Chuck --
This is my last note / entry for a while -- daughter's wedding and all. Leaving momentarily.
But, in response to your last entry -- you are certainly correct with respect to your suggestion. (You have the makings of a very good experimentalist / researcher.) But I have never fired the gun without the chokes in place. (You should have seen how I cared for this gun.) I have heard that shotguns can be fired with no screw-in chokes in place -- "without damage". While I thought the gun was worth something, I was very hesitant. But, realistically -- with what we, now, know about the gun -- what do I have to loose! And your suggested experiment would shed some, much needed, scientific light on the origins of poor double gun barrel regulation. So .... We will do it!
.... But, "the plot thickens".
Here is what has happened since my last response to you.
I finally got in contact with Rizzini / Galazan. ( My initiative.) Galazan is clearly caught between me and Rizzini. They have offered to sell me new barrels at their (Galazan) cost. .... And, now, the barrels will be patterned and assessed before shipment. This may be the best compromise I can achieve without following up on Mike's suggestion and dragging Rizzini into court. (In deference to Mike, I think we could win in court -- especially if Mike argues the case.)
But, I will call Jim Eyster on Monday and depending on what they think they can do, technically, and the cost structure, I may accept Galazan's offer.... or I may proceed with Eyster. On the other hand - if Eyster is confident and the cost is not too high - I may do both. (Yes, I am just a bit crazy.)
Either way, I think the experiments we have discussed could be undertaken without compromising either potential barrel solution. I will discuss this point with Jim.
So, there are two experiments I will do, which should shed some light on the barrel regulation considerations we have discussed.
1. Your suggested, "chokeless", patterning of the barrels should quickly sort out the contrbutions that the chokes were making to the divergence of the patterns from the two barrels. Actually, I do not think this will harm the barrels, after examining the geometry of the barrels into which the chokes are normally screwed. You may recall that we exchanged chokes between the barrels - in our original experiments - without affecting the patterns' POI's. As previously mentioned, the chokes appear to be very much parallel. Based on these two considerations, I expect that the chokeless patterns may have different POI's -- but, the divergence of the patterns will closely approximate that which we found with the chokes in place. This last statement discounts the importance of the small change in the gun's effective moment of inertia for recoil with the choke removed. We will see.
2. I will pattern the gun with 3 inch, 1-1/4 oz, shells and compare the pattern divergence to that associated with the, previously used 1 oz loads. (Chokes in.) Since these loads have ostensibly very closely approximated muzzle velocities, the differential in recoil kinetics can be easily understood. If the lack of barrel convergence is the primary / controlling source of the POI impact divergence for the two barrels, then I should see an increase in POI divergence of more than 25 %. This experiment will shed light on whether the "toe in" barrel geometry is indeed an important consideration ... and if so by how much.
But, it will take some time to undertake these experiments. I want to make sure I have a back-up barrel plan in case the chokeless experiments go "wrong". And, then, there are my daughters wedding plans and all..... my present house reconstruction, ... consulting work ... trout fishing ... etc.
I promise to send you and the rest of the group a posted report on the outcome of the experiments. This is getting all very interesting. I actually think we are learning about this barrel regulation "stuff".
Best Regards,
Don
