|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
0 members (),
303
guests, and
5
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,522
Posts545,769
Members14,419
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 320 Likes: 4
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 320 Likes: 4 |
Just curious....When a SXS is marked "not for ball" is it because the choke is too tight, the barrels are not capable of handling the pressure or the action is too weak?
Thanks, WBLDon
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
It's my uderstanding that was the first way of marking a choked gun...back then balls or slugs weren't supposed to be shot through a choked barrel.
I'm sure mr.TEd will be along in a minute to correct me.
Just saying.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,822 Likes: 194
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,822 Likes: 194 |
Yes, a way to denote constriction. But I guess the questions would be better phrased as "When a scattergun is marked "Not For Ball", etc.....
Not for Ball Non Pour Balle Nem Golyonak Jen Pro Broky Nicht Für Kugel
it meant that the tube experienced proof with shot and not a solid projectile. The Austrians were the only ones that continued to subject their scattergun tubes to a solid projectile w/ "windage" while all other proof facilities employed shot.
Cheers,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,822 Likes: 194
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,822 Likes: 194 |
"Nicht Für Kugel, Nem Golyonak, Jen Pro Broky just notes constriction and is comparable to Crown over W. In the Austro-Hungarian empire during preliminary proof there was no distinction between smoothbore & rifled tubes as both were fed ball or cylinder, with an allowed clearance of up to 0.5mm. Then all tubes were exposed to some 10 ATM test with a pump apparatus to check for failures. Next rifled tubes were fed a diet of 2 balls or cylinders, what better way to double the weight, while scattergun tubes received a load of 1 1/2 times their shot charge. Most sources give the 1st & 2nd proof for scatterguns was with a solid projectile while the 3rd proof, which could also be an inspection, was with shot. On a tube with choke the diameter was measured forward of the chamber while cylinder tubes had their diameter measured at the muzzle." http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...true#Post292152Cheers, Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,430 Likes: 315
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,430 Likes: 315 |
The Belgian proof house used Non Pour Balle 1878-1897; "Choke" thereafter, to indicate constriction > .2 mm or about .008" at the muzzle
Last edited by Drew Hause; 02/22/19 05:16 PM. Reason: correction
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,383 Likes: 106
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,383 Likes: 106 |
"Not for Ball" was also replaced by the proofmark "Choke" on British doubles. As with the Belgian example above, "choke" could be relatively little choke.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Given the same weight & same powder charge, a load of shot will produce a higher pressure than will the round ball This is due to the increased friction of the shot charge. Prior to choke boring it had been standard practice when shooting a round ball from a shotgun to use a fairly close fitting ball. If this size ball was fired through a choked gun it would have a diameter larger than the diameter of the choke & likely result would be a split muzzle.
A round ball can be fired from a choked gun with complete safety, As Long as the diameter of the ball is smaller than the choke. Accuracy may suffer but no harm will come to either the gun or the shooter, given Proper Loading.
The misunderstanding of this was one of the major reasons for changing the marks from "Not For Ball" to "Choke" As I recall most proof laws required one of these marks, depending upon time frame, on any gun having 0.2mm (0.008") of choke or more. It was I believe optional on a gun with any lesser amount of choke. A cylindder bore was of course unmarked.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 320 Likes: 4
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 320 Likes: 4 |
Thanks very much folks... This answers my questions....
WBLDon
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,822 Likes: 194
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,822 Likes: 194 |
.....gun having 0.2mm (0.008") of choke or more...... Miller: That would be 0.2cm or 2 mm. Cheers, Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 390 Likes: 11
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 390 Likes: 11 |
2mm is nearly 0.080 inches Not likely.......
Dumb, but learning...Prof Em, BSc(ME), CAE (FYI)
|
|
|
|
|
|