Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
One of Us |
I kind of got the impression the longer shell operates at similar pressure to the 3" shell, but that doesn't totally make sense. Sand Creek November 29 1864 | ||
|
One of Us |
Well, back in the 70's we considered .090 wall thickness are bare minimum..though I measured plenty of Browning O/U at .085...go figure.. | |||
|
One of Us |
The governing factor would be wall thickness left after intruding into the forcing cone. I don't understand why one would want to. Heck I do all of my waterfowling with 2 3/4" handloads- 1 1/4oz. of Bismuth 2's or 1 1/8oz. of Nice Shot 2's, 1250 fps. The 30 or so Canadas I killed last year are mute testimony to the effectiveness of these "pipsqueek" loads. Cleaner kills than my pit buddies using 3 and 3 1/2" guns shooting steel. I notice them re-thinking their approach to waterfowl load selection. Just my approach, to each his own. | |||
|
One of Us |
The reason is so that I would have the option, even if I never use it. I am thinking of having a fair amount of work done on this gun, so I want to start out with a gun that gives the most options I can get.
Sand Creek November 29 1864 | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia