If you kiss enough frogs....

[Brent Francis]

Destry found this article online with some pictures of a Bogardus 16ga scott. Nice looking guns. http://www.16ga.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=55832[/URL]p=55832[/COLOR]

[Kensal Rise]

Brent:
Don't fret over the odd barrel length. Most Brit guns were "give or take a 1/2".

And... just use the Scott in cold weather. Your coat will add 1" or so to the LOP.

Best, Kensal

[Brent Francis]

Thanks Kensal, I think I had read that about English guns barrel lengths. Its pretty clear that they havent been cut since the keels are in place and nicely done and the tubes are touching. I can also see that one barrel is choked tighter than the other. I have no doupt the chambers are shorter than 2 3/4 "and was wondering if there were 2 inch 16s ( like some 12s) or whether 2 1/2" were the standard. From what Ive found, the gun was made in 1881. Unfortunately in Houston I can only wear my barbour coat a few days every year.

[Kensal Rise]

Brent:
For cartridges, you can always get 2 1/2" from RST. Or... load your own light stuff. I use 2 3/4" AA hulls and 3/4 or 7/8 oz. light loads in all my 2 1/2" guns. Never a problem -- and you don't have to fiddle with shortening hulls. Sherman Bell proved pressures are only about 25 psi higher with skivved mouth 2 3/4" hulls. No problem breaking targets either.

Best, Kensal

[Steve McCarty]

Congratulations, Brent and good eye! We all enjoy bring back a rough gun and make her speak again. Good for you!

How much work are you going to do on the bore?

[Brent Francis]

Steve, Thanks, I ran a brass cleaning brush and some Hoppes #9 and a few cotton patches through it and the bores look really good. Some very light shallow pits just ahead of the chamber and two very small shallow dents in the left barrel that can be seen on the inside. I actually prefer to see a little roughness in the bores of an old gun because it means that its less likely anybody has honed the walls too thin. My plan is to leave the bores alone.

[Steve McCarty]

Originally Posted by Brent Francis

Steve, Thanks, I ran a brass cleaning brush and some Hoppes #9 and a few cotton patches through it and the bores look really good. Some very light shallow pits just ahead of the chamber and two very small shallow dents in the left barrel that can be seen on the inside. I actually prefer to see a little roughness in the bores of an old gun because it means that its less likely anybody has honed the walls too thin. My plan is to leave the bores alone.

I would leave them as it too.

I have always wondered how a rough or semi-rough bore effects patterns. Intuitively, to me, it seems that rough or slighly pitted bores would not make much diff. Do the pellets bounce off rough spots, distorting the patter, or just blow right by them?

I have shot rifles with rough bores and some worked fine. One, a badly ringed, dark bore in an old GEW98 made in 1915 darn near shoots MOA! Funny.

[Brent Francis]

Steve, I think that with modern plastic sleaved wads the interaction of the bore with the shot is alot less. I had read that as regards rifles that it is just the last bit of the rifleing at the muzzle that makes most of the difference on accuracy

[Steve McCarty]

Originally Posted by Brent Francis

Steve, I think that with modern plastic sleaved wads the interaction of the bore with the shot is alot less. I had read that as regards rifles that it is just the last bit of the rifleing at the muzzle that makes most of the difference on accuracy

Thanks Brent for the info on rough bores. I had not heard that, but it sounds right.