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
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,506
Posts545,577
Members14,419
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,112 Likes: 595
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,112 Likes: 595 |
I realize that the law of diminishing returns applies here as well, but assuming it can be done with a good margin of safety...how much of a weight savings can one expect on a set of 28-inch 20-bore tubes? Also, on a mod/full choked gun, by opening the chokes significantly (to like...skeet1 and light mod?) what sort of weight savings could one expect? Anybody care to speculate?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,994 Likes: 402
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,994 Likes: 402 |
Lloyd, you left out the key info as to how much you would like to open the bores. Here is an online calculator that may help. http://servicesteel.com/weight-per-foot-of-steel-tube/
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 666 Likes: 45
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 666 Likes: 45 |
In one of the Sherman Bell articles, didn't they hog out a pair of LC Smith barrels and shave something like 9 ounces off of them?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,112 Likes: 595
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,112 Likes: 595 |
Cool calculator Steve, thank you for that! I guess I'd need to confirm what the units of measurement were to use it? (Thousandths and ounces?) I do know from working with English guns that the constant honing of pits over many decades and owners can produce some frightfully light tubes. I certainly don't want to go that far. This is also an older American 20, so the pressures involved would make me need a substantial margin to be comfortable. I am also considering lengthening the forcing cones (which might already happen by back-boring it in the first place?). I'll be working with a very competent and safe 'smith (Terry Nicholson) so I'd expect that he'll keep me honest.
Dan, I must have missed that article. Nine ounces off of even a 3 1/2 lb set of tubes is pretty substantial. Like what? 20%? Sounds like a good way to make #3 barrels on a Fox weigh more like #4s.
Last edited by Lloyd3; 02/19/16 03:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 264 Likes: 23
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 264 Likes: 23 |
20 gauge = .53 oz per foot of tube when ID is increased by .010" Therefore maybe @2oz on a pair of 28" barrels/ .010"increase.
Hugh Lomas, H.G.Lomas Gunmakers Inc. 920 876 3745
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Some few ounces, for practical purposes. If you want a lighter gun, this is not a very productive place to start. If you are intending to move the balance closer to the trigger and/or lower swing efforts, you may get some results. Note that the muzzle is the farthest point from the muzzle, so metal removed in the muzzle zone will have much more effect on balance and swing effort than will weight removed near the balance point. Calculating the weight removed is not mathmatically difficult, but it can be very complex. If you want to run some examples, post back and do the math for you.
DDA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,112 Likes: 595
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,112 Likes: 595 |
Rocketman: Thank you. I need to get the gun in hand first and then mic the barrels to see what I have to work with. Once I have a sense of what is reasonably possible, I may be talking to you. Weight and balance are both goals here and it would be nice to know how I might want to approach them instead of.... just blindly removing material. This should be an interesting project.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 666 Likes: 45
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 666 Likes: 45 |
According to the summary of "finding out for myself Part VIII", they removed over 1/2 pound from a pair of LC Smith barrels http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=259371&start=40I also have a hammer gun that was significantly lightened by honing from 12 gauge to 10 gauge dimensions while retaining ample wall thickness. Don't know what the original weighed, but it must have been a similar weight reduction to the LC Smith described above.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 29
Boxlock
|
Boxlock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 29 |
I guess I don't understand the quest to achieve the lowest possible weight in a shotgun. A seven pound gun is not heavy. That to me is about where they should be.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,344 Likes: 390
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,344 Likes: 390 |
A 6 lb. 12 ga. can be a delight, especially when you are doing more walking than shooting. But I've noticed that if you carry and shoot a 9 1/2 lb. gun for awhile, when you switch to a 7 lb. gun, it will seem light as a feather and swing like a wand.
Lloyd, you mention that your proposed lightening project is an old American 20 ga. gun. I have two Ithaca Flues 20 ga., and a 16 ga. Flues that I bought as parts guns. All three have barrels that are ruptured in the forearm region. I have no idea what caused the ruptures, but the barrels are typically pretty thin in that area on a Flues. I doubt any of these had ever been honed, and none had pitting. You might do better to just keep shopping until you find something safe that was originally built as a light upland game gun.
A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.
|
|
|
|
|