Benelli AI fact or fiction
- Thread starter reddog
- Start date
Faster shot string through Benelli barrels 'regardless of ammunition'?? What complete and utter bulls_h_i_t. The laws of physics don't vary from company to company, regardless of what the marketing gurus say.I have no doubt that this 500 yr old company survived just on "marketing"
https://www.benelliusa.com/advanced-impact
The claim that the AI system produces "up to 20 meters per second higher velocity" ...
And that this incresse in velocity is an advantage out in the field ...
This is complete B U L L S H I T.
The 12ga loads that i am shooting range from 1200 to 1600 fps.
A 66 fps increase will not help me to shoot further out or to have better penetration ...
Not under real world scenarios out in the field.
A 4% increase of velocity at the muzzle will translate to what penetration increase at 30 meters?
Not even 1% ....
Last edited:
The laws of motion were figured out by Isaac Newton in 1687, and they still apply.
I should also add that friction is not acceleration. I can't put it more simply. Gases from the burning propellant push/drive the charge through the barrel. The degree of polish of the barrel might affect how the shot cup rubs against it (i.e. might slow it down less), but that doesn't add to the forward motion; nothing beyond the burning propellant does so. Arguing that the shot charge somehow accelerates faster down a 'AI' barrel is akin to arguing that the shot charge accelerates after leaving the barrel. It doesn't. And if one was to argue that a 'AI' barrel was somehow frictionless, an impossibility, it might only impact the shot cup rubbing against it, but not the pellets. If you were to shoot an old-school fibre wad cartridge, the friction (or lack thereof) would affect the outer pellets only, and not the main charge, which is happily going on its way. A barrel, no matter how high-tech its production, simply cannot accelerate a shot charge, unless it was adding to the propulsive force of the burning propellant, which it does not.
You can argue that I'm a know-nothing fudd, and many might agree. But Mr. Newton will always win this argument, I'm only the middle-man.
So gradual tighten of the cone barrel & choke, would have no effect what so ever?Thats weird, because every intake or exhaust port that I have worked on or tested on a flow bench has improved the speed the flow when gradually reduced.
Nobody called you FUDD but yourself.
Last edited:
Sustained air flow is much different than a single pulse. Constricting the barrel will increase pressure and friction it wont speed up the shot. Backboring gives more room for expanding gas wave to push on the shot charge until the wad can no longer seal the gas. A reshaped forcing cone can only do so much and at that it can only be lengthened or shortened and have its angles changed. And thats old tech
If we were talking about the fluid dynamics of, say, pushing water through a narrowing pipe, then yes, narrowing will increase the velocity, as water is largely incompressible; this is the result of the continuity equation. Propellant-produced gas is compressible; thus, the effect of speeding up doesn't happen.
If narrowing the barrel would increase velocity, and with it distance, penetrating power, etc., don't you think it would have been tried before? It has. Barrels in early breech-loaders were often constricted, such as having 12-gauge chambers and 13- or 14-gauge barrel tubes, in the search for better patterns. Then, in the late 1860s, choke boring was invented and became commonplace in the 1870s and ever since. This was all about better patterns, not because a narrowing barrel shot farther or harder. At the turn of the 20th century, experimentation was done on narrowing barrels, the most extreme being a 12-gauge chamber and the barrel narrowing to 20 gauge at the muzzle, known as the 'Vena Contracta' gun. These were unpleasant to shoot, didn't shoot any farther, and also didn't last long on the market.
I have no doubt that changing forcing cone lengths, employing various formulas of back-boring barrels, and applying different approaches to choke constrictions will impact patterns, as will, in addition, the shape and composition of wadding, shot cups, hardness of pellet material, and the propellant properties of any given powder brand/formula. That is the 'black box' of shotgun ballistics, a subject that has interested me greatly for some 46 years now, and which has preoccupied gunmakers for about 400 years.
I have no thoughts on Benelli guns. What I take exception to is the idea that the internal shape of their 'AI' barrel somehow increases the velocity of the shot charge irrespective of the brand/type of ammunition. That is what I call BS on. If it were anything other than a marketing gimmick, every other gunmaker would have done it, like, yesterday.
If narrowing the barrel would increase velocity, and with it distance, penetrating power, etc., don't you think it would have been tried before? It has. Barrels in early breech-loaders were often constricted, such as having 12-gauge chambers and 13- or 14-gauge barrel tubes, in the search for better patterns. Then, in the late 1860s, choke boring was invented and became commonplace in the 1870s and ever since. This was all about better patterns, not because a narrowing barrel shot farther or harder. At the turn of the 20th century, experimentation was done on narrowing barrels, the most extreme being a 12-gauge chamber and the barrel narrowing to 20 gauge at the muzzle, known as the 'Vena Contracta' gun. These were unpleasant to shoot, didn't shoot any farther, and also didn't last long on the market.
I have no doubt that changing forcing cone lengths, employing various formulas of back-boring barrels, and applying different approaches to choke constrictions will impact patterns, as will, in addition, the shape and composition of wadding, shot cups, hardness of pellet material, and the propellant properties of any given powder brand/formula. That is the 'black box' of shotgun ballistics, a subject that has interested me greatly for some 46 years now, and which has preoccupied gunmakers for about 400 years.
I have no thoughts on Benelli guns. What I take exception to is the idea that the internal shape of their 'AI' barrel somehow increases the velocity of the shot charge irrespective of the brand/type of ammunition. That is what I call BS on. If it were anything other than a marketing gimmick, every other gunmaker would have done it, like, yesterday.
Stephen, watch these 2 videos. Benelli managed to increase the velocity ... but only marginal ... and not enough to make a real difference in real world scenarios out in the field.
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...-fact-or-fiction.2548035/page-2#post-21386656
Last edited:
I did, thanks. I wasn't convinced about the velocity increase.
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Benelli was founded in 1911
https://www.benelliusa.com/advanced-impact
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Even if marginal gains in velocity were obtained it doesn't mean much in the real world.
In tests with different target loads it's been found that two identical loads with different velocities, one 1145 fps and the other 1250 fps, both loads are doing the same speed by the time they travel 40 yards. The reason is that the faster load meets more wind resistance and slows at a faster rate than the slower load. Long range rifle shooters have known about this phenomenon for years.
The faster shotgun load will still arrive at the target sooner than the slower load due to it crossing the first 40 yards quicker than the slow load but after that there is no advantage.
In tests with different target loads it's been found that two identical loads with different velocities, one 1145 fps and the other 1250 fps, both loads are doing the same speed by the time they travel 40 yards. The reason is that the faster load meets more wind resistance and slows at a faster rate than the slower load. Long range rifle shooters have known about this phenomenon for years.
The faster shotgun load will still arrive at the target sooner than the slower load due to it crossing the first 40 yards quicker than the slow load but after that there is no advantage.
