doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Stupid comments time.

You could machine the first 5.9" with scarcely any taper at all - maybe .005 per inch. That means you'd have .0295 worth of taper by the time you reached 5.9" - then you could machine the last .1" with a radical taper of 1" per inch - a 45 degree angle. That would be a lousy forcing cone, but a forcing cone nonetheless. There are a million different ways you could machine a forcing cone. Just look at how many ways chokes have been machined at the other end of the barrel. The total amount of taper may be the same but whether you get there gradually or abruptly is up to you.

The guy may be a crummy writer but I think you're trying too hard to find fault with his story.

Posted by JL:



For a feller who's never cut one but has reamed a few holes with a taper pin reamer, the rate of taper of the reamer would sure appear to have some correlation with the length of taper it's possible to cut, allowing for the effect of the difference between diamaters of chamber and main bore. I can't picture what you're trying to tell us, Gregsy, altho I understand the example which in effect moves a steep cone five or six inches fwd of the actual chamber. Seems to me the extremes of possibility (of execution AND definition) aren't usually coincident with the normally chosen paths to optimum utility. Would this backas$wards "choke" on the wrong end of the gun with an essentially 5" straight section not get us into the old long chamber/thin wall bugaboo?

jack

Well, if you were making your own gun from scratch, like Browning is doing, you could make the barrels as thick as you wanted. Also, nothing says the cone has to be cut with a reamer - it could be turned in a lathe to give any profile you like. In today's CNC world it would probably even be faster to turn the cone in the same setup as the boring as opposed to using a reamer.

My example is extreme for purposes of illustration but it serves to show that a longer forcing cone could well be less gradual than a shorter one.

Jon, good points about writing. My wife has a full-time job translating engineer English into something your average American can understand.

Editing errors . . . I once had a copy editor turn a tiling machine into a tilling machine. All my farmer neighbors know what a tiling machine is, but a few of them ribbed me a bit about a tilling machine. They asked me if that was outdoor writer-eze for a plow.

I haven't lost an iota of confidence in my view of the physical attributes of a simple cone but perhaps if lathe bored, forcing cones could have entasis, corrugations, shoulders and undercut rings. Whyfor I would guess to be in support of the argumentum ad absurdum.

jack

The guy may be a crummy writer but I think you're trying too hard to find fault with his story.

And you're making up ridiculous situations to prove my comments wrong. That's OK, I guess. Your goofy scenario is essentially making the chamber 6" longer with an abruptly short forcing cone at the end.

However, I'll withdraw all my picky comments and heartily recommend that everyone read and enjoy the brilliant and informative article by Nick Sisley.

Never argue with an idiot. You can't win and people will not be able to tell which is which, after a while.

Jim, name calling loses an argument for you right away. I gave you a fair chance to explain yourself and you didn't. The simple fact is your outrage at the article is unfounded. You were proven wrong - be a man and admit it.

Maybe the guy's not an idiot but rather a very self-aware shill engaged only in a bread on the table effort to satisfy the rag's desire for something punctuating the ad copy--preferably a compliant endorsement of gimmicks which would hardly even qualify as innovative or even particularly desirable if he didn't tell us that Browning believes them to be so. What sort of guy sells himself for the privilege of eating regularly? Could be a writer; could also be a coalminer. No emphysema associated with the scribbler trade so he's certainly not an idiot. I believe this is the common currency of many trade-review magazines; maybe crap-peddler is closer to the mark than idiot.



jack

I explained myself thoroughly, possibly not simply enough for you though. You proved nothing except how far you'd go to try to prove me wrong. You failed.
Too bad.