What then is your theory on the reason for reverse chokes Todd?





.

[B]I can't remember if it was Greener or Burrard, its been over 50yrs since I read them, but one of their writings addressed the idea of recoil being more in line with the shoulder resulting in less upset. When Bickel and I were fooling around with pigeons, one of the Beckers I had had its chokes reversed, and Russ thought it was advantage. Just some food for thought.

Being a southpaw I somewhat agree Tom. I remember reading that somewhere years ago but have adapted to living and shooting in a right handers world. Never had a problem with double triggers supposedly set up for a righty either.

TASTES GREAT!

LESS FILLING!

Tom, did you give the great Bickel a whipping with your reversed chokes? I once gave Russ a whipping, and I still have the score sheet in my files. It was a rare happening and I should have it framed. What a guy.

Dean, just to make sure I'm on the same page on this topic, my understanding of the term "reverse chokes" in the OP was referring to the left barrel being the more open choke.
To me, this is a "left barrel first" gun, assuming that the targets are usually going away.
If we're talking about choke constriction, that's a whole other subject
I had a 32" 1935 Trap Gun that was a modified (.18k) left barrel, and super full (.40k) rt barrel that I did quite a bit of box bird shooting with.
The gun was clearly stocked for a right handed shooter, BTW.
I always thought that it might have had a little quicker second barrel because of the left barrel recoil impulse dynamics.
My theory actually goes a little deeper, but I don't want to take this topic too far into the weeds.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t believe being right or left handed has anything to do with guns being reverse choked. There are an ample number of double trigger British made O/U guns where the front trigger fires the tighter barrel.