doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com What's the biggest problem ..........updated

Good idea about the possibility of the gun not being "torqued around" enough. I never considered that. I just automatically assumed that it was built with too much convergence in the barrels. I'm going to try shooting the plate with it again and play around with holding it more loosely, to allow it to recoil more, instead of gripping it so tightly. I can't believe I didn't think of that already, understanding the dynamics of it as I do. Sometimes it's right there looking at you and you can't see it.

This is very interesting, Miller. Can't wait to make time to try this.

Thanks, SRH

Just curious Stan, do you consider that this is a gun that fits you properly?

I'd think that if you can correct pattern placement by changing the distribution and amount of pressure that the different parts of your body apply to the gun, that it might be a bunch more easy just to mount the gun normally and hold off on the target.

I'm not trying to argue with your line of investigating, but if I had a gun that quirky I doubt I'd even pull it out to use, worried that I'd feel like heaving it for distance.

It fits me really good, Craig. It's got a long pull, which I need, and the drop is fine, too. Other patterns shot with it, when I fast mount and shoot, hit in the same place as those I posted that were shot from the sitting position, like a rifle.

All that will be necessary is for me to hold the gun a bit more loosely, to see if it makes a difference. Little guns like this may well be way more susceptible to eccentricities in mount than a big 9 lb. + gun like my MX8, or my Fox HE.

This may not be the best way to resolve the problem, but it will be very interesting to see if it makes a difference, and if so, how much. I may still have to deal with the company to resolve it.

Good questions.

SRH

Hell Stan the solution is simple, shoot birds going to the left with the right barrel, birds going right with the left. Don't shoot incomers or one going away.

That's a solution alright, James. Just not the kind I want.

Along that line of thought ......... I've got a couple sporting clays and dove shooting buddies, Charles and Charlie. Charles is struggling with getting the hang of sporting clay shooting, and is shooting in the upper 60s to low 70s, while Charlie is a M class shooter and very observant of other's shooting styles. Charles "floats" the birds, because of a heads up style of shooting that causes his gun to shoot high for him. Charlie tells him he needs to keep his head down on the gun and stop floating the bird, for consistency. Charles says "If I shoot at that pine cone in that tree like that, it works". Charlie replies, "Yep ........... about 70% of the time". Charles hangs his head in recognition of the truth.

Point being, precious few can compensate for a gun's faults by "holding off", and shoot well. I'm not about to venture there.

SRH

Every combination of shooter, shell, gun, and conditions will produce a slightly differing torque reaction. The fact that we shoot shotguns successfully a high enough % of shots taken to keep doing it says gun designers have largely mitigated this issue. However, cognoscente (like Stan) may well recognize this issue when they encounter a large enough variation. Even so, only a few will take the time/effort to investigate, analyze, and effect a cure. My hat is off to Miller for the suggestion and Stan for enlightenment. Stan, keep us posted, please.




DDA

It would still seem to me that an important part of good consistent shooting, muscle memory, gets thrown out the window.

I believe some assumptions might be made here. First, that the gun is properly regulated, and that it's up to the shooter to apply unique torque control for the situation. And, it would seem that gun fit becomes significantly less important.

I think there is a real world application for the thought. It may not be necessary to alter classic guns if a little enlightenment can accommodate for less than ideal stock dimensions. It wouldn't bother me to connect at fifty percent on ducks shooting head up on something with too much drop. I'd have my doubts though if a top shooter could maintain a high performance level.

Definitely only thoughts, and I'd fully agree about hat's to the handful that would take the time and make the effort. It is interesting, and I would be surprised if Stan doesn't come up with a few things to try that might move a pattern.

A single barreled gun is infinitely easier to get to shoot where you are looking than are two barrels, joined together, that are not properly regulated. You can make several changes to the single barrel to get it right, not so with a non-regulated double. You can get one barrel right, easily, but how about the other? The idea that you will hit some birds with a non-regulated gun, that you wouldn't with a properly regulated one, is true, but is so alien to my way of thinking that I can't assign it any import. Why make allowance for misplaced impact? I just cannot get my head around that. To me, it's like the guy whose pickup pulls badly to the right, and he has to drive with both hands applying pressure to the steering wheel to keep it straight on the road. When asked why he doesn't have it corrected he says, "Well, it takes a right curve in the road beautifully!". No man alive can do his best shooting if he knows, in the back of his mind, that his gun is inferior. And, IMO, a non-regulated gun is inferior.

I also disagree that the only problem a double can have, that a single barreled shotgun can't have, is cross firing. Any misplaced impact that causes the barrels not to print their patterns on top of each other is a problem unique to doubles. They do not have to be cross firing, they can be doing the opposite. Or, as is it the case with an O/U I saw patterned, one barrel can be shooting to the POA while the other is off half a pattern or more.

All reasons why, for me, lack of regulation is the biggest issue facing a double gun buyer.

SRH

Stan, I'll be interested to see more patterns from your .410. Right now, it's very clear that they don't shoot the same place. About the only thing positive you can say is that they're pretty much equally off center . . . and I don't think that's the "positive" you look for.

I didn't see you mention the distance at which you were shooting. If you're at 15-16 yards . . . wow. Back when I was shooting quite a few 35 yard test patterns, if I'd found a gun that was that far off, I would've been pretty much clear off my pattern sheets. The only one I ever found that bad via pattern sheets was a Hunter Special 16. Don't know whether the Hunter folks were regulating their boxlocks. Back in those days, I'd guess they were regulating their Elsies. But that Hunter Special might've made your .410 look good.

I have been using sxs guns for turkey hunting for some time now, and I've spent a lot of time testing them much like one would test a rifle. When I shoot a turkey, I want him standing with his head up so that I can center the pattern on his neck and head. My guns have about a 16" wide kill pattern at 40 yards, and it's about 16" from the top of a gobbler's head to the base of his neck, so I would aim halfway up his neck and hit the center of his vital area with the center of the pattern.

Obviously, this is a different use of a sxs than what 99% of other users are doing, but it is absolutely essential that both barrels shoot to the same point of impact. I've found it extremely difficult to get a sxs gun to do this and would not recommend anyone to try it.

I've tested 8 guns and am yet to find one that would shoot both barrels to the same POI without modifications. I have used mostly cheap guns, but I don't think the cost of the gun has a whole lot to do with it. Two of the worst ones were Berettas, and the best one was a CZ that cost $550. Much of the problem is that I'm shooting heavy loads and the guns were designed for field loads. With a heavier load, the tendency is for the right barrel to shoot to the right and the left barrel to the left. The problem is also made worse by the fact that I am using short, light guns so that they will be easy to carry.

I found only one exception to that tendency, and it is a cheap Spanish gun made in the early 70s. With it, the left barrel shoots way to the right, and the right barrel shoots way to the left. It does this with any load, and the only thing I can figure out is that it was improperly made with too much convergence. It was so bad that if you shot at a can at 40 yards, neither barrel would put a single pellet in it. It was in excellent condition; I'll bet every previous owner experienced a whole lot of frustration with the gun.

My belief is that it is impossible to make a sxs that will shoot every load to the same POI. The gun is designed with a certain amount of convergence to center the patterns of both barrels with a certain load, and when you use heavier or lighter loads you are going to have issues. I think the problem is not as bad with a heavier gun, but I don't want to walk 5 miles with an 8 pound gun when there are much lighter alternatives.

I have managed to make 2 of my guns usable for turkey hunting and have posted pics on here before. My primary gun is a $486 Yildiz with an eccentric choke in one barrel. It weighs 5 lb 6 oz and is ideal for what I want. I also made the Spanish gun usable by taking a chainsaw file to the chokes. It isn't hard at all to move a pattern in any direction you want if you file the very end. I'd much rather do this on a gun with screw in chokes, but the Spanish gun was worthless without modifications.

Stan, the biggest barrier to me buying a new sxs is that one like I want doesn't exist. With my Beretta down, and me about to go on a long anticipated hunt, I would go buy one tomorrow if it met my specifications and was a reasonable price. I'm not spending more than $5k on a field gun, and there isn't one like I want sold anywhere.