doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Backboring a 20ga

Chuck:
Didn't know you picked up a replacement for RBL. I am with Jerry - look at the 16 ga Charles Lancaster I e-mailed you about, it weighs 6.0 lbs - as it should. The same gunmaker has a 20 ga Henry Monk at 5 lbs 5 oz if you are looking to lose some real weight.

Mike

I find it rather odd that the experimenter got 30% patterns out of a full choke barrel and then got near 90% patterns out of the same barrel after it was opened up ten thousandths, same choke constriction, and never thought that was off the scale strange. In the science business, that would be considered a throwaway piece of research until it could be duplicated.

Don't you have a 20ga XT, Chuck? You could pattern it...

C'mon Bill, if you're famiiiar with scientific studies, you know as well as many here that nearly none of the gun testing of the past meets the bar. It is what it is, a data point. Throw away data? I think not. Absent any actual data to the contrary, it's at the very least, an indicator. What I see is a polarized group about the benefits of barrel work; those that say it's worthless and those that say it works.

Sometimes I get the impression some believe that a piece of waterpipe would do as well. There are those that strongly believe that the subtleties of the load make huge differences yet the same group may not believe barrel subtleties can make similar differences. Frankly, I don't quite understand all the skepticism with regard to the barrel work. OK, maybe the recoil reduction thing is a highly disputable issue, but the effect on patterns from physical internal finish, contour or diameter changes would seem to be ... I dunno, less contriversial?? So ... all internal bores are equal in performance no matter the maker?

Well, Chuck, how about I've been counting patterns for about 50 years or better and I've never seen a 30% pattern out of a full choke barrel but I've seen people that couldn't hit the pattern board or count or do simple math. I'd much prefer to vote for one of the two later possibilities after 50 years of empirical experience shooting a shotgun. I think I could throw a 30% pattern with my hands, no shotgun. OK, that's an exaggeration, but not by much.

Dare I mention Becker barrels????
Best,
John

Bill, c'mon now. Countin holes don't take a degree in physics nor do I think you believe it requires decades to learn. I've read Brian's input here for years and I think he can count. And I have faith that Brian can hit a stationary board as I have faith that you can also. I don't see a reason to discredit Brian's intelligence or abilities here. However, I do believe there are things that weren't quantified in posting of his experiment, like the internal contour of the choke at the begining along with surface finish, etc, etc, etc. But, Brian did what he did and it's data. The tests indicate the changes he made to the bore caused improvement from what he started with. I think that shows at the very least that internal barrel differences matter.

Eightbore,
Let me get this straight-my Darne is going to remove the fired cartridge, with it's now separated base, lay it in my hand, just like it always does, and I am going to pocket the thing, just like I always do, and not notice the 'coupla inches of plastic missing from the base?

Do you know how Darne ejectors (not a good word, for this application, really) work? Are you sure? Because it sure doesn't sound like you thought about that statement very hard.

I save my empties, but not to reload. I don't leave clutter in the field, regardless of gun type. The English CIP cartridges I've used for several seasons (say, about 20) don't seem to have a huge problem with separating bases, bloopers, or what-have-you, in my humble experience. Can't say I've spent money on promotional loads, once fired anything, or old ammunition, myself.

I'll be sure to keep an eye out for it. In the meantime, perhaps you might consider better quality ammunition for use in your stuff? Just a thought. You know, a very highly regarded English gunsmith here in the states considers the American penchant for reloading, and the home reloading press the key to his survival and prosperity, by supplying a never ending stream of Fubar-ed barrels on double guns for him to repair. Nothing like putting the money where one's mouth is. Good for him, eh?
Best,
Ted

No dog in this fight but I'll tell you this: the average .720" dia. 12 ga. target wad will "obturate", swell, seal, or kick up its skirt even in a nominal 10 ga. bore--.779" Ray Barnes "Moneymaker" on a m12 in this case--to produce what I consider, in my fuzzyheaded, subjective way, to be pretty even distributions of shot in the patterns. The gun has killed a couple of pheasant at 35 yds. with 1 oz. so I'd guess the shot was going fast enuf to at least dispatch a mash-fed, designated victim. The .023" they need to expand in the bore of a Silver Snipe or an old Super is no big deal, in fact it's a pretty sticky passage if the effort to push a stuck one out of an underbored gun is any indication. I hadn't noticed that they pattern with more consistent distribution than do the "miracle" overbores. There must be wads designed for the current commonality of overbored 12 ga. barrels. I'm looking at an old Remington Power Piston Post and a CB-1100-12. Big difference in the depth of the skirts and the CB has four "incipient" serrations around the circumference. Plastic overpowder cups are a lot better pump washers than were fiber wads. Seems to me the older style of steep cone means that fiber got pushed from both sides to achieve the proper amount of lateral expansion. Why would anyone expect fiber to expand adequately in a gun with virtually no forcing cone. And John can dare to mention Becker but only Buckingham gets any respect. Dare I mention those .741" Lefevers?

jack

Sorry for the delayed response time to your question, Bill. Its the day job, ya know ;-)

On the obturation remark, it had to do with that old Nemesis, AKA 'Blooper', that hollow fonky sound that tells you the wad took a nap rather than fulfilling its intended purpose .. figuratively speaking, of course. In fact, I attributed the something less than a bang to the bbl's modified configuration, a combination of longer cones and bigger bore. Never chrono'd any of them. Could have I guess, but didn't feel the need or see the point. Would suspect their velocities would have been a lot more than 35 fps off, tho that's obviously speculative on my part. Hope this helps clarify my earlier remark about card, felt & mono wad obturation experiences, with that particular gun. No other 20 that I have had or have does the fonky sound ritual with any of those older wads.

John, I don't have a Becker 20, but wouldn't mind a remedy for that disparity, at the right price ;-)