one thing I need explained to me is how a flared muzzle can produce a "close shooting" (i.e. maintained compactness of a full choke pattern) barrel.
jack
Jack, Just like today, everyone has a "gimmick". Just because someone makes a claim to have the best idea and reports wonderful results does not always mean they or correct, Sometimes deceit is evident but many times they just convince themselves. How many people do you know who have the "magic" gun just because they have made a few shots that were in reality luck? Many times true breakthroughs come from gimmick concoctions and they were at least on track that bore manipulation could have an effect on pattern. This was a gimmick that some bought into for quite a while. Into the 18th century,some guns were produced with this flare. As pre-cut wads became the standard after the double gun took over, these barrels were a pain to get the components down flatly. Jim Hash, a master contemporary gunbuilder built such a gun for a client and had to make a form of false muzzle so he could use standardized wads and cards and be able to get the down the barrel without getting sideways.
I am including again the quote from "An Essay on Shooting" from the 1780's which discounts this flaring process as useless.
"Some make the barrel wider for three or four inches at the muzzle; and this bell-mouthed form is of very ancient date.
Espinar,whose treatise has already been mentioned,says he has generally found this succeed in making barrels throw their shot closer. Were this true, we should expect to find this form of barrel more generally used than it is at present and not hear so many complaints among sportsmen about their pieces. We cannot ourselves perceive the slightest ground for perceiving it, nay we are decidedly of the opinion that it is rather of disadvantage to the shot of the piece ..."
