Should the forcing cones be opened up on older doubles? I have heard that the old shot shells with the rolled crimp over a wad procduced a shorter over all hull than the newer pastic shot shells with the star crimp and shot cups.
I have the 12 gauge reamer to do so, and have opened up a few, but have heard conflicting stories as to whether it is required or not.
Supposedly it is suppose to reduce the pressure and help the shot pattern. What I heard was the newer shells with the star crimp, has the crimp opening partially into the forcing cone on some older shotguns.

Hi Saddlesore,
I often lengthen the forcing cones in short chambered (2.5") guns so that I can shoot 2.75" shells without damaging the shells (yes, I realize that I still have to be careful to use low pressure ammo). It seems to work just fine and according to the British proof house, does not take the gun out of proof like extending the chamber would. I'm not British and that's never been an issue, however it is comforting to know that according to one nations experts it doesn't effect the safety of the gun.
Steve

Unless the gun is some sort of super rare specimen or something I plan to "flip", I generally send barrels off to Briley if I plan to use it. I have them lengthen FC and "tweek" chokes consistent with my expected use. As suggested above, that work enables me to shoot an occaisional 3" 20ga in a M21, but I don't make it a pratice to shoot modern hot stuff in an older 2 1/2" gun.

Saddlesore, this is probably not kosher feedback. I've lengthened the forcing cones on a number of guns and have no complaints. Then, some years ago, I just got lazy and quit having the barrels altered. I shoot 2 3/4" hulls in the short chambers all the time and have never experienced any problems whatsoever. Nor did any of the oldtime gun experts, such as Gough Thomas, Burrard or Askins or any number of the old men. In fact, Parker even recommended shooting the longer hulls in their short chambered guns, feeling it provided a better gas seal. Now, I want to be perfectly clear on this: I would never shoot longer SAMI loads in a short chambered gun EVER! All of my loads produce pressures in the area of 7,000 psi or less--always! Fairly extensive testing of shooting longer shells in short chambered and short forcing cones was conducted some years ago by Sherman Bell and results were published in the Double Gun Journal. The conclusion was pressures did not increase substantially, certainly not enough to cause any concern.

The length of a shell is determined by its "Fired" length. Thus a 2 3/4" shell will be 2 3/4" or close to it, many are a little short, irregardless of crimp type applied. A loaded 2 3/4" fold/pie crimp shell is shorter than a 2 3/4" roll crimp shell. Many, but not all by any means, of the older roll crimp shells were 2 5/8" length. Some years back I fell into the long cone theory & lengthened a few, But Never Again will I do this to an old classic. Most of the advantages of the long cone were simply dreamed up to sell reamers & cone jobs.

I have limited experience with this but recently did the forcing cones in a double to improve the patterns. When I reamed the cones I took notice that the chambers were quite tight, almost cutting a completely new one and then lengthened the cones out to 1.5" from .5". When tested the patterns only slightly improved (less than 5%). What I did notice was a reduction in recoil, which some claim that forcing cone work helps and others say it does nothing for recoil. In this case it did. I would do this modification again, it was cheap and easy and made the gun more pleasureable to shoot.

I wouldn't do it.

I've never saw that it improved the pattern...might even make it worse.

I just settled on buying and reloading Short Shells.

I just stopped buying them with short chambers (or modified forcing cones).

"IF" it reduces recoil it does so at the expense of velocity as the payload has not changed. Personally I never felt a reduced recoil on the ones I did. The same effect can of course be acheived by simply reducing the powder charge if you reload, or buying a lighter loaded shell if you don't.

Why would you want to remove metal from the barrel at the point where the pressure is the highest?
I leave them alone and still have all my original fingers too....

"Most of the advantages of the long cone were simply dreamed up to sell reamers & cone jobs."

I have done several and felt no difference in recoil. Forcing cones have nothing to do with reducing recoil unless it reduces velocity. You can do that by loading less powder(and save money)
The highest pressure is not near the forcing cone. It is 1 to 1-1/2" from the standing breech.

"When tested the patterns only slightly improved (less than 5%)."
What does this mean? Tighter, more open, more even, anything at all?

Some time ago I bought a very light Irish 12 bore (Hunter and Sons). It seemed to kick a lot. I had Scott Carlson lengthen the cones. When I got it back, it seemed to kick a lot.The only immediate difference I noted was that my bank balance was a bit lighter.I now follow Mr. Woods advice. I habitually shoot 2 3/4" LOW PRESSURE loads in short chambers...Or, Short RST's

Well, he's gotta be totally confused by now.

Bell's tests on long shells in short chambers mostly showed some slight reduction in pressure (a few hundred psi) when cones were lengthened but chambers still short. Longer cones on modern guns are quite common, the usual rationale being "improved patterns". But as Jim asks above, what does "improved" mean?

The advice to shoot long shells in short chambers goes back to the paper hull/felt wad days. Shooters actually got tighter patterns when they did that, because with the case mouth extending slightly past the end of the chamber, the shot charge was given some protection where it would normally have first contacted the barrel walls. But modern plastic wads provide an even greater advantage when it comes to protecting the shot, so that old advice really doesn't pertain any more (unless you're shooting fiber wads).

Usually, short forcing cones aren't a problem with longer shells. That's evidenced by the fact that the Brits and Europeans have been shooting long hulls (loaded to appropriate pressures) in short-chambered guns, going way back to before WWII. Both Burrard and Thomas commented on this practice, and noted that as long as the pressure was appropriate, hull length in and of itself was not a danger. However, I have seen a few anecdotal reports of very old (all 19th century, I think) Brit guns with very short and sharply angled cones having problems with those long Brit shells--as in excessive recoil and blown ends on the hulls. Charles Fergus, for one, reported such results in an article in Shooting Sportsman. He shot the long shells in two Brit guns, one pre-1900 and the other from the 1930's, both with 2 1/2" chambers and original cones. He got the results I described in the older gun, but no problems in the newer one. Modern loads in 2 1/2" hulls, however, worked fine in the older gun. If you get the results Fergus got with his older gun, it's certainly a good idea to stop, try true 2 1/2" shells, and see whether maybe you own one of the (relatively rare, I think) vintage guns in which you ought to avoid longer hulls.

W W Greener reported on the practice (& thoroughly condemned it I might add) of some early work of breech loaders of cutting the chambers with a step at end rather than a cone. This seemed to offer no practical advantage, was impossible to exactly fit shells of all makes as lengths had some variation & left a sharp corner, hard to keep sufficiently clean, leading to the possibility of corrosion weakening.

"ALL" guns should have their bores & chambers examined prior to ever placing a shell in the chamber & the older it is the more important this is. With all due respect to Mr Fergus (I have read his account of this also) to have ever fired that first shell in which the mouth of the case would actually open into the "Bore" itself was nothing short of Utter Foolishness. That stepped or Extremely short angled cone should have been well noted & "NO" shell fired in that gun of which its fired length exceeded the chamber length.
When the British began loading fold crimp shells in the late thirties they feared the shorter overall length might lead to some of them being mistaken for 2" shells & thus placed in the wrong guns. They thus carried out "Extensive" testing of lengthening the hulls to the point they would have about the same "Loaded" length as the roll crimp hulls of the nominal 2½" variety. They found this to be a totally acceptable practise * was adopted for I believe all nominal 2½" British shells from that point on. While Mr Bell's tests gave similar results, he really had no need tom "Find out for Himself" as it had been standard practice for 60-70 years.
I seriously question whether his tests were extensive enough to truly determine a pattern & just how much of his pressure variations were simply normal variations found in testing even a single lot of shells, all loaded "Just Alike".

I'm interested in this as well as I am considering "modifying" a spare set of barrels to my Sterlingworth by both lengthening the chambers for 2 3/4" shells and then lengthening the forcing cones to reduce pressure and "improve" the pattern. Namely I want to shoot modern shells with 1 1/8 once loads. Opinions about effectiveness of results aside, I am concerned about safety.


The barrels are ID'd by Sterlingworth as their #3 weight, which was the 2nd lightest barrel configuration.

What effect would doing both procedures have on safety? What is the consensus on this? Didn't Savage always extend the the chambers to 2 3/4" when they worked on the older Philly guns?

If it matters, I don not load my own shells.

Thanks for your responses.

-Chris

I do not see how it can hurt to have a cone shaped forcing cone instead of one with
a marked step, as most older doubles have.

If "lengthening/opening" the forcing cone means changing its "shape" into a cone,
I only see advantages.

Any input otherwise shall be welcome.

JC(Always Learning)

Interesting thread.

In the case of my 1914 Ithaca Flues 20 ga., 2 different gunsmiths have verified that the chambers were at some point lengthend to 2 3/4". But one of the smiths commented that the chambers are "just barely 2 3/4" and not a fraction more". He also noted that the forcing cones were "short" and offered to lengthen them for me.

Since then, I've been fretting over shells and pressures. I can reload 2 3/4" 20 ga. shells at the lower end of the published spectrum, say under 8,500 p.s.i., but are such pressures low enough?

According to my reading, the "issue" with the 20 ga. version of the Flues is not chambers bursting, but it's lightweight frame cracking. There seems to be some debate out there as to whether the cracked frames are the result of excessive "pressure" or excessive "recoil". I, quite frankly, have not found a satisfactoty explanation of the difference between pressure and recoil, if in fact there is a difference.

I'm at the point now where I believe that I am over-thinking this whole matter of chambers, cones and pressures. I need to start enjoying this gun with my low pressure 2 3/4" reloads, instead of continuing to worry about it.

I purchased my first Parker about 3 years ago, a Trojan 12 ga. The chambers were either original 2 3/4 or someone had lengthened them. I was able to buy this Parker very reasonable due to the fact that there were some moderate pits in the forcing cones. I measured wall thickness and determined the pits (with gunsmith help) were safe to remove. I reamed/lengthened the forcing cones and polished the bores thoroughly. I never fired the gun untill work was complete. I can say that this gun shoots as well as anyone could ask for at longer ranges. It will grind targets from the 25-27 yard line, crush pheasents at 30-40 yards and I have shot barn ducks (pigeons) at great distances with it. I have patterned this gun with English 6's (my favorite) and both barrels are excellent with nice even patterns that appear to be dense. My theory (and it's only that) is a more gradual forcing cone with less violent taper doesn't necessarily help with actual pattern that can be seen on a board, but does however help with shot stringing. IE putting more pellets on target at the same time. Untill I have won the lottery so that I can afford split second camera ability, I will never be able to prove this. One subject that seems to be neglected in this forum from time to time is shot stringing, and how negative it can be. I shudder every time one of my shooting companions talks about his pet receipe for 1 oz 28ga loads! What good do all those pellets do if they're strung out 30ft+? I believe that gradual cones allow the shot to travel at more even speeds rather than compressing the column and causing the (lead) pellets to slow down faster. Cock-imammy it may be, but it's my theory.

Ninepointer--

I own several Ithaca Flues doubles, I have shot all of them with moderate pressure loads, and no damage as of yet, now I don't feed them with a steady diet of "boomers" either.

You are perhaps digging a little deep but that's part of the fun! I commend your willingness to keep the gun sound and SAFE. I am nothing more than a casual clay shooter and don't own a dedicated target gun anymore. I don't feed my guns more than 200-300 rounds a year (each) and I believe that as long as you don't continually stuff 1 1/8 oz loads down that beauty she'll be fine...

The idea of lead shot from a 2&3/4" shell squeezing its way through the forcing cone of a gun with 2&1/2" chambers strikes me the same as that same shot leaping from a 2&3/4" shell and squeezing through a forcing cone another 1/4" away. The later seemly more omnious if steel shot is included but is apparently not of concern to gun makers? A more gentle taper on a forcing cone, if it doesn't devalue the gun or create too thin a wall or cost too much, maybe allows for less shot deformation or damage to the shot cup and therefore is a good thing. I hope it doesn't matter because I don't want to do it. Anyway since smokless powders take up so much less space than black powder did, I don't understand why shotgun shells keep getting longer?

ninepointer-Not to hijack the thread, but the way frame cracking was explained to me was that all sxs gun barrels have a forceful downward bend upon firing. Some call this "flip" and you can see it in point of impact problems with loads in some guns. The longer and lighter the barrels, the bigger the bend. The long barrels are a lever working against the angle of the frame. The frame will crack at the angle and frequently flow towards the hammer axles and then to the sear axles. The heavier the shot charge, and the faster the load, the more pronounced this becomes. Just keep everything moderate and you'll probably be fine. I know a guy with a 20 flues and he uses it with no problems.

Pressure vs Recoil;
While the statement often made that recoil is caused by pressure "Is True", it is also "Equally True" that pressure is not a factor in determing recoil. Factors in recoil are the amount of weight being moved & the speed with which it is moved.
You can for instance with proper powders load a 3" 20ga with 1¼oz shot & push it out the muzzle at some 1250 fps with pressures no higher than another load using a very fast powder pushing 7/8oz to some 1175fps. This equals 3/8oz more shot @ 75 more fps.
Now you have only to fire both of these loads from a gun of about 6lbs wt to see which has the most recoil, though both have essentially the same pressure.
Now which of these loads will stress the frame the most?? My vote goes for that load producing the heaviest recoil, but I know of no way to prove it except to place a gage which will measure the stress applied across the juncture of the standing breech to the bar. I do not have the equipment to do this. Most of this "Flexing" back of the standing breech is produced by the back thrust of the shell against the breech, not by the flip of the bbl.

Miller, the problem with the above is that we, right here, often lead folks astray on the above practice. Someone has a short-chambered gun; what's the response? "Well, if you want to be safe and don't reload, just shoot 2 1/2" shells in it." Only problem there is, some shells marked 2 1/2" are longer than that. Right on the box of Kent Gamebore Pure Gold shells I have, it tells me that shells with a "65/67MM case length" are suitable in "Guns with a chamber length of 2 1/2" or longer." So, mine's got 2 1/2" chambers . . . they ought to be safe regardless of what's beyond the chamber, because the shells are British, my gun's British, and it fits the description. (Maybe we should always add a caveat when we tell them all 2 1/2" shells are fine.) But they're not--as demonstrated by what happened to Fergus--if their fired length happens to exceed 2 1/2" (which it might). I suppose Gamebore's "out" there is the rest of the sentence, which reads: "Nitro proofed to a service pressure of 3 tons per square inch (850kg per square cm)." Those proofmarks, of course, are only found on guns made (or reproofed) since 1954--which would eliminate the pre-1900 guns, unless they've passed modern reproof.

After all this discussion, I measured all 4 of my doubles and an old Iver Johnson single shot 12 gauge.

I have the forcing cone reamer and the gage to check before and after.

Here is what I found. The Fox Sterlingwortth, 1931 vintage, Ithaca double, 1936 Vintage ,Iver Johnson, (At least as old) and an older pre 1900 Raick Freres Belgium double all have the identical chamber length to the forcing cone for a 2 /1/2" shell. Another Fox double,which I rebarrled with Brownell's barrels sometime in the late 80's also has the same length.
What I don't know and cannot measure is the angle of the forcing cone or it's length.Gues I will leave them all alone.

Larry;
If a neophyte to old guns made that mistake I would tottally agree with you, he was just following oft repaeted advise which is in most cases too general & broad in its scope, with no included caveats.
I can really speak only for my self but I will tell you if I ever make the mistake Fergus did it "WILL" be from Utter Foolishness/Carelesnesss.
I truly do feel that if You did it it would be the same & that When Fergus did it was the same.
Surely he examined the bore to be sure there wasn't a Ditrt Dauber's nest or other obstruction there. A chamber end having a step or extremely steep angle is "Extremely Easy" to see visually. It should certainly have been throughly checked out & the length of the shells to be fired determined prior to ever being fired in this very old & irreplacable gun. I don't recall now exactly what gun it was, but seem to recall it was from perhaps the 1860's or no later than the 1870's.
It is very rare to encounter a chamber of this type & they will be mostly found in these Very old guns. I don't know it for a fact but I seriously doubt a modern proof house would proof such a gun without the cones being re-cut
When working with these very old guns one needs to mostly ignore all thoise general statements & treat each on an individual basis. The main fault I find with Bell's articles is that im my opinion he was just too casual & cavalier about the subject, giving virtually a blanket recomendation with no exceptions cited.
This just really Ain't the case as shown by Fergus' experience.

Miller, I found the Fergus artice: "Short Chambers & Steep Cones", Shooting Sportsman, May/June 99. (Further information on the gun in question in "Iron & Steel Intertwined" in the same issue.) The gun in question was a Westley Richards made in 1894; passed reproof under the 1954 rules of proof. He had the gun looked over by Alfred Gallifent, who apparently did not comment on the cones and what they might mean as far as choice of ammunition goes.

Larry;
Thanks for the info. I was pretty sure the article I had read on it was in Shooting Sportsman , but was thinking an earlier gun. The fact it had passed post 54 proof does lend some credence to the idea he thought he was OK.
I do know though that "I" would know better than to shoot a shell in such a gun having a fired length which allowed the shell end to actually lap into the gun's bore. Thus if I had done this I would still consider it an act of Foolishness, every one else will just have to decide for themselves as to how it applies to them.
I am doubly surprised that WR would have cut such a chamber at that late a date, & that the proof house would have passed it as they would have obviously been well aware the common British shell would exceed the actual chamber length.

Some surprise there for me too, Miller, not having reread those articles in some time: like you, that the proofhouse would pass it (particularly the modern reproof) and that Gallifent--I never met him, but I know he had a good reputation as a doublegun smith--would not have said something to Fergus.

Some years ago while attending the NSSA World Skeet Shoot in Savannah, GA, I had an interesting conversation with a Winchester Factory rep. We were discussing the Model 50 automatic, and the fact that it was never chambered for the 3" shell. He related to me that he had at one time worked for Simmons, and that they did convert the M50 for 3" shells. They did so by cutting a chamber with a sharp shoulder at 2 3/4" and no forcing cone. When fired, the first 1/4" of the shell would cut off cleanly and thus allow ejection. These were paper shells, and they had to stop this modification with the advent of plastic hulls, since they wouldn't cut off cleanly. I wonder what kind of pressures were created in those chambers?

It's interesting to see how opinions of this have changed in the last five years when there was about a 50/50 split on the advisability if lengthening cones.

I did a test about five years ago at the Southern Side by Side and a couple of other shoots. I had a Fox A grade with cut 26" barrels. I had one forcing cone lengthened and left the other as it was. I allowed those interesting in participating to shoot four shots two from each barrel and found no statistical evidence at all that there was a change in recoil.

On the card the shooters filled out, I did ask if they thought lengthened cones reduced recoil and those who were of that opinior almost always noted much more recoil on one barrel or another.

I didn't let them peek but several tried.

Don, re heavy payload and shot string . . . one theory of string holds that the longer the shot column--all else being equal--the greater the potential for increased string. The example always used is the 3" .410, with its long, skinny shot column, but the 3" 20ga is often mentioned too. But heavier payload is always going to make the shot column longer.

Dick Jones' post is interesting in stating that five years ago, fifty percent thought fooling with forcing cones was bad, fifty percent thought it was good. Well in over fifty years of buying and shooting shotguns of all types, my opinion has never changed. When I multiply the number of guns that I have owned in fifty years by the average cost of shipping a gun to a barrel butcher and paying his bill, I have saved about a third of the value of the house I am living in by not even once having a barrel butchered. Of course, this is assuming none of those guns would have increased in value because of the butchering. I am pretty safe in that assumption.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: About 40 years ago, when the truth was more important than pimping for the advertisers, the Q & A section of the American Rifleman contained the following question: "does lengthening the forcing cones and/or back-boring reduce recoil?" This was back when all this barrel magic crap was just coming on the scene. The answer given was: "nothing you can do to the inside of a shotgun barrel will reduce recoil unless it also reduces velocity". This was true then and it's true now. The only difference is that magazines now, including the Rifleman, are little more than parrots, accepting anything in the manufacturers' release letters as gospel, no matter how outrageous the claims. The reason gun makers now offer much longer cones and over-bored barrels is that so many in the buyers' market believe this nonsense. The facts haven't changed but when lies are repeated often enough, people start to believe them.

The shot column is longer in fractions of an inch and the shot string is claimed to be longer in multiple feet. Why?

Jim, you are on safe ground if total recoil is accepted as the right metric. I, personally, will hold in reserve the question of sensing peak payload acceleration as recoil. This question has neither een proven nor disproven, IMO.

A fraction of an inch can be pretty long, Don, when the shot column itself isn't much over an inch in length. Think %, not raw measurement. And I believe Brister pretty well established from his tests that the 3" .410 does indeed have a long string, comparatively speaking.

Brister also claimed the 28 gauge had a "Short" shot string ""WHY"". The 28 has the next longest shot column length of all the regular Gauges.
The 3/4oz load in a 28 has a longer column length than 7/8oz in 20ga, 1oz in 16ga or 1¼oz in 12ga. Why would it have a shorter shotstring if column length has anything to do with it?? It is of course shorter than even the ½oz load in the .410.

I cannot recall the man who did the testing with the old "woodie" station wagon driving 30MPH (I believe it was his wife) pulling a hayrack with plywood on side with ducks painted on it and shot with the "short string" Winchester ammo. He was able to prove 2 things for sure:
1. He had a very brave and understanding wife...

2. Shot strings are much longer than the everyday scattergunner realizes and the more "overloaded" the shell, the longer the string.

We have all heard the old banter about a "square" shot charge. This of course is impossible due to the fact that a shell is round, but in principle it has some merit a shot column that is as long as it is wide or as close as possible tends to perform better. This has been tested and slightly proven.

Fact is we can disscuss this adnausim and it doesn't change the fact that if you don't put some of the string where he's gonna be you ain't gonna break/kill your target. Shotshell performance has been hypothesized in many ways from lead formula, to velocity, to pressure, recoil, ect. ect. ect. Now throw in all the "advancements" in bbl technology and all the hooplah and who knows what to believe.

I believe a gun should fit as well as you can make it fit, shoot instictively to point of impact for you and be balanced comfortably for you. We all have our theories and reasons and I say if it works for you, great. If not do some more experimenting and practicing till it does. Main goal is to have fun and enjoy.

The 28 has often been called a "square load". By the definition of the shot column being as long as it is wide, this is certainly not even close to being true.

Burrard had some pretty good coverage of shotsrtinging in his book, mostly done with the standard British game load shell; 12ga, 3de-1 1/16oz #6. A few things worthy of note though are I think;
#1; A very high percentage (I recall about 75%) of the shot load was found in the forward half of the string. The extreme of the "Tail" consisted of only a small % of the total & was likely the badly deformed pellets. Thus reduction of deformed pellets can result in a dramatic reduction of string length, but in actual effect nowhere near the "Lauded Improvement" to the load.
If you have made a 30% reduction in string length by moving up 5% of the shot a 30% increase in effectiveness of the load has not been made, just another "Mis-Use" of statistics.
#2; When he did test some 1¼oz loads he was "Surprised" that he found no increase of stringing over the 1 1/16oz load. Thus an 18% increase of column length in the shell did "NOT" result in an 18% increase of the string in the air.
#3; His final conclusion & this with paper hulls loaded with card & felt wadding, sans any shot protector cups etc was;
Unless you are a specialized shooter, regularly shooting at birds in excess of 40 yds, flying in excess of 40 MPH at an angle of near 90° to the shot line "FORGET SHOTSTRINGING", its simply not an important factor.
With today's improved shells it is I feel sure even less so, & it doesn't have to be a WW Mark V in any case.

I think the most hilarious thing I ever read on the sq load was in a premier issue of a new rag devoted to shot-gunners some years back. A quite noted author wrote a "Resounding" article on the 28ga & promoted its Sq load effect. He defined the Sq load as being a shot load equal to a bore size round ball. He then correctly stated this could be found by dividing 16 by the gauge number & listed the 28 ga round ball as 16/28 as .57oz This is of course correct with rounding to two decimal places (plenty close for the purpose. But THEN he further stated this proved "conclusively" the 3/4oz load in the 28 was the "Perfect Sq Load". I don't know if he was really that Dumb or thought I was, but I learned way back down in Grammar School that .57 & .75 are not one & the same even though they do contain the same two digits, just rearranged. A sq load in the 28ga depending on whether one uses the equal column length to bore dia or the round ball equiv will be from just over 7/16oz for the first to just over 9/16oz for the latter, certainly not the 3/4oz load.
I can't really recall ever reading anyone whom I assessed to have reliable credentials who gave any advantage to the so-called sq load.

In spite of the fact I am always interested in these posts and register all the info,
I have come to the conclusion, after over 40 years of hunting, that the less I
think about when shooting, the more birds I hit!

JC

¡Qué Juan Carlos dijo!

Pigeon Shooting: With instructions for beginners and suggestions for those who participate in the sport of pigeon shooting.
Albert William Money, Arthur Corbin Gould 1896
http://books.google.com/books?id=qkEEAAAAYAAJ

"I would lay great stress on the necessity of concentrating your whole thought and attention on the shot."

Miller, I think you may be inventing what Brister claimed. He only credits the 28ga with a short shot string compared to the 3" .410. At least that's all I can find scanning the chapter in his book on string. Maybe you can do better, but here's the quote:

"The moving target showed quite clearly that the longer and heavier the payload of shot packed into the case of a cartridge--relative to the size of the bore--the greater the shot deformation and poorer the pattern percentage on crossing targets. This is why the 3-inch .410 (which is in effect an elongated mini-magnum) strings shot much more erratically and with less efficiency than the same shotload fired from a 28 gauge. The 28 gauge has a larger bore relative to the length and weight of the shot column being pushed through it."

You may be thinking of someone else who made a general statement crediting the 28 with a short shot string.

However, there was a comment (in that book)that when patterning the 28, the pushpins jumped out of the board, suggesting that more of the shot arrived at the same time, than some other gauges. I don't think any explanation was offered but it certainly suggests a shorter shot string, to me.

I don't really recall his exact words, haven't looked at the book since first acquiring it some years back. I do remember for certain he strongly implied the 28 just had those "Magical" properties which un-explainably allowed it to shoot far out of proportion to its size. Not really worth the trouble to look up anyway.

Gentlemen, if you're going to pick on a poor, dead writer who isn't around to defend himself, it's always a good idea to go to the source. (Personally, I'm planning on coming back from the dead if I hear someone misquoting something I wrote!) If you read Brister's chapter "The Case for the Small Gauge", he does indeed talk about the 28's short shot string . . . but mostly in comparison to the 3" .410's very long shot string. He does say that the 28 gauge is somewhat of an exception in that it "simply kills better than it is supposed to". But he does present some evidence for that claim, in terms of skeet averages at that time--which ran only 1% different for Class B shooters, from the 20 to the 28. But he doesn't really credit any magical properties to the 28, pointing out that even in shoots like a "quail walk", where one might think a smallbore would not be a disadvantage, he--and other shooters who won or placed--did so with 12's.

His bottom line on the 28ga: "Apparently the 28 standard load and the 12-gauge pigeon load are both balanced loads in terms of the length and weight of shot column relative to bore diameter and other factors." No claims about a "square load".

If you read Brister objectively, you'll find that he was really surprised--having done pretty well himself, shooting doves and quail with a .410--that 28 gauge patterns on both still and moving pattern boards were that much better.

First; I made no claim that Brister ever so much as mentioned the Sq Load theory. The statement I made on that was in a post in which Brister's name was not mentioned. I did not state who made it, I think I recall the writers name, but did not state it because I didn't want to name the wrong person with so foolish a statement. It definitely was "NOT" Brister, of that I am certain. The Mag was Peterson's Shotgunning or something similar, I only bought the one.

2nd; You Larry are the one who brought Brister's name into the thread, If you just can't stand for his work to be discussed both Pro & Con then don't bring his name into it at all.

As to the above quote I do not recall for certain if this is a direct quote from Brister or a Mis-Quote, so not certain wheather its you or Brister who was/is wrong. The 28ga was never loaded with the shot column "Length & Weight" proportional to the bore as it relates to the 12ga Pigeon load. This is a very simple mathamatical equation, but the problem is Larry, you just never seem to stop & figure out what you are saying.
Shot loads which are proportional in "length & weight" to bore dia are proportional to the "Cube" of their dia. Coinsidering the "Pigeon load in the 12ga as 1¼oz then a 28 ga load having the same length to bore ratio would weigh .54oz. Note the standard 28ga skeet load is .75oz. A 12ga load having a length to bore ratio equivelent to this 3/4 oz load would carry 1 3/4oz. Now anyone would call this a Magnum load, yet it is considered the Light load in the 28.
Mostly the different gauges were loaded having a shot column very similar in actual length, not proportional to their bore (the .410 which is not a gauge, doesn't even fit in here). In this case the load is proportional to the Squaare of their dia's. Thus using the 1¼oz pigeon load in 12ga as the base we find the following loads having about the same column length (rounded to nearest 1/16oz;
10ga ---- 1 7/16oz
12ga ---- 1¼oz
16ga ---- 1oz
20ga ---- 7/8oz
28ga ---- 11/16oz
.410 ---- 3/8oz
Note that both the 28 & 16ga are very near the midpoint in which case they would have rounded up to the next step IE 3/4oz & 1 1/16oz respectfully. 10 & 20ga's are extremely close to listed wt.
Note further these loads are proportional in "weight" to their bore dias, but not in column length, the smaller bores having longer columns proportionate to their bore.

The "Surprizing" thing to me is that one with Brister's experience was surprised when the 28 shot more like a 20ga than a .410. Even an old hillbilly like me who certainly feels no qualifications to write a book on the subject would have expected that from the Git-Go.
It may take me a few days to get a O-tuit but guess I will just have to dig up his book to make certain I have am mis-quoting him. I have made no attempt for an exact word for word quote, but simply outlined the gist of what he said. You seem to want to make a big deal if I use a different word than he did even though the meaning is essentially the same.

His bottom line on the 28ga: "Apparently the 28 standard load and the 12-gauge pigeon load are both balanced loads in terms of the length and weight of shot column relative to bore diameter and other factors."

And what does "balanced load" mean?

Rocketman,

Your question is a loaded one, open for interpretation;-) Hahaha!
I could say 1oz. in a 16ga., but what does that really mean?!!

In Brister's case, I think it meant that he shot good scores or bags with them [3/4oz in 28ga. & 1&1/4oz. flyer loads in 12ga.] and satisfied his own curiosity about their performance, on paper. He was, in fact, incessently curious. I say that not as any refute to anything; rather in recognition that he was a very fine shot and perhaps the best shooting and most all 'round inquisitive sporting writer here of his time. I shot with/against him a number of times at a long defunct place known as Hawkeye in the Piney Woods near the Louisiana border years ago. He did a lot of interesting things in his day; aside from hanging with some of the best shots and constantly experimenting, he introduced collum bare & Sporting Clays shooting to the US. Several of the people who attended that first hand thrown shoot are still with us. I was not one of them. Brister won it.

As an aside, he was a really fun & funny person to be around & really good outdoor newspaper sports writing died w/him down here as far as I'm concerned.

Note: 1&1/4oz. was the std. pigeon load ... for the 10ga.!!!! back when.

Indeed, Miller, I first mentioned his name. And you first mentioned his claim about the 28's short shot string . . . so I went back, looked, and discovered that those comments were almost entirely in contrast to the 3" .410's long shot string. Certainly no statement that the standard 28ga load has a shorter shot string than, say, a 7/8 oz 20ga or a 1 oz 12ga. Other than in his chapter on string (with the famous moving target tests), his comments on the 28 are mostly in his chapter on small gauges.

As for the quote you quoted . . . yes, it is a direct quote. That's why I put quotation marks around it. I don't normally put them around things I say, because people kinda know I'm saying it if I write it. And it's not what I'M saying . . . it's what Brister said. And Don and Miller, I have to "assume" here, since Brister did not add further explanation to his "balanced load" quote (and I purely hate to assume!), but I don't think he's talking balanced mathematically, as you are. He's speaking in terms of the results those loads produce, as evidenced by their patterns.

To add to what tw wrote, I'd point out that it's pretty well-known that Brister lived in a very nice house, purchased with his winnings shooting live pigeons. Thus, he had pretty good credentials as both an experimenter and a practitioner with the shotgun.

This has been a very interesting thread...I dont know what I learned, if anything. It seems this discussion has been going on since Dan Lefever invented the shotgun. I remember my Dad having a fit when plastic wads first came into common usage. "Damn, If it wasnt for blown patterns and flyers, I wouldnt hit anything" As to the magical powers of the 28, I think they best remain that way. I have made shots, clean kills with the 28 that are remarkable. Why? Dunno...Still killing lots of roosters here, shooting a 10 bore this week...Re: Square loads? Lets build a square barrel, gun with square cartidges...Think of the sighting plane!

I may have read more into the actual comments, found at the top of page 70, of Bob's book, than he intended. I'm just happy to find that my memory is still pretty good, even though not much else works well. I also love the 28, having owned about a half dozen of them. Only have one left now. It's a Browning Citori Gran Lightning. It shoots skeet far better than I typically shoot and is a joy to look at and shoot. A standard Grade I Citori with Grade III wood, 28" barrels and choke tubes.

I have absolutely no idea what those "Other Factors" are but the rest of that statement is pure mathamatics, nothing else. It is as I have "Mathametically" pointed out totally incorrect. I don't really care what type of house he lived in or how he paid for it, that statement is not correct, period. I am not in any way trying to flame him as person or a shooter, just a few "Facts" in his book are not absolute facts.
I did get out the book, the quoted statement is the bottom line of page 70. top line of page 71 reads;

As I have painstakenly pointed the 3/4oz load in the 28 has a longer shot colum than 1¼oz from the 12ga & it is being fired through a smaller hole. IF you don't understand that these two statements, Quoted Verbatim, from two succeding paragraphs "Back to Back" as contradictory, then my Friend there isn't much hope for you to understand anything.
Back on page 63 he speaks of Oberfell & Thompson's rule of thumb that that killing ability was based on ounces of shot rather than size of hole. He then proceeds to say "I have found their rule to come close to being correct with perhaps the exception of the 28 gauge which simply kills better than it is supposed to.
He begins the next page with "Ignoring the ""Mysteries"" (these quotes mine) of the 28 gauge temporarily, lets look at the O&T rule of thumb.
He then goes on to show that according to their rule similar effectivness would be obtained by 3/4oz @ 35yds, 1oz @ 40yds & 1¼oz at 45yds.
This is based on pure mathamatics figuring the areas of circles from guns producing similar patterns havng similar overall spread & shot distribution within the pattern.
He further adds that small bore guns generate higher pressures & thus deform more shot unless special hard shot handloads are used. Note also at this point he is not comparing the 28 to the .410 but to the larger gauges.
The only Mystery I can find to the 28's supposed extra effectiveness is he is comparing those special hard shot handloads to run of the mill promo type loads in the others. They of course could be equally improved in like manner.
This is just not the type of rubbish I expect when I pay money I had to work for to get something so highly lauded as this book was.
There is a lot of good to the book, if you don't already have something better (I did) but it sure is not in relation to the 28 gauge, that part is pure fable.

Miller, I don't know whether Brister knew what the "other factors" were either, but what he knew from shooting lots of targets and patterns (and birds) was that the 28 simply performed better than he would have expected. There's something about the combination of that shell in that bore that just seems to work particularly well. I've shot straights at skeet with the blasted thing, and I'm not Brister. And I've watched way better shots than I am shoot skeet with a .410, and I'm convinced it'd be pure luck if I ever shot a straight with one of those.

You're interpreting what Brister says as: the 3/4 oz 28ga load and the 1 1/4 oz 12ga load are mathematical twins. Don't think that's what he's saying. I read that as Brister saying that those two loads are examples of particularly "well-balanced" loads--based on performance, not mathematics. There's something about both of them that makes them work particularly well in their respective bores. That something, obviously, cannot be defined by mathematics. I think you would have left much out of his book, had you written it, and entitled it simply "Shotgunning: The Science". He's saying it's not all science; some things happen that you don't expect based on mathematics, the performance of the 28ga being one of them. And as both a skilled hand with the shotgun and an experimenter, I think he has sufficient credentials to say that there's some art in the whole business. Hence, the title of his book.

Larry, that's Math, there's simply no way you can make anything else of it!!!

Also there is nothing you can apply that equally fits both the 3/4oz 28ga & the 1¼oz 12ga loads. If these two loads balance one another then so does the 7/8oz 20 & the 1oz 16. If you can't define what's equal how do you know it is. I have read articles by equally well know authors lauding the 12ga, the 16ga, the 20ga & the 28ga. I learned a long time ago you have to sift through a lot of chaff to get a little of the grain.
Regardless of how good or knowledgeable on gets they can still have little personal prejudices & hangups. I think the whole gist of the matter is Brister considered the 28 a "Small Bore" & "Expected" it to shoot simialr to the .410. When it shot much closer to the 20 as it was "Supposed To" he thought it somewhat Mysterious. There is however no mystery about it, that's what its supposed to do.

Miller, he does NOT say that the two loads "balance one another". That's your interpretation/assumption. He's not trying to say anything that "equally fits" both loads . . . other than that they both perform very well. A 6 pound gun can be well-balanced, as can an 8 pound gun. Does not mean they balance each other, which obviously they do not.

Nor--going back to your previous post--does he compare anything to a 28ga "special hard shot handload". His photo on p. 65, of an 89% pattern--shot at 35 yards, target speed 40 mph--is clearly marked as a standard Remington factory load. Might have been an even better pattern in a harder shot handload, but that's pretty darned good already--and since string is taken into account in that pattern, there's obviously not a lot of deformation taking place, or if so it's not impacting the pattern very much. His specific reference to using hard shot is aimed at the poorly-performing .410: "Put very hard shot in a .410 and it starts to behave."

The smaller the bore, the more shot deforms--all things being equal. But the standard 3/4 oz load in the 28ga does not seem to deform much shot. Too bad he did not compare it to a 3/4 oz 20ga load along with the .410. But if we're looking just at difference in bore size and "balance", from a mathematical standpoint, consider this: There's a little over twice as much difference in bore diameter between a .410 and a 28ga as there is between a 28ga and a 20ga. Yet the dropoff in Class B skeet averages is only 1% from 20 to 28 . . . but 10% from 28 to .410. Mathematically, it would seem that either the .410 ought to be a good bit closer to the 28 than that, based on relative bore diameters, or else there ought to be more difference between the 20 and the 28. Which would seem to reinforce Brister's point that it takes more than math to explain things, perhaps especially so where the 28ga is concerned.

Larry; ""READ"" that statement on the bottom of page 70, just one more time.
"Apparently the 28 standard load & the 12-gauge are both balanced loads in terms of the length & weight of shot column relative to bore diameter".
Larry, "THAT AIN"T TALKING ABOUT GUN BALANCE" that's talking about load balance. But they simply do not share a similar balance relative to the points he cites.
As to the 28's position relative to the 20 & the 28, bore dia is not the determing factor here but bor capacity. this is relative to the square of their diameter not to their diameter. This why a 1" pipe will deliver 4 times as much water at the same pressure as a ½" pipe having half its diameter.
Bore capacity of the 28 is 80% that of the 20 while the .410 has only 55% that of the 28 (or 44% that of the 20). So yes the 28 is "Supposed" to shoot much closer to the 20 thn the 28. Of course considering the standard loads of the three gauges of 7/8oz, 3/4oz & 1/2oz the 28 is loaded heavier relative to its bore than the 20 & the .410 even heavier.
Effectives which might appear even broder than this would indicate can easily be accounted for, that at skeet range the 28 even in skeet boring is within its effective range, while the .410 is not. Increasing the effectiveness of the 28 then would not be expected to show a significant improvement, reducing it would.
How many 28's do you see at handicap trap?? That you see goes beyond the effective range of the 28.
While the Art & Science of Shotgunong was a very appropriate title of this book & I will add Bob did a very good job on the art aspect, the ballistics are the science part, this is where in several instences & this topic in particular is where he fell somewhar short.
This doesn't really take a rocket scientist to understand.

Meaning no disrespect to Bob Brister, I'd like to point out that being an outstanding shot does not make you an infallible "authority". I know several outstanding shots who "know" all the wrong things about the things we all talk about everyday. Nor does having written a book or two. A lot of what's in any book is just opinion.

Thanks, Miller . . . I got that he wasn't talking about gun balance. You still don't get that he's not talking about balanced TO EACH OTHER--as you stated in your previous post. Nor, once again, does it have anything at all to do with "mathematical balance". Take off your math cap and, if possible, put on your shooter cap. What the man is saying is that the standard 3/4 oz load performs very well in the 28ga, as does the 1 1/4 oz pigeon load in the 12ga. He's talking about results on PATTERN paper (and on targets, and on birds), not on MATH paper.

Read the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted, and it should remove all doubt (if you can lose the calculator for long enough). Referring to "two mysteries in shotgun ammunition" that a Remington employee cannot fully explain: "One is why the 28 gauge is so highly efficient for the shot load it throws and the other is why the 12-gauge pigeon load of 3 1/4 drams of powder and 1 1/4 ounces of shot will pattern beautifully in almost any barrel." There you have his meaning: not balanced with each other, not balanced mathematically by the ratio of the bore size to the length of the shot column. It's all about performance . . . which, after all, is really the bottom line for most shooters.

Jim, I think Brister's book backs up opinion with a good bit more experimentation (and experience) than do many gun books. Some other writers . . . I think they try to look sharp with their words and their mathematical computations to compensate for their lack of capability with a shotgun.

"Jim, I think Brister's book backs up opinion with a good bit more experimentation (and experience) than do many gun books. Some other writers . . . I think they try to look sharp with their words and their mathematical computations to compensate for their lack of capability with a shotgun."

No disagreement there. My point is just that everything that finds its way into print does not necessarily make it gospel. Likely all "gospel" is not necessarily so, either.

Lary;
Since I am such an absolute Idiot & you being so Smart, then would you please explain to me just what this expression means, without applying any Art or Mystery, just plain common Horsesense logic that even I can understand.
Now I did not use "Balanced to one another" that's totally your words. What I said was to quote his words that they were balanced in terms of shot wt & column length in relation to bore DIA. Now DENY that's what he said.
That "in terms of the length and weight of shot column relative to bore diameter" makes it a mathamatical ratio, PERIOD, there's simply no geting around it. As has been well shown the statement as made is simply not correct.
So just what does the 3/4oz 28ga & the 1 1/4oz 12ga loads possess that makes them superior to all other loads in all other gauges. Inquiring minds want to know??? Don't give me no mystery, I just want the Facts Man, Nothing but the Facts.
If I'd wanted to deal in the Occult I would not have bought a book with the word SCIENCE in the title.

That's not your quote, Miller?

You also chopped off the end of Brister's quote . . . you know, the "and other factors" part. Since the "other factors" are not clearly defined, then you can't apply math . . . because you don't know what other factors are involved. (Sorry, neither do I . . . and Brister's dead, so unless you can find a medium that can ask him, we're SOL on that score.)

So, first of all . . . back to YOUR quote: Brister's sentence does NOT say that the "two loads balance one another". Nor does he say, anywhere, that those loads are the very best there are. What he does say--or actually quotes the Remington guy in saying, and seems to agree with--is that "the 28 gauge is so highly efficient for the shot load it throws" (89% pattern on a target moving 40 mph at 35 yards is pretty darned efficient, I'd say!); and that "the 12-gauge pigeon load of 3 1/4 drams of powder and 1 1/4 ounces of shot will pattern beautifully in almost any barrel". Well, I've patterned that load in a few different barrels with different chokes, and it has always looked very good in comparison to other loads through the same barrels (talking pattern % here). And a couple other now-deceased writers named Hill and McIntosh both selected it as their favorite pheasant load. No "magic" involved, Miller . . . just a performance-based evaluation rather than one based on nothing but math. Personally, I'd expect to find such evaluations in a book that has "Art" as well as "Science" in the title.

Larry;
I did not say that he said they balanced one another. Since a 12ga & a 28ga have different bore sizes it should be entirely obvious they don't. What he did say was they used the same criteria, ie they both balanced the wt & column lenth to their bore dias. Again that is not the case, the shot charge of the 28 is slightly heavier than the 12's in proportion to its bore & the column length is not even playing in the same park in that relation.
1¼oz of shot in a nominal 12ga bore, not taking up any space for a shotcup etc, just the bare bore, will have a column length about 18% longer than the bore dia. To maintain the same "Relation" to the bore then the 28 ga would need to also be approx 18% longer than its bore. BUT 3/4oz in the 28ga has a column length, all the same criteria, of about 65% longer than its bore.
To the best of my knowledge no ammo makers have ever attempted to load shells bearing an equivelent ratio of the column length to the bore dia. They do in fact load with the idea of balancing the shot load to the charge wt & burning speed of the selected powder. This is of course done for all wts of shot in all gauges, heavier wts in a given gauge requiring slower powders. When the shot column is balanced to the powder type used then the column length will end up being very nearly the same length for any gauge, when using the same powder. (Ever wonder why normal shells are virtually all close to the same length regardless of gauge), they carried shot loads which were very similar in proportion to their bore. This does apply "Equally" to all the gauges (remember the .410 is not a gauge so is ignored here) there is no Magic or Mystery involved that puts the 3/4oz 28 or the 1 1/4oz 12 in a different catagory than say 7/8oz in a 20 or 1oz in a 16. They all have virtually identical, within a small range, of balance of shot wt in relation to bore. Column length in relation bore of course gets progressively longer as the size of the hole goes down. This is cited as an advantage by some & a disadvantage by others. I really doubt that except in extreme cases, as the 3" .410 it is of much significance as long as the proper powder for the load is selected.
A well bored gun throwing good patterns of about 75% at 40 yds wouuld be expected to produce 95%+ at 35yds. With the target moving at 40mph that 6% reduction would be about normal, a good load certainly but not something which can't be equaled by any gauge with a good load. No Mystery here just a good gun with a good load shooting "Just Like its Supposed to".

Indeed, you didn't say that HE said they balanced one another. Rather, you stated: "If these two loads balance one another . . . " Since you recognize they obviously don't balance one another, why would you make that statement in the first place . . . other than to imply that's what Brister's sentence meant? Looks to me like you were twisting his words, and you're now trying to twist your own to get out of your original twisting. (Where's Chubby Checker when we need him?)

And on your expectations for what a gun will do at various distances, you're starting at 75%, which is already beyond full at 40 yards--and really good for that poor little 28ga, because it's supposed to deform more shot than a larger bore. Black's Wing and Clay, listing full at the standard 70%, suggests an 84% pattern at 35 yards--and that's at a stationary target. And since most people (other than Brister) haven't shot patterns moving at 40 yards, I don't think we can say anything is "normal"--except that I think a 90% pattern at that range, with string in the equation, is a result I think one might have trouble duplicating on a very consistent basis. But I guess we won't know that until we repeat Brister's experiments with moving pattern sheets. And my wife has already told me there's no way she's going to drive the pickup with me shooting.

Well now Larry I am quite knowledgable of the fact that 70% patterns have been considered full choke performance for well over 100 yrs. Yet we say that shells have improved over the years. I read all the time about people claiming they have guns which using modern loads pattern 90%. It is quite obvious a shot which patterned 89% on a moving target at 35yds would have had a stationary pattern at 40 well in excess of 70%. It should also be well noted that to produce such a pattern not only requires an above 70% pattern, but also indicates a load producing a very high rate of central core thickening. For any use that I would desire to use a 28 I would find this more a - than a +, but then that's just me.
As to the wording, well I was a machinist, not a writer, I do believe though you well understood that I was simply using Bob's statement that they were both balanced relative to their bores. Bear in mind the word balance indicates a comparsion to Something. His own statement was that it was "Their Bores". I adequately explained why they were not.
"IF" I had the financial means Larry, I would equip the trailer, haul it to Iowa, buy a sufficient quanity of what ever brand of 3/4oz 28 ga loads you desired. I would then personally drive the tow truck while you did the shooting. I am quite positive we would very quickly establish that was not typical performance for the load.
The "ART" in this would be placing the shot effectively on the moving board. The Science would be the % of shot within the 30" circle. I do have the intelligence to distinguish meaning of the two words. If there is some factor of ART which applies to the ballistics of a shotgun please do inform me of it.

Miller, I doubt we'll resolve this one, because you're moving faster than Brister's moving targets. You now go back to the loads being balanced to "their bores", which is VERY different that your "balance one another" phrase, which apparently is now somewhere distant in your rearview mirror (where it belongs). The previous sentence in Brister's book holds the key: whatever the mathematical relation between the length and weight of shot column relative to bore diameter (and other factors), the result is "highly efficient for the shot load it throws". In other words, balanced in terms of the patterns they deliver.

And you're now doing backwards math. I agree that a load which patterns 89% at 35 yards is almost certainly going to pattern better than 70% at 40 yards. So, let's follow the logic on that one and arrive at what it means: That particular choke and load is highly efficient; more efficient than your average full choke, regardless of gauge or load, since the standard for full choke at 40 yards is only 70%. So, in essence, you've come round to agreeing with Brister that, in fact, the 28 is indeed "highly efficient for the shot load it throws"--because otherwise it would not produce patterns like that. Particularly when it has to deal with more potential shot deformation (coming out of that skinny little bore) than do the larger gauges, all else being equal.

The art of the whole thing is that some loads in some gauges, for whatever reason--likely having nothing at all to do with a "balanced" load, or a "square" load--simply perform better than one would expect them to, going purely on mathematics and theory. it's a bit like choke in that regard. Squeeze the barrel a little, the pattern gets a little tighter. Squeeze it a little more, it gets a little tighter. Squeeze it too much, and it ceases to get tighter, and at a certain point may get looser. Before Kimble or Pape or whomever else came up with that concept, no one had any idea it would work that way. And until they constricted the bore too much, they had no idea that there was any such thing as too much constriction. Now, I expect there's a scientific explanation for it. But the discovery was based on art: shooting targets without knowing what the results would be. Pretty much like shooting certain loads to see which ones work better in which gauges and chokes. Balanced load or square load doesn't get us there. Playing around with shells and shooting patterns does. That's art. All the theories and math in the world won't get you there . . . except those theories and math derived from the art that's evolved from 150 years or so of playing around with chokes and loads. What science there is, in those areas, came AFTER a whole lot of trial and error and experimentation. No theory I know of said "3/4 oz is the right load for the 28ga", or "A 1 1/4 oz load will work particularly well in a 12ga". All reached by trial and error. Would've been a whole lot easier if someone with a pencil and paper could have told shooters those things based on whatever theory they might have had . . . but that's not the way it worked.

This is a direct quote from you Larry, which is the post which precipitated this lengthy discussion. For making a poor choice of wording, in my frustration, I humbly appoligize. However I am quite certain both you & myself understood from the get-go this "Relative to Bore Size" was what I was referring to. My posts were all addressed to this point.
Now for the sake of a good honest un-prejudiced discussion indulge me just one more time in a little math, which is actually more in your favor.
Shot deformation is generally accredited to two causes; inertial set back of the charge which affects the rear-most shot the most & barrel scrub occuring to the shot on the outer periphery in contact with the inner barrel wall. Shot cups have eliminated much of the latter & better cushioning have helped a lot with the former.
The inertial set back is of course affected by the length of the column. Hercules/Alliant handloaders guides over the years have given us a convinent chart showing the length of 1oz of shot in the various gauges. This shows the 12ga 1 1/4oz, 16ga 1oz, 20ga 7/8oz & 28ga 3/4oz all having a very similar actual physical length ranging from a short of .84" for the 16ga to a long of .91" for the 28, thus a max variation of less than 10%. Average of the four is .865 which is almost exactly that of the 12ga. Note though this is simply measured length, relative to nothing except the English Inch measuring system. When that "Relative to Bore Dia" is thrown in then what is denoted is the length in ratio to bore diameter or L:D. In this case the 12ga then becomes the shortest @ L:D :: 1.18:1 with the 28 being the longest @ L:D :: 1.65:1. Now for Bob's benefit, you see I am not realy trying to disparage the deceased, just trying to put his work in perspective, I think it quite likely he had a slight lapse in vocabulary (See I'm not the only one) & didn't really intend to put the column length relative to the bore. Most likely he was infering the two shot "Weights" were loaded relative to their bores which resulted in essentially equal column lengths. This I would have agreed with 100%.
To now put the .410 in perspective to this even the 1/2oz load has a 26% longer column length than the average of the 4 gauges above @ 1.09", with 3/4oz of shot it jumps to 1.635" or close to double that .865 average. Relative to bore that 3/4oz load is nearly 4 times as long as it is broad.
Thus when the science is applied the 28ga is not;

a skinny little bore in anything like the sense a .410 is. It is in fact just a slight step below a 20 while it is a giant leap down to the .410. The inertial set back is no greater than the "Larger Gauges", only the bbl contact is increased, but nowhere near that of even the 1/2oz .410 load.
The only Mystery to me is that he apparently did not seem to realize this even prior to his tests. He seems to have "Expected" it to perform more akin to the .410 thus his proclamation it shot better than it was "Supposed" to. Bottom line is the 28 always has & most likely always will shoot much closer to the 20 than to the .410 "Its Scientifically or Ballistically Supposed to" no mystery there at all.
As to the Remington ballistician I note he only applied the 1¼oz to the "Pigeon" load, not even all 12ga 1¼oz loads. No exact timeline is given for when all those patterns were fired, quite possibly many of them extended back to the pre plastic cushion/shot cup day. It is highly likely that pigeon load as well as most of the 28ga loads (At that point in time primarily intended for target shooters) were loaded with premium shot & the best of other components. These loads could quite well have been expected to pattern better than the run of the mill "Shur-Shot" field loads which were produced in greater quanity to a much closer cost point. Bob doesn't state Neil Oldridge's position with Remington nor what knowledge he should have had on the matter. As he had knowlwdgs of the patterns perhaps he was the man who fired the patterns, but didn't truly investigat what was inside the various loads. Perhaps his surprise re the 28 was that it was so much better than the .410 3/4oz load.
In Bob's own words on the shot-string he him self stated that due to the constraints of the process he was unable to run enough tests to be "Stastically Reliable". This is totally understandable & is not meant as any reflection upon him, but it certainly needs to be borne in mind. I am fully of the belief that if Statistically Reliable data were run with all 4 of the above loads in 12, 16, 20 & 28 all mystery would totally disappear & each would fall into place, producing extremely similar patterns with their effectibeness being proportional to the charge wts.
Until proven otherwise I will stand upon this & can see no magic or mystery involved in hole size. If there were would a.005" over or under bore throw it totally out of kilter??

If you have an older gun that has short cone for the old roll turn over cases,then by all means have the gun rechambered to a modern profile . I have done this on a lot of guns whilst not actually deepening the chamber past it proof tolerances.
About15 years ago long forcing cones became the "in thing" hear in the UK a trend that has now been long forgotten. The proof house did some tests and concluded that there was no or no significant difference in recoil or barrel pressures. The pundits raved on about easier shooting and a reduction in "muzzle flip"{?}.
I was at a game fair on the GTA stand and the subject came up ,I was asked "As professional gunsmith what is your opinion?".
My answer was as follows" I have no opinion ,but at £35.00 a time ,I'll do them all day".

Actually Miller, if you go back and reread, you'll find that "The moving target . . . " quote is one I lifted directly from Brister. His, not mine. That's why I put " " around it.

The difference in column length relative to bore diameter between the 12 and the 28 certainly looks pretty significant to me, even if the length of the two shot columns are quite close. And as I pointed out elsewhere (I think . . . this is getting pretty long!), the difference in bore diameter between the .410 and the 28ga is only about twice what it is between the 28 and the 20. If we go by those measurements . . . then yes, the 28 should indeed perform close to a 20 than to a .410--but not nearly as much closer as it does.

As for the 1 1/4 oz 12ga loads, I did some fairly recent pattern testing on 3 loads, all 1 1/4 oz: 3 1/4 DE, 3 3/4 DE, and I believe the last is max DE (it's a 1500 fps lead load). I'll dig a little and see if I can find my results, but I know how they finished in terms of pattern percentage: In the order I just listed them. The problem these days is finding that old "pigeon load" formula in anything larger than 7 1/2's. In 6's or 5's, it's a great pheasant load.

Found the pattern tests I ran, fall 2008. The 3 loads were Federal Flyer (3 1/4 DE, no longer exists in that format); Winchester Super-X High Brass (3 3/4 DE); and Federal Premium Wing Shok (the 1500 fps load). No cheap "game loads" in the bunch. I did a pellet count on each variety before testing. Test patterns shot at 35 yards (the practical limit of my old backyard testing range). Results: Fed Flyer--91%; Win Super X--86%; Fed 1500 fps--78%. I've achieved similar results in the past when patterning 12ga hunting loads. Too bad all the ammo makers keep pushing more speed on us, because that old pigeon formula has always produced great patterns for me, in several different guns.

Larry;
Maybe, just maybe you're starting to actually think a little, you do however still have a ways to go.
Consider however the 28 & the 20 gauges are much more "Alike" than are the 28ga & the .410. Anyone who "Expects" a major difference in the performance of the 20 & 28 simply have their expectations misplaced.
Discount the occasional shot made where a single pellet happens to luckily strike a vital spot at a range at which the shot should not have actually been fired. Outside this the effective killing range of a shotgun, assuming pellets having adequate penetration, is determined by the density of the pattern insuring adequate hits on the target, but I have no doubt you are fully familiar with this.
Staying with the same size of shot there are three ways of increasing this range, 1; a heavier load of shot, 2; A tighter choke & the third one is a pattern giving a higher rate of central core thickening.
As pointed out even though these various loads have been showed to have very close actual lengths of column (not including the .410) the length relative to bore is significantly different. This puts a higher % of the shot in bore contact. With soft, unprotected shot this is a decided disadvantage due to shot deformation from scrubbing & direct contact with both the forcing & choke cones, many still relate to that.
Many today have made the claim that firing good hard shot with a properly cushioned shot cup the effect given to the smaller bore is that increased central core thickening will give the small gun a longer effective range, even from a choke giving the same overall percentage. The price paid is of course a lesser diameter killing circle requiring more accurate shooting.
There is however no mystery involved here at all, it is pure mathematics.

Gee, 8 pages and all I wanted to know was if forcing cones neede to opened up

After 4 pages I stop reading as either the topic changes or we have another p*ssing contest.......

And I find boths sides interesting,

Well, we certainly agree that the 28 and the 20 are more alike than the 28 and the .410. You don't really need any math to get there. Well, maybe a little . . . enough to tell that the 20 and the 28 are closer in bore diameter than are the 28 and the .410.

But, assuming all you say is true, this still seems at least somewhat mysterious to me: not only does the 28 have a smaller bore, meaning that the shot is more likely to deform (assuming equal protection furnished by wads and equal hardness); but the 20, in its standard skeet load, has 1/6 more pellets (7/8 oz vs 3/4 oz) than does the 28. Yet the skeet averages quoted by Brister are virtually identical. About 1% difference. Seems to me the 20 ought to show more of an advantage than that.

Larry;
Put your thinking cap back on for a bit. Fact is, at skeet ranges the 28 is capable of running near perfect scores, with misses being the fault of the shooter more so than the gun. "IF" one is breaking 98-99 out of 100 with the 28, then maximum improvement which would be possible would be 2% even if a 10ga with 2oz of shot was used.

Sort of like if I take a .22LR to the squirrell woods & kill a TN limit of 6 with 6 shots, I would not expect to have a higher kill/shot ratio if I carried a .32-20, But, on the other hand, If I were shooting Coyote??

Take the 28 & the 20 to a handicap trap range. Start at the 16yd line & keep baking up after firing a statistically reliable numer at each point. If the 28 seems to still retain the same effectivness, First pat your self on the back, You're a great shot. But be well aware it will have done so because of the afore mentioned central density of the pattern either from a higher percentage overall pattern or from an increased percentage of the central core thickening, Either which is accomplished at the expense of a reduced effective kill circle, there simply is "No Free Lunch".

I don't have Brister's book in front of me but recall that the 20 ga skeet scores he looked at were closer to the 28 ga scores than the 12 ga. scores, suggesting that, although a 20 ga. falls exactly between a 12 and a 28 gauge-wise, it "underperformed" a bit relative to the other two gauges. Maybe he was not using a perfect metric, but those scores would indicate there is not a linear relationship between gauge and effectiveness at the skeet range.

Of course we don't know what loads were being shot for all of those scores . . . .

Thanks, Miller . . . having run a few straights myself at skeet with the 28ga, I'm quite well aware that it can be done. (And having seen better gun hands than me shoot skeet with a .410, I'm convinced I could not do it with one of those.) But you're not looking at Brister's reference. He was not talking about the best skeet shooters in the world. Rather, he was talking about B class, which is pretty good, but certainly not great. These are guys who average 93-94% with a 12ga, so they're not likely to average 98-99% with a 28. (And remember, this is a pretty large data base we're talking about here--not just one guy on one day.) The same guys averaged 91% with a 20ga, and 90% with a 28ga. That means they're dropping 1 target out of 100 when they should have, to use your words, "a reduced effective kill circle"--because they're throwing a lighter shot charge. So apparently that effective kill circle has not been reduced by much--at that range. It likely would be, if those targets were out beyond 30 yards. But at skeet range, the gun gives up essentially nothing to the 20ga--which is why it's such a good choice for game usually shot at close range--like grouse and woodcock, and quail. Not a good choice, for sure, for birds shot at longer range and/or requiring shot sizes larger than about 7 1/2 because, as you said, there's no free lunch.

Larry;
You make some very good points there. I think the answer here is, that even those B class shooters which are averaging 90-91% are still quite good shots, though not up to the absolute top yet. However it would also seem that most of the misses were not due to a properly centered pattern failing to break the target, but were either missed or fringed. The fact that from the 3/4oz 28 all the way up through the 1 1/8oz 12ga only a 3-4% difference shows does indeed reflect there is not that much difference in pattern spread or distribution between them. As the shot load gets heavier it will pick up a target or two in the fringe that the lighter charge failed to break, & some part of those unbroken may well have just been totally beyond even the fringes. As the range increases & becomes more difficult you would see the lighter charges dropping in their % of breaks at a faster rate than the heavier charges, & it would not really matter whether that 3/4oz load were fired through the 28 or a 20, effect would be based more on the wt of shot than size of the hole.

you almost need an umbrella for this discussion...

Miller, it'd be interesting to compare 3/4 oz 20ga vs 28ga patterns. Theoretically, there'd be some advantage to the 20 due to reduced pellet deformation. Wonder how much??

Larry;
That would be an interesting experiment. My suspicians are that if ordinary chilled shot were loaded over card & filler wadding the 20 would show a decided advantage due to lesser deformation of shot. With premoium shot & a good qualirt shot cup I think this difference would be mosyly eliminated. What I would definitely like to see done when these tests were run would be for a half size circle (15") drawn concentric with the outer 30" one. Counting the hits in the inner circle & multiplying by 3 then dividing by the hits in the outer ring gives the ratio of central core thickening for the half dia ring.