|
07-10-2018, 09:15 PM | #33 | ||||||
|
Was your choke gauge an internal gauge measuring the constriction or a drop in plug gauge that just showed the diameter at the muzzle.You need to know your nominal bore diameter and how many thousandths of choke constriction you have to determine your actual choke.Also,how does it look on a pattern sheet?It is very unlikely that the choke was shot out to cylinder.
|
||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to John Allen For Your Post: |
07-10-2018, 10:54 PM | #34 | ||||||
|
I used the Galazan choke tool although I don't trust it. It showed cylinder. But I thought it would show higher if there was any choke at all. I'm going to pattern the gun when I finish it. That will tell the story one way or the other.
|
||||||
07-11-2018, 07:51 AM | #35 | ||||||
|
A dial indicator or digital bore micrometer is the only way to go. It may read 'cylinder' at the muzzle with a graduated drop-in gauge but the bore could widen several thousandths behind the muzzles for a few inches.
Counting pellet holes and doing the math to get percentages is tedious. The only times I shoot at paper is to find POI and to determine what shot size gives the best patterns with a particular gun. .
__________________
"I'm a Setter man. Not because I think they're better than the other breeds, but because I'm a romantic - stuck on tradition - and to me, a Setter just "belongs" in the grouse picture." George King, "That's Ruff", 2010 - a timeless classic. |
||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to Dean Romig For Your Post: |
07-11-2018, 05:59 PM | #36 | ||||||
|
Since I’ve been a kid, I've been shooting at paper to determine the pattern percentages at 40 yards and sometimes 20 yards if it is a grouse gun. I know its tedious to some but I enjoy it and it tells the whole story better than a dial indicator or barrel measurement tool. I pattern all my hunting guns with different size shot that I might shoot with a particular gun. I have a log where I keep the stats. It's how I found out that #2 patterned horribly with any of my duck and goose guns and that #3's patterned well with all my waterfowl guns. It's how I found out that the old pigeon load of 3 1/4-dram equiv. patterns much better than the typical 3 ¾ - dram equiv. loads commonly used with 1 ¼ of shot in a 12 bore. It's how I learned not to use 00 buck and use #1 buck instead. I get a ton of valuable information on all of my hunting guns. Patterning guns is the only way to determine how they will shoot with different loads and shot. Individual barrels handle some shot size much better than other. No two are exactly alike. Patterning a gun is the only way to get this kind of important information.
|
||||||
07-11-2018, 07:26 PM | #37 | ||||||
|
Yup, that's what I said in my third statement "The only times I shoot at paper..."
.
__________________
"I'm a Setter man. Not because I think they're better than the other breeds, but because I'm a romantic - stuck on tradition - and to me, a Setter just "belongs" in the grouse picture." George King, "That's Ruff", 2010 - a timeless classic. |
||||||
07-11-2018, 09:21 PM | #38 | ||||||
|
I know Dean, but I wanted to highlight the point about patterning guns. If one does a lot of hunting, it is well worth the effort. And for me, it adds to my pleasure knowing just how my hunting guns perform and tailoring loads for each gun. It's part of my routine that I enjoy. I used my grandmothers bed sheets for my first patterning effort. She wasn't very happy about it, so I bought chart paper that comes in an extremely large pad. Plenty big enough for a 30" circle with plenty of room to spare.
|
||||||
07-13-2018, 06:34 AM | #39 | |||||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Progress is the mortal enemy of the Outdoorsman. |
|||||||
07-13-2018, 08:48 PM | #40 | |||||||
|
Quote:
That's very interesting and it highlights that fact that the only way to determine how a barrel shoots is to pattern it. There are so many variables. The degree of restriction doesn't tell the whole story. Thanks for sharing that. |
|||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to Tom Flanigan For Your Post: |
|
|