Hi all, I have a nice SxS that is currently choked .000/.005 and I wanted to get some more choke out of her. Jug choking seemed to be the answer, but I was concerned about the wall thickness. It was suggested I give Heritage Gunsmiths a call. I did and they said that they could "sleeve" choke into the bbls. The cost is $250 per bbl.

Can anyone comment on this process as I've never heard of this before?

Thanks so much!!

Greg

the muzzle is bored to accept a short sleeve that is soldered in, then reamed to the choke you want.i don't know if thin wall choke tubes might be a better idea unless you don't like choke tubes.i think Brownells sells the sleeve so you could look them up to get an idea of what they are. mc

Mike Orlen does/did choke sleeving, and there was a how-to article a few years ago in one of the online magazines.

It is a perfectly good process, if done well. It is much like chamber sleeving, but on the other end of the barrel.

Thanks all, just added something new to the old noodle - learn something new everyday!

Thanks again!

Greg

so if I understand this correctly, choke sleeving is an alternative to jug choking if you are looking to increase constriction (Cyl to IC for instance) and don't want to install removable chokes. If that is the case, is there any reason to choose choke sleeving over jug choking (sounds like the latter might be easier and less expensive)?

Maybe you did so already but try different loads at the ranges you intend to kill at and see if you really need more choke. My experience suggests few need as much as they think and that missing down range has more to do with being off line than pattern failure.

Thanks Dig. That was more of a hypothetical question - I am just curious about what the options might be, as I wonder if some of the vintage guns with really open chokes suffer in the market because of the perception (valid or otherwise) that they are too open-choked to be useful. I assume jug-choking results in reduced BWT near the muzzle (in the section of the bore that is opened up ahead of the "jug", in which case BWT could become a concern in an older gun that already seen some polishing. I would think choke sleeving would be an alternative in that case.

gjw:
The article you refer to is in the Nov - Dec 2005 issue of Double Gun Classics, A copy is available from Cornell Publications.

And, Dig is right. I hit 99% of what I lead properly with Cyl or Full.

Best, Kensal

I had my M 21 choke sleeved in one barrel. It was cyl and i wanted about a .010. I had Briley do it and it has worked well.

The section that you would jug choke is the thinnest part of a side-by-side barrel and your thinning of the walls to achieve it is likely to devalue the gun more than a lack of choke affects its value.

I don't believe I'd ever buy a gun with this type of redone choking. I would much rather have an open choked gun.....in fact I do have several of them. I would also bet that more upland birds have been missed because of too much choke than because of too little choke.

Dig:
Value is almost beside the point here. A Teague liner reduces the same portion of the barrel -- but replaces it with solid metal, even thicker. Same with choke sleeving. In effect, the barrel gets thicker... albeit in two pieces, same as Teague.

Quality of the job and practical use of the gun are paramount here. Not so much value.

Best, Kensal

I'm in the same boat as Greg on this one, with a gun choked cyl/sk. I'm looking at jug choking or choke sleeving. It's not that you can't hit with cyl chokes, it's that crippling becomes an issue much past 25-30 yds. I had a chukar I thought was dead in my game vest show up on my work table the next morning, standing there waiting for me to dispatch the poor bird. That's not an experience I care to repeat.

I have a Lancaster SLE, circa 1920, that was jug choked somewhere along the line. Bore diameters are in the 732-733 range, so it has not been honed very much. Minimum BWT in the neighborhood of the "jugs" is still mid-20's. That far down the tubes, pressure isn't really an issue any more. However, I agree that if barrel walls are already thin and jug choking would take them below .020, then the risk from denting might well become a more serious issue.

Stallones, what does it look like? Is it visible?

I disagree entirely with the premise that open chokes are ineffective beyond 25-3- yards. I shoot everything with only 3 thou and 7 thou of choke.

I would advocate experimenting with cartridges before reducing walls behind the muzzles to produce some choke effect.

my experience mirrors Greg's on wild roosters. I like a bit more choke to penetrate the back of a going away bird. Crossing birds and incomers are a different story, but we do not get that many of those over my Springers compared to the going away birds.

This is not difficult. Either leave it alone and shoot it like it is, or have Briley Thinwalls installed. End of story.
JR

FWIW, I think Dig is spot on. I also believe he has access to a greater variety of factory loaded ammunition than we do (and the quality of what we find on the shelves seems to go down every year) and some time spent at the patterning board is very revealing in two ways-what kind of patterns you get with different loads, and how lonely it is at the patterning board.
Myself and my Father are the only people I know who ever patterned shotguns. I'm betting from his comments (that mirror my experience) I could add Dig to that short list.
Mike McIntosh was pretty close on what choke was needed in this day and age. Few have listened.

Best,
Ted

This is not a comment for the original poster who asked a very good question, but "Why do people who own twenty shotguns insist that every one do everything?". And, "Why do some people insist on giving gunsmiths all their gun money?".

Guys that shoot quickly over pointing dogs probably don't need any choke and could probably use spreader loads too. Hell, they don't even need a 12 or 16 ga over a pointing dog.

Guys with flushing dogs have a little more distance to deal with quite often. But a half decent owner won't be surprized by a flush very often over his flushing dog. So he'll be ready to shoot.

Anyone that has hunted fields in the line abreast and blocker methods of the midwest will know that moderate amounts of choke are an advantage most of the time. A blocker with a full choked 12ga is at a distinct advantage over a guy with a cylinder bore gun.

Depends on what you're shooting over pointing dogs. I've shot a bunch of wild pheasants, having lived most of my life in Iowa and having had a fair amount of time available to hunt them--and just getting them pointed is only half the battle. The other half is having them sit until you're within range. I prefer a double with not much choke in the first barrel for that kind of hunting, but at least light mod in the tight barrel. I used to have a pair of Brit 12's, the #1 gun choked that way, and #2 choked skeet/IM for later season birds or those days when they're a bit wilder. The vast majority of my first shots come inside of 30 yards, and I think it makes sense to have your gun choked (at least in one barrel) to deal with the majority of your shots. But it's also nice to have something tighter for the longer chances.

Re chokes for blockers, I think it depends on how far apart they're positioned. Midwest pheasant country is mostly flat, which means the birds in general aren't going to be extremely high, although shots might be long laterally if the blockers are spaced widely. A good friend has a McKay Brown OU choked .010 in both barrels, for driven birds. That's not specifically for the shoots with the very tall birds, and it's a bit tighter than Dig's chokes. But it takes considerably less to kill pheasants shot from the front or as crossers--the shots that blockers get on field drives in the States, or that guns get on driven shoots abroad. And due to terrain and vegetation (trees), British driven birds will often come over the guns a good bit "taller" than they will over the blockers on an American-style field drive. 2 1/2" 12's, shooting no more than 1 1/8 oz (and often 1 1/16 oz), work quite well on driven shoots that don't specialize in "archangels". For that matter, I use mostly 1 1/16 oz Brit 6's in my first barrel for wild, walked up roosters over pointing dogs. There seems to be a mania for heavier and faster pheasant loads these days, but Hill, Brister, and McIntosh all pretty much agreed on 1 1/4 oz 6's at around 1220 fps as being maybe the best all-around pheasant load. Given that roosters have not taken to wearing Kevlar, nor are they any faster than they used to be, I think most folks would do just as well with lighter and/or slower loads than what American ammo companies are now touting as their best pheasant loads.

Larry
With the limits placed on the number of hunters allowed in one field, blockers often see long crossers in our group hunts in SD.

Since Ive been using mostly 20g and 410 in the past few yrs, most of pheasant shooting is with 1 oz /20g and 11/16 or 3/4 oz with a 410. With 20g and larger, an open for choke and a tight one is a favorite of mine too. Same with a 410 on the quail. But for pheasant with a 410 I prefer both a choked tight.

Chuck--You must be in some pretty big groups. Thought the number 20 stuck in my head as the legal maximum for a pheasant hunting platoon. Checked the SD game laws and found that for once I didn't misremember.

FWIW my money would be on thin-walled choke tubes like Briley makes. You would have much more flexibility and the modification most likely will leave the gun no less "original" than sleeving. Briley thin walls tend to pattern nicely, too.

Since I have a few shotguns, I can pick and choose for different situations. If I buy a cylinder bored gun, it stays that way. Since about 98% of my guns have choke in the right barrel, I would not be inclined to add choke in a cylinder bored right barrel.

Larry,
Yes, our groups can get big. Still, our blockers can be spaced apart pretty far, since mostly the older guys block and there's a limited number of them.

You take me back to glorious "brass monkey" late-season pheasant hunting in Nebraska. As an ex-pat in "The People's Republic of New York State", I sure do miss those!

One thing that I learned in those days is that shot penetration on pheasants has a lot more to do with pellet energy than it does with choke. In cold weather, even #6 shot can offer marginal penetration on going-away shots due, I suspect to the effect of the cold on powders and primers and, possibly, to the ability of plastic wads to "seal". I found, originally in muzzleloading guns, that large shot traveling at low velocities (1000 f.p.s, or even less) can penetrate pheasant dorsal areas a lot more effectively than smaller shot traveling faster (nominally 1200 f.p.s. to 1330 f.p.s.). #5 shot seems to be the minimum for such loads. (According to Zutz, such loads, loaded with lead #4's, can kill geese reliably at 60 yards if the gun is properly choked.)

If it were me (And, boy do I wish that it "were"!) I would consider using Holy Black powder (Start with Ffg granulation.) to put together approximately 2 3/4 x 1 1/4 loads (for 2 1/2-inch loads) to roughly 3 x 1 1/2 loads (for 2 3/4-inch loads) using either lead #5 or #4 shot, if your hunting areas allow the use of the old-fashioned "pizened pellets". Powder and shot charges and wadding should be adjusted to achieve the best patterns. I would not be too surprised if even smaller powder charges might yield the best-quality patterns.

I would use these loads at least in your cylinder barrel but I suspect that, with time, these shells will end up in both "tubes". I think that you might be pleasantly surprised at how well such loads pattern and how well they hold up in cold weather. Great grandpaw might have had it right: Little powder, much lead; shoots far, kills dead.

Has it ever been scientifically established that one can overpet a Springer (or, does one's arm fall off first)? I miss these merry little companions, too.

No, it is not visible from the muzzle, but you can see a tiny
line looking from the breech.

Dinglefutz, you made me remember the last batch of my favorite duck loads that I loaded just before the no tox shot loads were mandated. I used to load worn AA empties with 1 1/4 ounces of soft #4 shot, a #114 Winchester wad and just enough Herco to reach 1150 to 1175 fps. It is a low pressure load, probably safe in any Damascus barrel, but deadly on big mallards and pheasants. In those days, I didn't have to use them on pheasants, but today I might. I have a few of those shells left, use them only for pattern tests on big Parkers and Foxes. I would feel very comfortable with those loads in a cylinder bore gun on preserve pheasants.

I think the main attraction to choke sleeving vs. Briley's, at least for me, is the roughly $300 price difference.

Increasing choke results in a decrease in pattern area, but an increase in pattern density--the result being a pattern that's more effective at longer range. Although the shotgun remains a short range weapon, the discovery of choke made it into a slightly longer range weapon.

Another reason that penetration on pheasants becomes more of an issue in cold weather is the birds themselves. Early season, you're shooting quite a few roosters of the year that aren't yet fully fledged. While birds don't grow a heavier coat of feathers to keep them warm in winter (as do many mammals), by late season the birds of the year will be more heavily feathered than they were just a couple months earlier, simply due to maturation. Late season pheasants are also carrying more fat than mid to late October birds. They're storing it up as extra insulation to get them through the coldest part of the winter, when snow can be deep and food scarce. Especially on going-away shots at some distance, penetration can be an issue.

I think there's truth to both sides of the discussion above.

1. You need enough shot to cover the target to increase the probability of a vital hit.

2. You need enough retained energy in each of those pellets to penetrate to the vitals.

Those two facts accuratley stated by Chuck is why the Shotgun is a short range firearm. An improvement on either will most often result in a loss for the other. For any given situation one simply has to try & work out the best balance between the two.