds at passing ducks out to 60 yards. Found them to be deadly.

Shot these in a 1930s English BLNE waterfowler by Betts proofed at 1.5 ounce. While it is a stout old gun and capable of handling higher pressures than a typical vintage game gun, I was never disappointed in the lethality of these modern bismuth loads. I don�t doubt that TM is a more effective shot for vintage guns but they are twice the expense of bismuth. Rio bismuth are affordable and deadly!

Dr. P

King that chamber pressure is directly from Kent. Their 12 gauge 1 1/4 oz. produces 9,900 psi. Now their 1 3/8 oz. load produces over 11,000 psi. That's what is probably pushing you back.

Pressure isn't a significant factor in felt recoil. The two main culprits are velocity and payload. Increase either one of those and you will feel more recoil. Increase both and you'll feel a lot more.

Since velocity starts off at zero fps, the change in velocity may be the force that is being felt.

Its not that simple.

Opening a choke is only the start. If you own a 2.5 inch chambered gun - there is only 1 source that I am aware of for 2.5 inch Bismuth shells - RST. Then do you open a choke and open the chambers for 2.75 shells?

I am always opposed to removing metal from barrels whether for opening choke or chamber lengthening.

Ultimately it probably depends on the guns you own and where you shop.

Stan, thanks for the info and first hand account.

I have always tried to shoot bismuth just out of barrels that were at least modified. I have been afraid of barrel damage using bismuth in full choke guns.

Bismuth is almost as soft as lead. Hard lead shot has a Brinnel hardness of 11, Bismuth is 18, and steel shot is 110.

Kinda puts the hardness into perspective.

SRH

Larry, when it gets serious with 2 3/4 12 ga Kent TM 1 1/4-ounce at 1400, I need, at 6" 200 pounds, a well-planted back foot for a high-angle shot. Wouldn't consider using them in old 12s, which are all I have except for the 686.

A board member here was gracious enough to send me a box of WW 3/4 oz. loads @ 1100 fps to try in the .410 with the cross firing issues. I had the opportunity late this afternoon, and here are the results.

Before with 11/16 oz. loads at 1150 fps ......... rt. barrel



Same barrel with 3/4 oz. loads at 1100 fps



Left barrel with the 11/16 oz. load



Left barrel with 3/4 oz. load



Notice please how much of a difference the heavier payload at lower velocity made. The right barrel is now well regulated, where before with the lighter load it was cross firing badly. The left barrel is much improved, though not as perfectly centered as the right, it is nonetheless capable of much better shooting than before. It is only off by about 3" now, slightly low and right. I feel certain that left barrel's pattern can be moved by muzzle relief work to center it now. These were 20 yard patterns. Also, notice how much tighter the WW loads are than the RIOs. Those WW loads are deadly. I'll be ordering some of them shortly.

This is just an example fo what can be learned by shooting a plate. I'll never go back to guess work again.

Eureka!!

SRH

That is a noticeable difference and big improvement in where that shotgun is throwing its payload.

Wowiee.

Something went right.

Interesting results. Thank you gentlemen for taking the time to do the work and share the results.

The biggest thanks goes to Shotgunjones for prodding me into trying the 3/4 oz. loads. I really didn't think it would work, especially not this much. I knew, and understood, the way recoil affects POI in a S x S, but the reason I didn't have much faith in it is that I had already tried going from 1/2 oz. to 11/16 oz. and got no lateral movement of the patterns at all. So, I "reasoned", if adding 1/4 oz. to the load didn't help any how could adding another 1/16 oz. do any good. Glad I didn't listen to "reason", and tried it. Maybe the lower velocity, giving more barrel time, played a part in it.

Since having my plate I'm seeing more and more that trial and error wins out over "reasoning". And ................anytime I get to pull a shotgun trigger it's fun, even if I'm only shooting at a 4' square plate.

Next step, get my loader rigged up for 3/4 oz. loads and try some of this nickel plated stuff.

All my best, SRH

I may have had less confidence than Stan did.

It's pretty cool though, and I'm as pleased as if it had been my gun.

Sometimes a silly idea just works out.

Stan;
Happy to hear that worked out for you. This will make that little .410 a lot more useful for you. Makes me a bit confident I was right in my diagnosis way back early in the thread that the loads simply were not torquing the gun enough to offset their built in convergence. I am like you though I won't have thought the change from 11/16 ounce to 3/4 ounce would have made that much difference. Must have been getting virtually no side "Twist" with the 11/16 (or 1/2 ounce) load & the extra 1/16 oz of shot plus the lower muzzle velocity put it just over the edge & allowed the needed sidewise movement to the barrels. For this thought we definitely have to give Jonsey Full credit, I would have though it would have taken far more than you could have stuffed into a .410 hull to make that much difference.

If I'm readying this right, a 2 3/4 load of 1 1/4 at 1400 fps generates a lot more than 6200psi. Without consulting my books to verify I would guess you are closer to 10,000 psi.

Stan, reckon you need a hair less drop?
JR

Stan, those are better looking POI patterns. Interesting what a small change will do to POI and convergences. The pressures on those shells are about as high as I am happy to go at 13K to 13.5K. 13.5 is the MAP for 3" .410 loads according to SAAMI. I know you are using a modern gun which should be fully capable of handling them. I'd contact Hodgdon and Alliant powder to see what they have for loading data. I have had great loads using 300-MP and 296 but pressure is only half your problem. You might need the full 13.5 and a similar burning rate to keep your POI where you want it. So it will be reload and retest until you get the results you want.

I have seen a few people who reload, have this dumb idea that slightly more powder than called for will not make much difference. In the .410 a increase of .5 grains may cause the pressure to go up 500-600 plus psi which does not sound like much until you get to those 13.5K loads, Worse are the idiots who go a full grain over recommended loads. Pressure is not a linear thing in reloading, it would be so much easier if it were.

One local Skeet club shooter was having primers flattened and the primer puncture and he could not figure out why on his .410 reloads. I cut one of his reloads apart and found he was loading 1.7 grains over the recommended load which was 12.5K. In 2 1/2" .410 MAP is only 12.5 and that extra 1.7 grains had to be pushing his pressure well over that to almost proof load levels. You can't fix stupid but you can refuse to shoot on his squad.

Factory 3/4 oz. duplication load is published Jon. It's 15 gr of 296/H110 and they all go 1100 fps at 13,100 to 13,500 psi which is where the 3" 410 runs.

Not to worry.

In fact the goal here is low-ish velocity.

I might cut the loads for the left barrel by a grain and dribble in a few more pellets to take up the room.

It's a 410 after all, and retained energy past 35 yards isn't important.

I think what was happening, John, is that I was squirrel aiming it, being extra careful to not be off right or left when it went bang. By doing so I was cheeking it a little harder than I will shooting at a bird. Next time I take it over to the plate I'll try just throwing it up and shooting when it hits my shoulder pocket. I'll bet it shoots a hair higher like that. That left barrel is hitting a little low and right, but not nearly as bad right as it was.

SRH