doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Chamber Lengthening

Larry:
Your post caused me to read what I had written. The reference to old cars and gasoline was and is plain stupid. LOL
I agree that choke work is OK after patterning the gun, but still think that lengthening the chambers and cones is a bad idea.
Sherman Bell proved that the one is unnecessary and I have never seen any proof that the other is effective on real recoil. Perceived perhaps,but not real.
Then again, I am a purist and may not be able to see the woods for the trees.LOL
Best,
John

I wonder about the forcing cones - if you are shooting modern plastic wads, will lengthening and polishing the forcing cones minimize plastic buildup and potential corrosion from trapped moisture? Maybe the benefit is less percieved recoil and more about better performance with modern components. I don't know if there is any data on this or not - I'd certainly be interested if there was any.

John

John, I don't think there's any way to "prove" the perceived recoil thing. Bell's work did seem to show some pressure reduction with lengthened chambers, when shooting shells longer than the chamber. But on average only a couple hundred psi, if I remember correctly. Some people do claim improved patterns from longer cones; not sure about other performance aspects. But unlike chamber lengthening, modifying cones is pretty much benign even if there isn't any real gain.

I liked the part about the old cars...

Perceived, or "felt" recoil is not provable. That's why the term is so popular among those who are trying to sell us some modification that will reduce "felt" recoil. It's like "the smartest woman in the world", who can't remember where files under her bed are but remembers being named for a famous mountain climber, who nobody ever heard of until she was about 3 years old. She remembers baby-sitting for "undocumented Americans" who worked in the fields across the street from her house..........IN CHICAGO! (AKA, BS)
As Larry and Rocket have said, pressure doesn't relate to recoil and "light" loads do not necessarily imply low pressure.

There are a lot of people who believe in the concept of "felt" (vs measurable) recoil, even though it isn't provable . . . just as there are a lot of people who believe in God, even though His existence isn't provable either.

A person who has "felt" recoil doesn't need to prove it. He already knows what he felt. On the other hand, neither can he predict what others will feel, unless he has run a correlation of "felt" recoil with them.

It seems to me that current measurements and calculations of recoil do not satisfy all perceptions of recoil by all individuals. I think we lack an objective measure that will more accurately predict "felt" recoil. Another research project for retirement.

Without money to spend for questionable gains, I am a disciple of Sherman Bell.

It is cheaper nad easier to buy a Browning Gel pad and put an inside pocket in your shooting clothes and it is good for all your guns. It also works for your friends gun when you borrow it.

One problem with "measuring" felt recoil is that you'd have to use not only the same loads, but the same gun. So issues like gun fit would enter into the picture. Of course if you're comparing different loads using the same gun, even though the gun in question might not fit some shooters as well as others, you should be able to get an answer as to whether Load A kicks harder than Load B. And that would seem to be a valid test--as long as the ejecta weight and velocity of the two loads is the same.