doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Stupid comments time.

Reading Nick Sisley's report on the new Browning 625 Sporting Clays gun, in Sporting Clays magazine, yielded these gems of idiocy. First, tricky Nicky says "One of the main new differences with the new 625 is the introduction of Vector Pro, Brownng's new extended forcing cones. The extended forcing cones are over 2" in length, longer than on the 425 or 525. Further, the taper is much more gradual, which translates into even fewer deformed shot pellets. The Vector Pro geometry completely eliminates any step or double taper between the chamber and the bore." How could you have a longer forcing cone WITHOUT a more gradual taper??? And "steps"?, "double tapers"??? Are we talking about forcing cones or fly lines?
Next, talking about Browning's new "Diamond Grade" screw-in chokes, Nick says "Browning calls these Diamond Grade I guess because of the diamond shapes built into the extended portion of the chokes." What a coincidence! Or just MAYBE the diamond shapes were put in the extended portion of the chokes because Browning had previously decided to call them "Diamond Grade", ya think?

I have no bone to pick with Mr. Sisley, however history is everything. Since he started with the Browning 325 he should know the main difference between 325 barrels and all the rest is the 325 uses chopper lump construction while the others use the mono-block design. The chokes are inconsequential, since anyone interested in accurate constriction will replace them with after market products like Briley anyway.

Can you have chopper lump construction on an O/U?

Jim, I don't understand your point about the gradual taper or steps. While his writing is probably BS fed to him by Browning I don't see the inherent fallacy in it.

Jim, I heard the same at one time about the old 325s. No reason why the hook and recoil lug couldn't be integral to the bottom barrel. In fact, I don't see why a monoblock couldn't also have integral lumps machined from the solid on the Rolex Oyster principle. Don't think demi-lumps would have any reason to be found on an o/u unless it was one of those side-swing openers.

jack

Or maybe a Superposed...

My point about the more gradual taper is that a longer forcing cone would HAVE to be a more gradual taper, the angle would have to be less in order to make the cone longer, wouldn't it?

Point about steps and double tapers is that nobody makes a forcing cone with steps or double tapers, do they?

Point about the "diamond marks" on the chokes struck me as silly as saying Browning decided to call the gun a 625 because they discovered a "625" on the underside of the receiver.

If the bottom barrel on an O/U having the underlug forged as an integral part of the barrel makes it of "chopper lump" construction, then we should probably add my question to the stupid list.

Writing well, is one of the very hardest things to do. Many gun writers have either the ability to write or a clear understanding of the subject matter, rarely both. Like great baseball hitters and batting coaches. Few great batting coaches were great hitters, they had an understanding of what to do but not the ability to do it themselves. If they had a great technical background would they be writing or working for one of the gun makers?

Nick Sisley is a light weight in the tech side and that is all right. He is recounting "facts" fed to him by the maker. Plus you need to understand that editing can destroy the best written line in just a few seconds. Stories are needed to fit a space and the submitted story can get trimmed back to the point that the writer does not see how his article can be the end result.

The ability to clearly explain things is no longer taught in our schools. Very little is really taught in schools these days. They teach to the test, so test scores look good. Many Vo.Tech. schools are closing. One of my sons has not had homework in almost a month because they have been reviewing for the "test". What a joke.

Jim I agree with your points. Common sense is just about gone in many things these days.

Jim, my thinking and understanding is that "chopper" lump barrel and lug construction is nearly always associated with sxs but not limited to nor defined by the presence of two "half lumps"--one protruding from each tube of a proposed barrelset before striking and milling. The mental picture of "chopper" is preserved in the lower barrel of an o/u constructed such that there is a single protruberance integral to the forging before milling; admittedly--in the case of the Miroku-produced 325--after milling it "looks like" three: barrel hook and two "bifurcated" recoil lugs with lock recess. A monobloc with an integral lump would lack the lever arm or "handle" to easily suggest chopper, hatchet or meat tenderizer to the visually imaginative but would, imo, contain the necessary and definitive attribute of construction from which the chopper image was derived. If the tube or tubes were socketed into the monobloc prior to milling the lugs (probably not likely in the production sequence) the assembly would indeed suggest the quaint image of the "chopper". Strange to say, I've had three Supers and access to Schwing's book and never gave "chopper lump" Supers a thought--probably too fascinated with the forend mech.

jack

I don't think Browning is claiming they have invented new physics in that a longer forcing cone will have a more gradual taper - they're juts pointing out that the benefit of having a longer cone is a longer taper. It's like Chevy stating your new 4x4 has greater suspension travel for increased ability to take bumps. It's just pointing out an advantage.

An no, you're wrong about the issue of a longer cone must have a more gradual taper. I could easily machine a 4" forcing cone or a 6" forcing cone with a less gradual taper than Browning's 2" cone. You're assuming all cones have to be machined with a linear taper when they don't.