CalendarCalendar   Photos  * FAQ
It is currently Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:53 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:28 pm 
Diamond Grade

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:15 am
Posts: 1018
.

Not expecting a standardization of actual chokes on shotguns...

But is there a standardization of choke markings ?

Have several brands of shotguns -- both old and new, American and European, and with fixed-chokes and screw-in chokes.

When glancing at the choke markings, can't remember whether more *asterisks means tighter or more open chokes.

Is the marking pattern consistent for all shotguns -- American and European ?

Does **** mean improved-cylinder on all guns or does it mean full choke ? Or neither ?

This only seems to be problem when I am looking to buy another one or am ready to shoot an existing one.


.




Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:09 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:20 pm
Posts: 9586
Here's a chart than can help:

http://www.hallowellco.com/choke_chart.htm

_________________
"The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory.” - Aldo Gucci

"Support our troops; we'll need them to overthrow our government"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:16 pm 
Diamond Grade

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:15 am
Posts: 1018
.

Thanks for the chart.

Great information.

Yesterday at an authorized dealer for an Italian brand shotgun got some very wrong information from their gun department manager. His interpretation was cylinder and improved-cylinder whereas your table gives it as improved-cylinder and modified. This would make a difference to me.


.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:44 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:20 pm
Posts: 9586
Glad I could help - I have found this chart to be VERY accurate as to their dimensions in the sub gauges

_________________
"The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory.” - Aldo Gucci

"Support our troops; we'll need them to overthrow our government"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:16 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:57 am
Posts: 20691
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
That is a fantastic choke chart. Thanks for that link.

The one thing that I'd like to add is that the Perazzi codes are not really codes, they are actual measurements. Perazzi constrictions come in tenths of millimeters. So, a #4 Perazzi choke has a constriction of .4mm which roughly translates to .016" or Light Modified.

_________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

“Endeavor to clear your mind of can't.” - Francis P. Church

Image

Col 4:6
Hate the ads? Become a Bonus Member, click here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:10 am 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 11:09 pm
Posts: 11603
Location: Houston, Texas
I think the easiest thing would be to standardize constriction. I mean when Beretta has a full choke with .31 constriction and Ruger's full choke is .22... something's wrong. Standardize constriction then just mark that on the barrels. Forget all the fancy names.

_________________
It is time I stop accepting the things I cannot change and start changing the things I cannot accept.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:56 am 
Crown Grade

Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 4:51 pm
Posts: 6813
Location: E. Rochester NY
phideaux_2003 wrote:
I think the easiest thing would be to standardize constriction. I mean when Beretta has a full choke with .31 constriction and Ruger's full choke is .22... something's wrong. Standardize constriction then just mark that on the barrels. Forget all the fancy names.


Phideaux - that's a very "Blanket" statement. What "gauge" are you talking about, and which of the manufacturer's models? For what shot - steel or lead? And "STANDARDIZATION"? It may be easy in your mind, but NOT when you go international.

You will have a great deal of difficulty getting all manufacturers and all countries to agree on ANY measurements for "standardization"! The difficulty is the "not invented here" attitude that exists, and that attitude exists in ALL countries and companies. And then there is "national pride", "WE know better, (ad nauseum).

Trust me - I have a LOT of experience in "standardization" around the world. Getting 2 people to agree on ANY one thing is near impossible.

BobK

_________________
BobK


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:10 am 
Diamond Grade

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:15 am
Posts: 1018
.

Quote:

Getting 2 people to agree on ANY one thing is near impossible.



Happens all the time.

My neighbor and his wife agreed that the other one was a rotten person and divorced each other.


.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:20 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:20 am
Posts: 7664
**** = IC

*** = Mod

** = IM and

* = Full.......or .010, .020, .030 and .040.

Now , today , there's a lot of debate in what makes a Lt Mod v. a Mod or a Lt Full v. a Full. Of course, the type , speed ,hardness of shot, of the shell has a huge effect on the actual patterns.

I find that chokes between .015 and .025 are the best for sporting clays.

_________________
Nsca # 540300. Been loving this game since 01.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:40 am 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 11:09 pm
Posts: 11603
Location: Houston, Texas
BobK wrote:
phideaux_2003 wrote:
I think the easiest thing would be to standardize constriction. I mean when Beretta has a full choke with .31 constriction and Ruger's full choke is .22... something's wrong. Standardize constriction then just mark that on the barrels. Forget all the fancy names.


Phideaux - that's a very "Blanket" statement. What "gauge" are you talking about, and which of the manufacturer's models? For what shot - steel or lead? And "STANDARDIZATION"? It may be easy in your mind, but NOT when you go international.

You will have a great deal of difficulty getting all manufacturers and all countries to agree on ANY measurements for "standardization"! The difficulty is the "not invented here" attitude that exists, and that attitude exists in ALL countries and companies. And then there is "national pride", "WE know better, (ad nauseum).

Trust me - I have a LOT of experience in "standardization" around the world. Getting 2 people to agree on ANY one thing is near impossible.

BobK



Point taken Bob. But obviously there is a certain amount of constriction that needs to happen to, let's say a 12 gauge with a bore diameter of .729, to attain what is commonly accepted as a full choke pattern at 40 yards with standard velocity shells with standard for bore and shell length payloads.

You ask "What "gauge" are you talking about, and which of the manufacturer's models? For what shot - steel or lead?"

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Why should we have to answer those questions? A full choke is a full choke is it not? It should be the load we alter to get the pattern with steel or lead that we want or it should be the load that fires best from our bore that we should look for. When we standardize one element in a 10 element equasion, we make our problem simpler. I mean we could standardize chokes even more if we wanted too in regards to the actual geometry of the choke, how long it is and how quickly it constricts. What I'm getting at is if chokes were a constant, the problem of figuring out which load fired best from which gun would be INFINATELY easier.

_________________
It is time I stop accepting the things I cannot change and start changing the things I cannot accept.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:35 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:57 am
Posts: 20691
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
I would be happy if they simply marked the constriction on there. That way you would have no confusion. It wouldn't matter what gauge the gun is or what you want to call the choke. This is what I like about the Perazzi system. They simply mark the constriction on there and it leaves out the guess work.

If you throw in names like Singles, Mid Cap and Long Cap, how are we supposed to know what they are? If you just put the constriction on there, no confusion.

It's just like the Dram EQ on shot shell boxes. Who cares how much black powder it would take to make the same charge? Just put the speed on there and eliminate the confusion.

_________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

“Endeavor to clear your mind of can't.” - Francis P. Church

Image

Col 4:6
Hate the ads? Become a Bonus Member, click here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:41 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:20 pm
Posts: 9586
Rastoff - I had a shooting friend who had chokes just like that - I never did get the name of those chokes, but all were marked in .005 increments. As you mention, a quick look and you know what you have

_________________
"The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory.” - Aldo Gucci

"Support our troops; we'll need them to overthrow our government"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:07 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Posts: 14651
Location: wilton.ct.us
But how man "*"s for a U2 since they hit like a M but open up like a IC but are lighter than an SK? :lol:

Actually, I think Jim is on to something here. A "Close" (U1), "Medium" (U2), and "Far" (U3) is really all you need.

_________________
Jeff Hunter
NSCA: 557876; I'm only in "A" class, so WTF do I know?
There is no such thing as hard targets, only targets above our ability. -- Jimmy Muller
I pray every day for Obama: Psalm 109:8


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:57 am 
Crown Grade

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 7:54 pm
Posts: 2858
Location: SW Va
Have they(the manufacturers)ever standardized bore diameters yet? I'm under the impression that they've not, but could be wrong.

HWD

_________________
Proud parent of a USMC Gunny!


My Marine kicked cancer's a$$!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:59 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:20 am
Posts: 7664
True 12g is .729.....but 12g guns come w/ .722 to .750 from various gun mfgr's.

So--no standardization.....and don't look for it as every company has it's own theory about what's best.

Perazzi insisted for years that .724 was std and .729 was the only other available bore....today they make a .736 and a .740.

Kolar started w/ a .740 and now makes a .750.

_________________
Nsca # 540300. Been loving this game since 01.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Standardization of choke markings ?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:37 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Posts: 14651
Location: wilton.ct.us
At what point does the 12 gauge become a 10?



_________________
Jeff Hunter
NSCA: 557876; I'm only in "A" class, so WTF do I know?
There is no such thing as hard targets, only targets above our ability. -- Jimmy Muller
I pray every day for Obama: Psalm 109:8


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Registered users: 11-87 Shooter, ai9000, analyst, AZ Dutch, beavdha, bigalt, Bing [Bot], Bladeswitcher, bobcom, Brad F, brewer12345, Bubzola, CamsPapa, casonet, Chilly807, Chubs, CLuttrell, COOTCOMMANDER, Dalee100, Dave Holmes, David S., eiderz, Eriehunter, fungunner, FWP, getwood, GF1, Goad, GoBow, Goldensrule!, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, GrizG, gspjazz, HMM36319, Island Shooter, jhancock, jharrington, Jim Tyner, jstone01, ken325, lcbo, Loganshy, M Parker, Milksak, MTmag, nevtrapper, ngzcaz, oldbirdhntr, oldthompson, pulllit, ROBinGa, roger8918, Rubberhead, Rudolph31, Saltydog055, sawtooth, seawolfxix, shootingcajun, Shotist, sixten38, tbeaux, troutman, TRUTTA, turner66, ushoot2, wjonessc, ysr_racer


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group     -  DMCA Notice