Modification question, would it be right

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Stan Hillis

Maybe this willl be considered as being too picky but, cylinder bore at the muzzles is not "choke". "Choke" is another term for constriction and, the lack of constriction constitutes an absence of choke.

I understand, and realize, that there may seem to be a lack of accepted terminology to describe this condition. But, in the end, a gun that is cylinder bore at the muzzles has NO choke.

However, there are many examples of Parkers that were choked “cylinder” from the factory where there is actually bore constriction of up to .005” or even .007” at the muzzle. I feel certain that this was done to get an acceptable pellet count.




.

[mobirdhunter]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

However, there are many examples of Parkers that were choked “cylinder” from the factory where there is actually bore constriction of up to .005” or even .007” at the muzzle. I feel certain that this was done to get an acceptable pellet count.




.

I concur with you, Dean.
I have lettered Parkers with recorded cylinder bores with .004 constriction. If you define cylinder by its pattern (50%) and you need slight constriction to achieve that…