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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 members (btbell),
305
guests, and
5
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,615
Posts547,014
Members14,427
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,421 Likes: 198
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,421 Likes: 198 |
rtw, I prefer lightweight sxs's as well. My new Churchill 12ga. with 2 1/2" chambers weighs 5 lbs. 12 oz., perfect for my all day romps in the U.P. for grouse. Karl
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 559 Likes: 56
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 559 Likes: 56 |
+1 So if you can get a 16ga on a 20ga frame safely was it really a 20ga frame to begin with? IMHO, "scale frame" has been left seriously undefined. Does it mean a size smaller than the next larger gauge (12 on a 16)? Does it mean the smallest frame a given gauge can be built on? Or, does it just mean the size a gauge is usually built on? 20 ga frame is not exactly one single thing. As above, which size 20 ga frame are we talking about? Way too much has been made of the idea of 16 ga on 20 ga frame. If you can build a 16 ga on any given frame, is it not a 16 ga frame? No doubt that you can build a 20 ga frame that would be unsafe for building a 16 ga on. Why no hue and cry to build 20's on 28 ga frame of 28's on ,410 frames? Sub 6 1/4# guns quickly become difficult to handle for most/many shooters. 12 ga guns have been built down into the mid 5# range with 2" chambers. Thus endeth the rant. DDA What about the Baker 12-20 action? The action design was to have strength, be lightweight and reduce the size of the standard 12 gauge frame. British manufacturers in the 1920s and 1930s designed 12s weighing 6 lbs or less. The 2" 12, Churchill XXV, and the 12-20 are just a few of these designs. Ken
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,601 Likes: 14
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,601 Likes: 14 |
Any 16 gauge Parker grade 1 and higher could be had on the standard 20 gauge 0-frame.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
So; what exactly determines the frame size??. I have for instance one of Lefever's 16 gauge guns built on the XX (20 gauge?) frame & it weighs a "Svelte" 6 3/4 lbs. I also have a 12 gauge Lefever built on the "12 gauge" frame which weighs 6 1/2 lbs. Both are H grades with 28" twist barrels. The XX frame has a slightly narrower bar but the 12 gauge has a wider firing pin spacing but with the barrels struck thinner. This 6 3/4 lb 16 gauge Lefever has a wider firing pin spacing & larger standing breech than would a 6 lb Lefever 16 gauge also built on the XX frame. So what exactly does determine a "True" scaled frame, to me it means the entire frame as well as the standing breech is scaled to the gauge. Personally I do not see that simply changing the size of the standing breech while retaining the exact same size bar & body of the action truly reflects a "Different" frame size. I have 12 gauge Lefevers which weigh from the above mentioned 6 1/2 lbs up to 8 lbs which all have substantially identical bar & action body sizes, with only the standing breech & firing pin spacing altered for the individual barrel set. Personally I do not call these Different Frame sizes. Everyone call it as you see fit, but to me the entire frame, bar, body & breech have to be scaled to make it truly a different frame size.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
It seems like you have to get them built on a 20 ga frame to get the weight down and improve the balance. rtw, no offense intended, I've a little problem with the above statement. My experiments with gun handling show that weight, balance (teeter-totter kind, not an undefined, summative, subjective "number"), unmounted swing effort (based on the gun's moment of inertia at center of gravity/balance point), and mounted swing effort (based on MOI at the butt). Weight is a summation of all the parts' weight. It tells you the effort to carry, lift, and hold the gun. Balance is the summation of increments of weight times distances from a point (teeter-totter point) where the summation is equal to zero. It tells you what % of the weight each hand carries. Individual shooters have a considerable range of preference for these two %. Swing effort is based on increments of weight times their distances from the balance point squared. Thus, if two increments of equal weight are placed one at one foot and the other at two feet from the balance point we find that the one at two feet has four times the effect as the one at one foot. Swing effort is the measure of the effort to point the gun in a differing direction. Actions figure much in weight, somewhat in balance, but little in swing effort. Barrel and butt lengths and thicknesses figure large in swing effort due the longer distances from the balance point. What are you thinking when you say, "--- improve balance?" DDA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
[quote=Rocketman]
I'd never considered that there was as much confusion about the term as you suggested. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
SRH I think there is that that much confusion. I guess I just wish people would not get starry eyed over a concept that is a misnomer at best. Maybe we need to invoke the dreaded oxymoron. OK, I'm off my soap box. DDA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 602 Likes: 39
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 602 Likes: 39 |
It seems like you have to get them built on a 20 ga frame to get the weight down and improve the balance. rtw, no offense intended, I've a little problem with the above statement. My experiments with gun handling show that weight, balance (teeter-totter kind, not an undefined, summative, subjective "number"), unmounted swing effort (based on the gun's moment of inertia at center of gravity/balance point), and mounted swing effort (based on MOI at the butt). Weight is a summation of all the parts' weight. It tells you the effort to carry, lift, and hold the gun. Balance is the summation of increments of weight times distances from a point (teeter-totter point) where the summation is equal to zero. It tells you what % of the weight each hand carries. Individual shooters have a considerable range of preference for these two %. Swing effort is based on increments of weight times their distances from the balance point squared. Thus, if two increments of equal weight are placed one at one foot and the other at two feet from the balance point we find that the one at two feet has four times the effect as the one at one foot. Swing effort is the measure of the effort to point the gun in a differing direction. Actions figure much in weight, somewhat in balance, but little in swing effort. Barrel and butt lengths and thicknesses figure large in swing effort due the longer distances from the balance point. What are you thinking when you say, "--- improve balance?" DDA I find that I shoot guns in the 6 lb & less range better if they are more stable & less "dynamic" than heavier guns. I think Michel McIntosh once wrote something like that "as the gun weight goes down, the balance point should move farther forward from the trigger hand" & within reason I would agree with that. A smaller, lighter action helps to achieve that.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 174
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 174 |
The Germans built some lightweight 16ga guns prior to WWII. I had a Sauer built shortly after 1900 with 26" barrels that weighed 5lb 12oz. I've had two 16ga from around WWI with 30" barrels that weighed in at 6lb 4oz. The pic is of one of those guns that had a rounded action. The quarter is overhanging both sides of the bottom of the frame by a fairly significant margin. I'd say the bottom of the frame at the barrel lumps was actually about as wide as nickel.
Last edited by steve f; 01/03/18 09:05 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 149 Likes: 5
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 149 Likes: 5 |
I take no offense.
My views are largely uninformed and are simply based upon my experiences with different SXS's and how they "felt".
My LOP to a front trigger is 14 3/4. Thus, there is a lot of wood weight to the rear (even if holes are drilled and a pad is used. Shotguns feel whippy to me if there is more weight to the rear than in front of the action. I think of this situation as being "Unbalanced"
A "balanced" -for me-shotgun has "enough" weight forward such that the shotgun isn't "whippy"-a smooth swing is easy. Obviously, multiple factors are at play: wood density and stock size, forearm type (splinter versus beavertail), barrel thicknesses and length, action weight, etc.
Last edited by rtw; 01/03/18 10:22 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021 |
|
|
|
|
|