Benelli Super Black Eagle 3-Adjust Stock


Advertisements
Posted in Reblog, Shotguns, Stuff | Leave a comment

Benelli Super Black Eagle 3-Reverse Safety


Posted in Reblog, Shotguns, Stuff | Leave a comment

Thompson Wins Men’s Skeet Silver at World Cup Acapulco | USA Shooting


Source: Thompson Wins Men’s Skeet Silver at World Cup Acapulco | USA Shooting

Posted in Reblog, Shotgun related, Stuff | Leave a comment

Stoeger P3000 Pump-Action Shotgun


Get a closer look at the Stoeger P3000 pump-action shotgun, the latest addition to our #SundayGunday series.

Source: #SundayGunday: Stoeger P3000 Pump-Action Shotgun

Posted in Shotguns | Leave a comment

Light Loads


Bruce:

Why is so little written about the other option…staying with 1-1/8 oz. shot and reducing the powder charge,a la Big Green STS light target and undoubtedly others?

If lead versus velocity is academic..and the shot have sufficient energy to break any claybird ( other than assinine Annie Oakley pot shoots from 60-70 yards), isn’t this a better option than reducing shot charge weight? I’m assuming that with proper modification of the gas ports, you can get your beloved gas guns to function with a 2 1/2 dram load.

Wadchutink,
Bro?
F.

Dear F.,

The following applies to lead shot, not steel. I have often said that I load everything that I shoot to 1200 fps. It is partly a fib. I often load to 1150 fps. Unless you are shooting marginal loads at long distances, like the ISU shooters, the tiny bit of extra energy from high velocity does nothing. You would be far, far better served by increasing pellet size. High velocity loads just degrade pattern due to setback. They contribute very little to energy. At 40 yards the difference between a lead #7-1/2 starting at 1135 fps and one at 1330 is 1.2 ft/lb vs 1.4 ft/lb. At 60 yards the difference falls to .8 vs .9. A #7-1/2 at 1135fps has the same energy as a #8 at 1330.

Recoil from a 1-1/8 oz load starting at 1150 fps equals slightly over 16 ft/lb, the same as the recoil from a 1 oz load starting at 1275 fps or a 7/8 oz load at 1430 fps. Pick your poison. To me the choice is clear. When shooting lead, I would, and do, pick the slower load with more shot every time. I simply don’t understand otherwise intelligent people who lower their payloads to cut recoil, but then speed things up to “get even”.

I don’t go much lower than 1150 fps because I often travel and have to buy shells. Factory target loads under 1150 are not always available and I want to always practice with what I will shoot in the matches. I don’t think that there is anything ballistically wrong with loads at 1100 fps, but I don’t use them for that reason. My Beretta and Remington gas guns will all shoot 1100 fps 1-1/8 oz loads just fine if I slobber them up with BreakFree CLP in the winter. My guns will not shoot the 950 fps 26 gram Winchester low noise featherweight loads.

If I had to pick one load for every clay target game, it would be hard to beat a 2-3/4 dram 1150 fps 1-1/8 oz load of #7-1/2s.

Best regards,

Bruce Buck
The Technoid at http://www.ShotgunReport.com
(Often in error, never in doubt.)

Posted in Shotgun related | 2 Comments

Browning Choke Dimensions


Technoid,

I just finished reading Bill’s, letter on Browning Invector chokes. I too am a Browning shooter, and a recovering para-technoid. I own 3 Invector Plus guns totaling five barrels, each of which has a slightly different barrel diameter, only one of them at the advertised .741. The chokes are also just about as inconsistent as the barrels.

At first, I was extremely ticked at Browning for this situation. I even wrote them a letter asking for relief. To my dismay, Browning told me that all my barrels were within factory specifications (+/-.003 of nominal .741), and that I should not worry about such a small difference.

My fear was that every barrel would;

1. Require a different choke Dia. to shoot a desired pattern. And,

2, would not perform as well as advertised.

What I have found out through actual use, examination and extensive patterning is this:

1. There is virtually no discernible difference between my guns using a .735 choke in barrels of .738 and .741. Both 30 and 40 yard patterns produce nearly indiscernible results. If I’m concerned about a particular target while using the 738/735 combination I simply drop to 7 1/2 shot without sacrificing anything. It’s always an edge-on target that needs larger shot anyway.

2. The net effect of the Browning Backbore actually reduces the amount of constriction required to obtain typical pattern results. Usually about one constriction less, which is one of Bill’s major concerns. I get consistent IC results from what is normally considered skeet constriction.

3. Most importantly, while test firing my guns I found that the .738 barrel will actually “Grow” under use. I have measured it at .741 after five timed shots during a summer chronographing session. The biggest barrel, .741 has measured .743 under similar conditions. The chokes will generally only move .001 under this heat and pressure. I have no doubt that my barrels grow even more on a 10 shot sporting station. Though I would not ruin a day on the range with a bore gauge.

4. There is just no substitute for testing. I shoot Sporting Clays every week somewhere in the country and have never found a real need for more that .015 of choke in any of my Browning’s. Something that I can firmly demonstrate, and also gives me better, more consistent and more dense patterns than any of the other brands or model of sporting guns that I have owned. And, I’ve wasted a lot of shooting money on some top brand shotguns.

Your advise to Bill was right-on, test them. My advise to Bill is be happy that you chose to purchase the right gun for the game.

Head still, eyes open, front hand moving first

Jeff

Dear Jeff,

You know, I never even thought about testing hot vs cold barrels for changes in diameter. That’s a new one to me. One of these days when I am shooting so poorly that I need an excuse to stop, I am going to test that myself.

I couldn’t agree with you more that .003″ doesn’t make any difference at the top end, though there might be the slightest difference between patterns from .000″ and .003″ chokes. The same dimensional change affects the open chokes more than the tight ones. You can certainly get more pattern change out of fooling with your shells than you can changing a choke .003″.

Browning’s history of labeling chokes tighter than they measure goes back to pre-Invector Plus days when they used standard bores. I had some guns with the original short Browning Invector chokes. They had conventional diameter barrels (around .722″ in the B-80s, a bit more in the early Browning B325s) and the chokes shot exactly as you would expect them to based on the measured choke constriction, not on the optimistic choke marking. Once you got that sorted out, they were perfectly good chokes.

Enlarged bore diameters do funny things to patterns. One the one hand, backboring from .725″ to .741″ does increase the area of the bore by about 4.5%. This should decrease the shot column by a similar amount and will lower pressure and friction slightly. Apparently it lowers friction more than pressure as many backborers claim increased velocity. Stan Baker claims 50 fps more in his .800″ Big Bore barrels.

On the other hand, theoretically, the larger the bore, the MORE choke constriction you need to equal the percentage constriction in a tighter bore. Example: .020″ constriction in a .741″ bore is a 5.3253% bore constriction. The same .020″ constriction in a smaller .725″ bore is a 5.4410% diameter reduction. So, ( in theory! ) if percentage of barrel constriction is the only consideration, the bigger the bore, the more constriction you will need to produce the same barrel constriction. This is certainly the case in subgauge. You may need .040″ to produce a Full choke performance from a .725″ 12 bore, but you will get the same pattern percentage from the 28 (.550″ bore) with just .030″ constriction. The percentage constrictions from both happen to be about 10.7% and the patterns are roughly similar in percentage, though I might be happier with .025″ at the top end in the 28 than .030″. It isn’t really linear.

I certainly don’t argue with the patterns you say you get from your guns. Barrels are surprisingly individualistic and the shell has a lot to do with it. If Browning’s .015″ gets you what you need for the longest birds you encounter, then that’s the right choke. For the longest targets I look for something that prints a minimum of 80%. When I use .040″ in my .722 Beretta 303, I still have to pick the shell very carefully to achieve this. Of course, I am consistently beaten by better shooters using more open chokes, but that’s my fault, not the gun’s. Warren Johnson’s “Choke Chooser” (tel: 800-332-0642, $12.50) can be a real eye opener if you are into the mathematics of choke selection.

Brownings are certainly popular guns (THE most popular sporting clays O/Us in the US), so they must be doing something right. It is interesting to notice that Beretta offers tight bores and longish forcing cones. Browning Japan promotes big bores and short cones. Browning’s premium Belgian guns offer tight bores and short cones. Krieghoff offers big bores and long cones in the K-80, but go to tight bores and short cones in the super premium Ulm pigeon model. Fabarms new Gold Lion sporting clays auto has a taper bore. Go figure. Someone’s probably right, but who?

Best regards,

Bruce Buck
The Technoid at <www.ShotgunReport.com>
(Often in error, never in doubt.)

Posted in Shotgun related, Shotguns | Leave a comment

Balancing Act


Technoid:

I have a Beretta 390 that has been backbored (.735), ported and had the forcing cone lengthened. Also added a kick-eez recoil pad.

Given that the above procedures can reduce the wt (except adding the kick-eez), and shift the balance point slightly rearward, I’m considering adding a mercury recoil suppressor (C&H magazine cap model wt. 8oz).

What is you opinion on these recoil suppressors? Also, where is the ideal balance point on a shotgun?

Thanks and Regards,

Jay

Dear Jay,

The ideal balance point on the gun is what you want it to be. One of the nice things about the gas guns is that it is easy to add weight to the front as well as the back, something you have a harder time doing with an O/U.

One of the reasons that I am not a big fan of backboring the 390 is that it often makes an already light barrel too light. Backboring from .722″ to .735″ pulls 1.7 oz. That’s a lot. Then the shooter has to add a forend weight to attempt to rebalance the gun. Adding weight in one place at the forend nut never quite feels the same as adding weight all along the length of the barrel. It is a question of moment of inertia.

Still, backboring the 390 seems to be one of the favorite hobbies out there, so who am I to push my opinions in the face of the machine shops who make a ton of money selling backboring and then selling forend weights.

I personally don’t like the mercury weights on the front of the gun. The mercury “sloshes” slightly and I find it disconcerting, especially up front where there is a lot of gun movement. I have never really noticed that the mercury recoil reducers did a better job of reducing recoil than the same amount of inert lead in the same place. If you just want to add a couple of ounces back, the old solid steel forend nuts from the original Beretta A-390 will substitute for the current alloy one of the AL-390. Rich Cole should have them. Call him at 207-833-5027. If you want more solid weight to screw on the front, I believe that Briley (tel: 800-331-5718) makes one. When you call, please tell them that you were referred by http://www.ShotgunReport.

As an aside, adding weight to a gun will reduce recoil more or less, sort of, in a 1:1 ratio. If you add 5% of a gun’s weight, you will reduce free recoil by 5%. It isn’t linear, but it is in the ball park. Reducing shell load or velocity is more or less 2:1. If you lower the payload from 1-1/8 oz to 1 oz (11%), you will reduce recoil of the typical 8# gun by 19%, about 2:1.

One final thought, adding weight to the front and back of a gun is a LOT different than distributing the weight all through out the gun. It all has to do with moment of inertia. Consider a broom stick with a brick at each end. It will balance in the middle, but it will be difficult to start and stop it when swinging it. Now grind up those bricks and glue the brick dust all along the broom stick evenly. The stick will still weigh the same and balance in the same middle spot, but it will swing much, much differently and be easier to start and stop when swinging. Just a thought to remind everyone that balance point doesn’t tell the whole story.

Best regards,

Bruce Buck
The Technoid at <www.ShotgunReport.com>
(Often in error, never in doubt.)

Posted in Shotgun related, Shotguns | Leave a comment