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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,900
Posts550,592
Members14,458
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,578 Likes: 32
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,578 Likes: 32 |
Thanks for the replies thus far. Think the prudent thing is to consider both options. Working over the 16 Gauge, or working over the 20 gauge. I think myself and the action/wood guy will figure this out soon enough. Time is money and there's no sense in spending a bunch of time (i.e. money) trying to make something work. Guess you would call it a Bridge too far.
foxes rule
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,227
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,227 |
The only reason I ever had O/U barrels backbored was for weight reduction. Taking out .012-.014" removed nearly 5 ounces from a 32" set. The $400 at the time was worthwhile on a $3K clays gun. The people who do that kind of work are certainly capable but, at $200 per ounce I don't think I'd consider it on a SxS. I suppose you'd get chokes of your choice included in the cost, but I'd still consider another gun.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,578 Likes: 32
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,578 Likes: 32 |
The only reason I ever had O/U barrels backbored was for weight reduction. Taking out .012-.014" removed nearly 5 ounces from a 32" set. The $400 at the time was worthwhile on a $3K clays gun. The people who do that kind of work are certainly capable but, at $200 per ounce I don't think I'd consider it on a SxS. I suppose you'd get chokes of your choice included in the cost, but I'd still consider another gun. Think I'm with you Mike. The place doing the work has a couple of project Foxes available including a 16 gauge with 28" barrels. Might be able to pull off a trade. Mine was probably too nice for a project gun anyway. We will see what develops. PS. I've got an extra piece of Turkish that I don't need. There's lots of ways to skin a cat as they say.
foxes rule
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Good calculations, WA!! I'd make a few changes, but they would not change the outcome by enought to worry about.
tut, are we talking about striking the outside (I understood pit removal) or is back boring an option. I'd backbore if inside is an option. If you need backboring calculations, post back.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,578 Likes: 32
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,578 Likes: 32 |
Good calculations, WA!! I'd make a few changes, but they would not change the outcome by enought to worry about.
tut, are we talking about striking the outside (I understood pit removal) or is back boring an option. I'd backbore if inside is an option. If you need backboring calculations, post back. Both. Just checked and minimum barrel wall thickness is stout .043. Lots of things can be done to these barrels to lighten them, the only question is whether its worth paying the expense to back bore and recut the chokes. Would be interesting to see how much you could lighten them up by just going to the standard .662 (they are currently .655). You'd still have a ton of barrel wall thickness for sure and would just be bringing the barrels up to normal bore diameter for a 16.
foxes rule
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 247
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 247 |
Mr Tut yah better check that wall thickness again. You write about a 16 gauge. I don't think any 16 would have .043 min wall thkness. This sounds like a heavy 10 gauge. Where did you measure ? What did you measure with ? CB
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,578 Likes: 32
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,578 Likes: 32 |
Mr Tut yah better check that wall thickness again. You write about a 16 gauge. I don't think any 16 would have .043 min wall thkness. This sounds like a heavy 10 gauge. Where did you measure ? What did you measure with ? CB Let's see inside mikes at .655. Outside Mikes at .738 min. Subtract .738 from .655 equals .083 divide by 2 equals. .0415 min barrel wall thickness. What did I miss?? Measured with Frankfurt Digital Caliper. PS. That was measured about 6" from the barrel ends. Seems to me like number 2 16 gauge Fox barrels.
foxes rule
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 247
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 247 |
Mr Tut, a common mistake. Wall thkness cannot be measured as described. Your math works only if inside and outside dias are perfect round and concentric,not true in most cases. I wouldn't be surprised if the .0415 is realy about .030 if that .655 is correct. You ddin't say how you measured the inside.
Last edited by cherry bomb; 07/04/10 09:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Weight reduction for back boring: assume steel has 4.16 oz/cubic inch, ID = 0.655 so circumference (pi X D) = 2.06", for 30" bbls assume you can bore 26" (chamber @ 2 3/4" + cone @ 1 1/4"), bore area = 26" X 2.06" = 53.5 sq inches. Removed volume per thousandth = 53.5 in sq X 0.001" = 0.05 in cubed, removed weight per thousandth per barrel = 0.05 in cubed X 4.16 oz/in cubed = 0.22 oz --- say 1/4 oz per thousandth back bore per barrel. Going from 0.655 to 0.662 = 7 thousandths X 1/4 oz per thousandth X 2 barrels = 3.5 oz.
Questions?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,880 Likes: 16
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,880 Likes: 16 |
Remember, when striking a set of barrels, the area between the ribs will not be thinned. Say maybe 25% of the o.d. will not be struck.
|
|
|
|
|