07 November 2009, 03:14
frank4570Could a Stoeger double 3" be bored out for 3.5"shells?
I kind of got the impression the longer shell operates at similar pressure to the 3" shell, but that doesn't totally make sense.
08 November 2009, 03:36
Duane WiebeWell, 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..
08 November 2009, 04:28
gnoahhhThe 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.
08 November 2009, 16:56
frank4570The 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.
quote:
Originally posted by gnoahhh:
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.