S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
442
guests, and
5
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,466
Posts545,088
Members14,409
|
Most Online1,258 Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,149 Likes: 1147
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,149 Likes: 1147 |
It would have to be VERY similar. Same LOP, DAC,DAH, pitch, castoff, weight grip style, etc. Then, the shooter himself would have to hold the gun exactly the same, which we do not always do.
When I find a gun that is not regulating properly I go back and shoot the plate again, maybe even a total of three different days, to ensure that it's not me. _________________________
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,714 Likes: 414
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,714 Likes: 414 |
That's strange Stan. I have guns with quite different LOPs, DACs, DAHs, Castoffs, weights, grips, and so forth and yet they all tend to regulate very well - save one.
The patterns were essentially tangential and remained so over any distance or load that I wished to try. I'd bet it was the gun, not the shooter.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
I have followed this thread with interest and to its conclusions . It is a phenomenon I have encountered so many times ,that it is in fact the shooter not the gun, though many people still find it hard to admit to it . It all comes down to mount , stance and gun control by which I mean the actual holding and grip on the gun. Over the years and having done hundreds of gun fittings it has been my conclusion that 60% plus of shooters problems are they themselves and many problems can be overcome by simple adjustments to the individuals handling of the gun in question . Finally some common sense and reason...
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,527 Likes: 79
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,527 Likes: 79 |
BrentD I did say 60% . But what you talk about as regulated and what I talk about may well be two different things . A subject that has been argued about in the past and I do not think there will ever be agreement as to what it is .
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,714 Likes: 414
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,714 Likes: 414 |
BrentD I did say 60% . But what you talk about as regulated and what I talk about may well be two different things . A subject that has been argued about in the past and I do not think there will ever be agreement as to what it is . Im talking about regulation being the two barrels shoot to the same center (with some room for minor discrepancies). Are you talking about shooting to the point of aim? Nitrah's original post was with regards to both, one barrel does not shoot with the other and only one barrel shoots to point of aim. I think it was the lack of pattern overlap that was the bigger issue however, and that has always been the definition of regulation as I have known it. I do not think the shooter is a big influence in that factor.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,149 Likes: 1147
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,149 Likes: 1147 |
Brent, you seem to be discounting the entire concept of lateral recoil affecting pattern placement according to which shoulder the gun is being fired from.
Nitrah just proved that mount,etc., can affect one barrel more than the other. With proper mounting and gun control his pattern went back to where the other barrel's pattern is.
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,714 Likes: 414
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,714 Likes: 414 |
Stan within some small amount, sure it matters, but remarkably little. Hard to see how mount affects one barrel more than another. If it did, what was the unshot barrel doing? Going the other direction? Nitrah has, as I understand it, nonoverlapping patterns. That's not some small amount.
Keep in mind that no one is fitted for regulation when a gun is built but rather it is regulated at the factory - almost always with no problems - and then shot by unknown owners or at least persons whose mount and shooting shooting styles are unknown to the mechanics doing the regulating.
If regulation was so sensitive to the individual shooting it, we would never get anywhere with these vintage guns without having to take them down to bare barrels and rebuild them.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 512 Likes: 58
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 512 Likes: 58 |
Well success at last, at the suggestion of JP from Dickson and another friend I put a pad on the stock to compensate for the cast off and lo and behold my Dickson shoots spot on. Now the problem can I bend a stock with way too much cast off back without breaking the stock? It needs maybe 1/2 to 5/8" bend at heel
This ain't a dress rehearsal , Don't Let the Old Man IN
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,714 Likes: 414
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,714 Likes: 414 |
Well, that sounds like good news. I'm a little surprised, but whatever works.
If it was bent and not carved with that cast off, one would think it should be relatively easily to bend it back.
Have you bent stocks before?
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 666 Likes: 45
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 666 Likes: 45 |
I shot absolutely horribly with a lightweight BLNE that had too much cast off. Sold it to a stouter fellow and the problem was solved. On that gun, the stock was not bent, but stocked that way from the maker. You can see in this post how the gun was just built that way. https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubb...2198#Post442198
|
|
|
|
|