Posted on 05/19/2020 5:42:14 AM PDT by marktwain
You are so correct. A magnet does nothing. They are not bare lead as with age they should be a dark gray. These have a bright metallic color, which suggests a jacket of sorts.
I got the idea from YouTube when I first researched the gun, as the guy doing the video said they were steel. Interestingly though, that same video said it shot 3” shells. So I bought a box. Fired the first round which jammed it. Obviously this guy had no idea what he was talking about.
The most accurate round I’ve played with is 250 gr Fiocchi 45 long Colt.
Another round I purchased fires a combo of discs and balls. Never fired them yet.
I let a friend shoot this thing two days ago and his comment was: “this gun practically aims itself”. He was shooting he 000 buck.
That is what my research shows.
My suspicion is a regular choke would not work on shot coming directly from a rifled bore. But it would take considerable experimental work to confirm that.
I think it would be great if you could purchase or make a two inch choke which would give even cylinder patterns from a rifled .22 barrel.
I have never heard of anyone attempting to do so.
George Nonte, in Modern Reloading, published in 1972, gives a diagram for making a handgun choke on page 287. He says shot loads in anything less than a .38 are a waste of time.
I do not know if anyone ever actually tried his proposed choke.
Love your story on the beaver. They can be serious pests. My father had to shoot a number of them.
They have a bad habit of plugging culverts and flooding roads.
My experiments with the reverse paradox show the best ones getting between improved cylinder and modified performance at 15 yards.
By that, I mean the percentage of pellets in an 8 inch circle, at that range, are in between what you would expect from an improved cylinder to a modified choke in an 8 inch circle at that range.
What I have read of the Routledge bore, it does better than what would be expected of a standard cylinder bore (40% in a 30 inch circle at 40 yards).
I am not a shotgun guru, so feel free to correct any ignorance I am showing.
Finally,
Some Girls!
Well, it is the “banglist”.
Thompson Center used to make a choke for their .45 Colt/.410 shotgun barrels. It consisted of a screw on choke with deep straight grooves which converted the spinning shot into straight traveling shot.
I have never used one but it was said to work fine.
It would be interesting to see if such a choke would work on a .22.
It is beyond my machining skills.
As a toolmaker, and a machinist, what would be the easiest way to cut a number of straight grooves in a tube a few inches long.
Say, six inches, with an inner diameter of 3/8 inch and a wall thickness of 1/8 inch.
What is desired is something like straight rifling, 1/16 inch deep and perhaps 3/32 wide. Say five or six grooves.
Make a tool to cut them like you do a keyway on a lathe.
Or broach them with a fixture and broaching tools.
Easy to do but you might have to make some tools to do it.
This video might give you some ideas...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcU0LTavzDM
I don’t see why it should not work but probably not worth the effort.
Those Thompson Center grooves were pretty deep, I would guess at least a quarter inch.
Dean, for some reason I'm having trouble understanding this statement. I would think a thick walled tube would be more rigid than a thin walled tube. If you're basing it on weight, then obviously the thick walled tube would be shorter than a thin walled tube of the same weight. What am I missing?
It sounds counter-intuitive, but it turns out a thin tube is stiffer than a thick tube for the same amount of material.
If it is stiffness you need, then a thin tube is more efficient per unit weight.
In the reverse paradox tube, you need both stiffness and low weight, so a thin tube works very well.
Here is an engineering explanation of the concept.
Consider a copper rod, 1/4 inch in diameter, two feet long. It is fairly easy to bend. Consider a copper tube, 1/2 inch in diameter, two feet long, that weighs the same amount, with a .031 inch wall thickness. It will be much harder to bend (it will be stiffer).
In the case of the reverse paradox, the tube is supported at only one end. A lighter tube will also droop less, a special case of the above.
O-k. Makes sense.
Having a hard time picturing that, not sure I believe it.
I can see how shot could leave sheared off lead deposits at the leading edge of the rifling, and that this deposit would be best removed before sending a slug down the barrel, but direct damage to rifling....ehhhh,,,,,I dunno.
I thing it is misleading.
Shoot enough shot through a rifle barrel, and it will collect lead and need a good cleaning. It may be a little hyperbole to call that “damage”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.