Article on choke problems in old guns from Shooting Sportsman

Big Bad

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
In Little Syria.
When I have problems, they always seem to start and end with me, but I have shot old guns that were amazingly rifle-like in their patterning and I know full well it's what people used to want, or think they wanted.



Using choke reamers, the author opened the chokes on his client’s gun so that they were shooting the desired patterns with the loads being used.

By Delbert Whitman Jr.

On a glum and cloudy day this past spring, a client and good friend of mine paid an unannounced visit to my shop. In his hand was a very nice side-by-side boxlock game gun. The look on his was face was as glum and unpleasant as the weather. A small but quite reputable London maker circa 1908 had made the gun he was carrying. It was a 12-bore and had 28″ tubes and a straight grip. The action was dainty for a 12-bore, and thus the gun was light and felt dynamic in the hands. The gun had the sharp, sleek look that many British guns from that era do. I had seen the gun shortly after he had acquired it, and upon doing a cursory inspection knew it to be in incredibly good condition.

I inquired about his foul mood. He said that he could not hit the broad side of a barn with the gun, even if he were standing inside. He was at a complete loss as to why. I was rather perplexed as well. From the prior inspection, I knew that the gun’s fit was nearly ideal for him. The chokes were set at an amicable Improved Cylinder & Light Modified (i.e, .009″ & .015″ constriction). A barrel-regulation issue would have been a total anomaly for a gun of that quality. I also knew my friend to be a remarkably good shot. He consistently broke mid- to high 40s on a 50-bird clays course, and very few birds flew away from him in the field.

So out of deference to my friend’s obvious dismay with the new gun, I put away what I had been working on and endeavored to figure out what was going on. The first thing I did was a thorough inspection of the barrels. The bores turned out to be slightly overbored to .735″. This was well within proof and not uncommon for a gun of that age. The chokes and choke forcing cones were in perfect condition. The only other thing to do was take the gun to the patterning plate and see how my friend was shooting it.

At my British-style, 16-yard patterning plate, the issue became immediately evident. Using high-quality, low-pressure ammunition, he fired one shot from each barrel at two different 6″ aiming points on the plate. Both of the shots were dead center on the targets, but both patterns were scarcely larger than my fist. Having measured the chokes, this took us both by surprise. We then set up my standard 40-yard patterning board and conducted formal pellet-density pattern tests. We discovered that the right barrel was shooting a light Full pattern and the left a true Full pattern. At reasonable shooting distances, the pattern diameters were roughly half of what the choke constrictions seemingly dictated they should be.

This is an issue I see more and more these days, and it understandably can have a dramatic effect on one’s shooting performance. If you head to the field believing you are shooting Improved Cylinder & Light Modified and in reality are shooting Full & Full, some obvious disappointment will ensue.

This problem is created by the confluence of two separate yet interrelated issues. One is the antiquated numeric system we use to designate choke. The other is the superior quality and technically advanced shotshells we have these days.

I wonder how many sportsmen are dealing with this and don’t even realize it.

I’m going to use some numbers in my explanation. They are based on 12-bore data, but keep in mind that choke-constriction designations are proportional to bore size, so the numbers for a 12-bore will be proportionally less for smaller gauges.

The term “choke” is colloquially used to describe the diameter of a pattern at a given distance. But from a technical standpoint it’s defined as the percentage of the initial payload of pellets that hits inside a 30″ circle at 40 yards. If 70 percent of the pellets hit in the 30″ circle, it is considered a Full pattern; if 60 percent hit, it is a Modified pattern; if 55 percent hit, it is Improved Cylinder; and if 40 percent hit, it is Cylinder.

Somewhere around the turn of the century in literature and advertisements we started to see the common choke-name designations we still see today: Cylinder, Improved Cylinder, Modified, Full and their various permutations. These designations had corresponding numeric constriction amounts: Cylinder, .000″; Improved Cylinder, .009″; Modified, .020″; and Full, .040″.

The issue here is that when the choke designations were associated with their constriction amounts, the ammunition that was being used was inferior to what we have today. Wads consisted of various layers of paper and felt fiber. There were no barriers between the shot columns and the barrel interiors. The felt wads did not form good gas seals, so there was gas blow-by, necessitating the use of larger amounts of powder. Shot was typically pure lead, which is soft and prone to deformation, and it often was not round to begin with. The result of all this was that a lot of shot came out of barrels badly deformed and thus did not fly true, resulting in larger and inconsistent patterns.

I believe that many of us take for granted the quality and technical advances of the shotshells we have today. Perfectly round shot is alloyed with antimony and other elements for increased hardness, and in some cases it is plated with copper or nickel. The plastic wads surround and cushion the shot column and form a perfect gas seal. Progressive-burning powders reduce pressure. The result of all this is that the vast majority of shot comes out of the barrel as round, straight-flying pellets, resulting in denser and tighter patterns.

So in effect the modern high-quality ammunition we use today can cause a mistranslation in how we perceive the size of the patterns our guns shoot. If a gun has .009″ of constriction, we still consider it to be Improved Cylinder; but in reality, with today’s superior ammo, it could be patterning significantly tighter. I wonder how many sportsmen are dealing with this and don’t even realize it. The only way to find out is to undertake the tedious but potentially hugely beneficial task of pattern-testing guns with the different shells that are being used.

To remedy my client’s problem, I got to work with my bore-piloted, expandable choke reamers and honing equipment. I reamed out and opened the constrictions in .005″ increments and did formal 40-yard pattern analyses after each reduction. At the end of this long process, the gun was patterning the desired Improved Cylinder & Light Modified. In effect, I had fine-tuned the amount of choke constriction to shoot exactly the pattern size my client desired with the modern ammunition he was using. As a result of this choke work, he is now shooting his fine new gun at his usual high level of proficiency.

Delbert Whitman Jr. lives near Traverse City, Michigan, with his wife and daughter. He is a professional gunsmith specializing in repair, restoration, stockmaking and engraving. He also is a passionate upland-bird hunter and English cocker spaniel owner.




https://shootingsportsman.com/all-c...83bbabe8|876b6832-2641-41d1-aff3-54ae5f7478ee
 
Interesting story. I always pick up little bit of exaggeration in articles like this. If his friend was much of a wing shooter he would have recognized the issue rather than shrug and claim he could not hit a thing with the gun.Some writers try too hard when writing about shotguns. Quite common in that magazine through the years.
 
IMHO, he missed the patterning board (pun intended). He's right about all the differences between traditional shot shells and more recent designs. But I think the most influential difference is the shot cup. He touches on the fact that the pellets don't come in direct contact with the barrel walls. He mentions the tighter seal (preventing blow by gas leakage). Yet he doesn't draw attention to the fact that the shot stream travels the entire length of the barrel, through the chokes, and doesn't separate from the shot cup until the air resistance strips the lighter plastic cup away.

When hunting and shooting with traditional game guns, it makes sense to use shells that are designed using the same principles in use at the time (such as shells made with felt wads and no shot cup - like Kent's Gamebore traditional loads). Regardless of the approach you choose, chokes will always be more of an art than a science. W.W. Greener's book "The Gun" details the contortions the gun industry twisted itself into during the era when the concept of 'chokes' was first introduced. In fact, Greener's own stellar reputation is built, in part, on his apparent mastery of the choke witchcraft (his guns patterned as well or better than the competition).

The moral of the story is: pattern your guns AND your ammo. It's the ONLY way to really know how a given gun patterns with a particular load.
 
IMHO, he missed the patterning board (pun intended). He's right about all the differences between traditional shot shells and more recent designs. But I think the most influential difference is the shot cup. He touches on the fact that the pellets don't come in direct contact with the barrel walls. He mentions the tighter seal (preventing blow by gas leakage). Yet he doesn't draw attention to the fact that the shot stream travels the entire length of the barrel, through the chokes, and doesn't separate from the shot cup until the air resistance strips the lighter plastic cup away.

When hunting and shooting with traditional game guns, it makes sense to use shells that are designed using the same principles in use at the time (such as shells made with felt wads and no shot cup - like Kent's Gamebore traditional loads). Regardless of the approach you choose, chokes will always be more of an art than a science. W.W. Greener's book "The Gun" details the contortions the gun industry twisted itself into during the era when the concept of 'chokes' was first introduced. In fact, Greener's own stellar reputation is built, in part, on his apparent mastery of the choke witchcraft (his guns patterned as well or better than the competition).

The moral of the story is: pattern your guns AND your ammo. It's the ONLY way to really know how a given gun patterns with a particular load.

You Sir are correct, especially your last line about patterning your gun with individual loads to see how they perform in YOUR barrel as no two barrels are the same. Some will like one particular shot size for example over another. I have played and experimented with shot shells since the early 70's. But at the end of the day the proof in the worth of a load in your barrel is determined at the patterning board.
 
Agreed, indicated choke markings do not necessarily indicate the true amount of effective choke in a given barrel with a particular load, the choke may have been altered or it may have been designed for a different type ammunition than that being used. You will get differences in patterns with different ammunition, sometimes large, sometimes small. Many things such as wad construction, velocity, shot size, shot roundness, shot hardness, abruptness of shot acceleration, chamber forcing cone length and taper, choke length and taper interact to also affect effective choke, application of choke is still not an exact science after over 150 years of experimentation and use. As already mentioned, pattern your gun with the load you intend to use. Not just one or two shots, but ideally 10 of each load to average the results. If you don't like the results, try other loads. In Britain and Europe many of the best sporting clays competitors in the world change loads for different presentations rather than change chokes like we usually do in North America. I've never understood why formal pistol shooters will punch paper all day, rifle shooters will spend hours shooting targets trying to get the smallest group, but shotgunners hate to pattern their shotguns.
 
Beyond ignorance of the issues related to shotgun performance, I know why people don't pattern their shotgun - it is a lot of work. Doing 10 patterns per variable takes a lot of time manually. It is easier but still takes significant time with pellet counting image software. Unfortunately, without statistically valid patterning, you are fooling yourself. You have not really learned anything.

One of the gurus of shotshell patterning has recently passed away. There is a wealth of information on procedures for patterning shotgun shells on Trapshooters.com, posted by Neil Winston.
His friend/protégé who has taken over the role as master of shotshell performance, is Timb99.
 
As an interesting note to pattern board testing. For many years I used a pair of Win. 101's one in 410 and an identical one in 12 ga. for shooting skeet. I had patterned the 12 ga. but the 410 I had not as I was enjoying good success with it. But one day I took it out just for a look see. With my skeet load of 1/2oz. of #9's it was amazing how a I ever hit a clay at 35 yds. which is generally the longest shot you will get normally of a skeet field. At 40 yds. it took 3 tries to hit a stationary coke can. I patterned that gun with my skeet load all the way back to 10ft just to see the patterns. A very interesting informative afternoon. I developed a 1/2 oz load of copper plated #6's that was deadly in that gun out to 15yds. as used to shoot partridge and the odd duck it.
 
While I agree for the most part with the statements made by the author, it comes to mind that his friend who normally shoots mid to high 40's on a 50 bird course is shooting relatively easy targets at close range with wide open chokes. We're seeing lots of 40+ yard targets on sporting clay's courses these days and if you can't break them with a full choke then your chances of breaking it with a light mod is also slim.
 
Another option would be to reload ammo with the old-style components. And do the pattern testing of course.

I'm ready LOL
OJmmMfO.jpg
 
Boy it has been a lot of years since I seen those boxes. I bought a huge pile of reloading equipment and supplies many years ago from an estate sale after an elderly fella passed on. I sold all the felt wads to another old fella who still used them. Kept a couple boxes of various thicknesses for specific hunting loads.
 
Boy it has been a lot of years since I seen those boxes. I bought a huge pile of reloading equipment and supplies many years ago from an estate sale after an elderly fella passed on. I sold all the felt wads to another old fella who still used them. Kept a couple boxes of various thicknesses for specific hunting loads.

LOL. I sold 1/2 of what I had maybe 3 years ago to a member out west also who was still doing a lot of vintage paper hulls
I kept this batch pretty much for the same reason as you did
Yep seems like yesterday we were reloading those old paper imperials
Could never get the great imperial smell however out of the reloads :(
Take care
 
I have card and fibre wads, mostly CIL brand or Gevelot, for 12, 16 and 20 gauge. What I don't have is very many recipes for smokeless powders.
I have loaded lots of Black powder cartridges, a few in 16 and 20 gauge, but thousands in 12 gauge for Black powder Trap.
There are a few stack wad loads in Ballistics Products data, but then we're off to powders that I don't have.
The interesting Alcan data in old manuals using a Plastic Gas Seal call for Alcan powders that are no longer available.
Early CIL plastic hull Canucks from the 1960s still used stacked fibre wads. It sure would be interesting to know the powders they loaded.
 
I have card and fibre wads, mostly CIL brand or Gevelot, for 12, 16 and 20 gauge. What I don't have is very many recipes for smokeless powders.
I have loaded lots of Black powder cartridges, a few in 16 and 20 gauge, but thousands in 12 gauge for Black powder Trap.
There are a few stack wad loads in Ballistics Products data, but then we're off to powders that I don't have.
The interesting Alcan data in old manuals using a Plastic Gas Seal call for Alcan powders that are no longer available.
Early CIL plastic hull Canucks from the 1960s still used stacked fibre wads. It sure would be interesting to know the powders they loaded.

Pretty sure the lyman no.1 has that stuff
I will check since I have the set of them
Cheers
 
I'm really addressing the original subject matter here. I find, in many areas of life not just shooting, that often magazines write and edit their articles for the lowest common denominator of knowledge. That article presupposes the reader knows absolutely nothing and I would suggest the writer/editors took liberties with the truth in order to make their points.

That said, for many of us shooting vintage shotguns, the effect of modern ammo design on the pattern is well known. And many of us make the choice to either shoot old style shotshells with felt wads etc or compensate for the new shotshell designs by opening the chokes. It's not complicated nor is it some newly discovered Mystery of the Tight Patterns. Holy Hardy Boys, Batman.
 
I'm really addressing the original subject matter here. I find, in many areas of life not just shooting, that often magazines write and edit their articles for the lowest common denominator of knowledge. That article presupposes the reader knows absolutely nothing and I would suggest the writer/editors took liberties with the truth in order to make their points.

That said, for many of us shooting vintage shotguns, the effect of modern ammo design on the pattern is well known. And many of us make the choice to either shoot old style shotshells with felt wads etc or compensate for the new shotshell designs by opening the chokes. It's not complicated nor is it some newly discovered Mystery of the Tight Patterns. Holy Hardy Boys, Batman.

I remember when the first so called new shotshell designs came out we would just alter the powder charge by 10% and use them in our old guns
Do you recall anything like that. Now I am talking lead not steel
Cheers
 
I'm really addressing the original subject matter here. I find, in many areas of life not just shooting, that often magazines write and edit their articles for the lowest common denominator of knowledge. That article presupposes the reader knows absolutely nothing and I would suggest the writer/editors took liberties with the truth in order to make their points.

That said, for many of us shooting vintage shotguns, the effect of modern ammo design on the pattern is well known. And many of us make the choice to either shoot old style shotshells with felt wads etc or compensate for the new shotshell designs by opening the chokes. It's not complicated nor is it some newly discovered Mystery of the Tight Patterns. Holy Hardy Boys, Batman.

Yup, felt wads for vintage guns rule!
If I can hit birds on a skeet range and with weird angled hand thrown clays I don't worry about it.
, I just shoot the danged gun!:p
Cat
 
Back
Top Bottom