[Il-Greenhead]

I am looking for a new Clays gun and was wondering what the length of the forcing cones are in the 525 and the Beretta 682. A look at their web sights was not helpful. Does anyone know this info? I may have to email them to find out. The companies should put this in their catalogs with the other specs they give. It would be helpful in making up my mind as to who has the better barrel design.

Thanks

Brian

 

[Guest]

That seems like a good question. As I have no clue to the answer, please post it when you find out.

 

[uglydog]

Browning still has the short 5/8'-3/4" cones, Beretta has 1 1/2" cones. An inch and a half is all that is needed, any more and the benefits do not increase much and the chance of boring them out crooked in relation to the bore is increased.

 

[RemingtonII]

Impressive knowledge Ugly Dog...fast too.

 

[uglydog]

Thanks Remington,
I am a Browning fan so kind of keep up on them. I recently bought a 525 and that is what the gunsmith told me when I had him lengthen the forcing cones. He lengthens forcing cones to 2 1/2" as that length is easy to see with the naked eye. The 1 1/2" ones look as if nothing has been done and customers can get suspicious, especially if they do not know how to use a bore micrometer. The Beretta's have had longer forcing cones for a while, in fact while I'm thinking of it, the Optima bores have even longer forcing cones. I keep up on them too; after all one should "know thy enemy"!
By the way, Remington has had 1 1/2" forcing cones for about the past decade in their barrels.

 

[Dixie Slugs]

Although Forcing Cones are cussed and discussed a great deal, there are still some facts that are not published. One is that the longer Forcing Cones only came into fashion with the introduction of the plastic one piece wad. Since the plastic wads is, more or less, an American idea......American conpanies went with the longer cones first. Many companies overseas where stacked cut (filler) wads are still in use have been slow to go to the long cone. A long cone does not work well with a stacked wad load.....there will be blow by.
Since we work with specialized long range hunting loads with stacked filler wads and plastic shot cups.....we prefer a short cone that seals the filler wads very quick. We use extra hard copper or nickel plated shot and worry more about the seal with slow burn powders than shot deformation.
Best Regards, James

 

[Il-Greenhead]

Well here is what I could find out from the two companies.

Beretta 682 series has a 4" forcing cone and from talking on the phone with them, they are very proud of it, yet humble.

Talking with Browning on the other hand was very odd. At first I talked with a woman and asked about the difference in the barrels of the 525 verses XS guns. She seemed to know her stuff pretty well. I learned that as far as backbore, forcing cones, choke tubes, etc. they are the same. Cool! Next I asked what the forcing cone length was. I could hear her looking through papers to find the answer, she said she did not know but would trasfer my call to tech, they will know. Again, cool I thought.

So I asked the tech guy about length. Well, he said, "that info I do not know. But here at Browning we do a lot of testing to find what works the best. If there was a better way we would be already doing it. So rest assured it is good at whatever length it is". I thought that statement was really pompous, they think pretty highly of themselves. So I said, someone must know could you transfer me to them. He didn't want to but did.

When I asked the next guy he did not know either.

So what is up here????? Are they embarassed by being behind compared to what the other companies have?????

BTW, Sigarms Aurora guns have a 5" long cone.

Brian

 

[frankgoss]

Beretta in their 2013 catalog states forcing cones are SP1 65mm (2 1/2"); new 692 360mm (14") and DT11 480mm (19").

Beretta 682 Gold E was stated as 4" (100mm or so) per one author; however Clay Shooting Magazine says in their article entitled " Beretta 692" under" Barrels" states on "682,686,687 and DT10 Beratta included a forcing cone of arround 65mm (2 .5") on 30" barrels. When the DT11 was developed, Beretta sought to extend the forcing cones-and a whopping 480 mm forcing cone is found on the DT11. The 692 has a substancial longer taper than the 682, at 360mm. " http://www,clay-shooting.com/features/beretta-692/.

Browning states in their 1997 catalog (pg27) back bore .741 vs .725 (B,722); then in 2010 &2011 (pg 13) 2.5" forcing cone length with .742 bore diameter on VectoPro barrels. No more actual inches mentioned in 2014 & 2115, just back bore tech.

Weatherby uses Invector Browning choke but the Japan mfg are SKB.s.

Beretta seem to have changed from .722 to .735 bores vs Browning .741 in 1997, so Beretta has gone "all in" on forcing chomes and increasd it bore size to conform to Browning sometine in 2013 or so. Is Beretta just "Keeping up with the Jones"?? The 2016 summer Olympics will tell! Don't know P and K guns info!

 

[Grouse Gunner]

I have often wondered (in the past that is...it no longer matters to me!) what length the cones are on my 1967 Superposed Superlight. They are the old fashioned shorter version I'm sure. Decades ago when such things occupied my mind, I had actually considered having them lengthened. This was due to all I was reading that my older era gun had "leftover old technology short cones", which were a carryover from the days before one piece wads became the norm...and that I'd get better performance and less perceived recoil if lengthened them.

Back then Briley advised me that it was not uncommon for them to lengthen the cones on my particular model gun for other customers. Browning told me it if I had it done they would refuse to work on the gun from that point on. That ended the conversation for me.

I trust Briley and I am a believer of proven and updated technology. I believe there is validity in where we have arrived at with longer cones on currently produced quality guns.

I don't think the advantages of longer vs. over older and somewhat shorter versions are all that much greater, but I believe the industry has it correct now in standardizing the longer ones.

Uglydogs comment was very interesting and informative. I had read that there was a length beyond which additional advantages were minimal, but I hadn't thought about the increased risk of an off-center boring occurrence in going longer than the "sweet spot".

As I recall, the folks at Briley advised me that there is a certain guideline or formula they use in determining the best length for the cones on an individual gun. If I'm remembering correctly, it may have been based on the bore size.

In any event, the thing I did to increase the performance of my Superlight for practice and league skeet (obviously not the ideal target gun), rather than lengthen the cones, was to go to 3/4 and 7/8 ounce loads and learn to improve my mental game without allowing negative thoughts about choke, bore size and cone length to muddy up my concentration and confidence.

I'm glad I didn't bother with the short cones on my old thin-barrelled classic. But when I get a new modern target gun, I'll be confident the cones will be optimal as it will be from a current quality manufacturer.

 

[hopper810]

I believe we have a NEW record Lasurus thread this one from 2003 :lol:

 

[BobK]

The reason we now have "longer forcing cones" is that we now use plastic shotgun shells with very thin walls, compared to the older thick-walled paper hulls. The old paper hulls had an inside diameter which essentially was "bore diameter", so to provide protection from gas "blow-by" as we stepped down the barrel ID from the larger chamber dimension to the bore diameter, a very short forcing cone was required. And the introduction of the plastic obturating wad base really eliminated the requirement of the short step-down forcing cone. Back in those days of paper hulls and wads of the time it was NECESSARY to have short, sharp forcing cones.

Modern all-plastic ammo allowed the more-relaxed forcing cones of today.

If you still use the old paper/felt/fiber wads, you still will do better with the older very short forcing cones to prevent gas blow-by.

But I have not seen any real measured advantage or data to suggest measured data showing improvement with any lengthened forcing cones over and above what comes from the factories in modern shotguns with plastic shells and wads. I feel it is just advertising hype to sell specific brands of "newer and better" models.

And, strangely enough, a lot of us shoot our old L.C. Smiths, Parkers, Winchesters, Remingtons, Savages, etc. with short, sharp forcing cones, and still get good results, even with modern all-plastic ammo!

 

[son of thurlo]

Tell me, what happens if the bbl becomes completely blocked & the bbl explodes as a result of over pressure?

No more recoil. The gun just explodes.
If you look at recoil calculations, there is no mention of pressure which, longer forcing cones are supposed to reduce.
It is true that, pressure is the determining influence to a point, which governs the velocity of a particular mass at a particular velocity, however, the pressure is not the determining factor in relation to the recoil.
For example; a 22-250 50 grn projectile, fired at 3600 fps & 56000 psi does not recoil anything like a 12g load of 410grn at 10000 psi.
I presume that you think that the the length of the forcing cones effects pressure which, in turn effects recoil.
This could be said to be true if, you're a strain gauge & can differentiate in 10'000ths of a second, otherwise, the difference in felt recoil between a 2" & 4" or 10" forcing cone is, of absolutely no consequence.
All of the literature I've read by gunsmiths whom have expertise in shotgun forcing cones, bbls & chokes with, regard to pattern control, all recommend 2" max forcing cone length
All noted that patterns deteriorated when forcing cone length went beyond 2".

hope this helps.

Regards..............SoT

 

[H & H Rods]

I believe we have a NEW record Lasurus thread this one from 2003 :lol:

And the resurrecting author should not shock you, given the recent track record. A true wealth of knowledge.

 

[MotoGP1199]

All of the literature I've read by gunsmiths whom have expertise in shotgun forcing cones, bbls & chokes with, regard to pattern control, all recommend 2" max forcing cone length
All noted that patterns deteriorated when forcing cone length went beyond 2".

Regards..............SoT

I think the DT11 and 692 have proven that forcing cones longer than 2" can pattern very well.

 

[moocher]

The Browning 625s have lengthened forcing cones from the factory. That is one of the main differences from the Model 525s.. I am not sure how long they are but you can look down the barrel and see that they are smoother and more gradual than previous Brownings.

I understood that lengthening the forcing cones was so the shot does not get distorted as much when reduction in diameter of the barrel goes from the chamber to the barrels. Perfectly round shot flies truer than distorted shot does. If there is a reduction in recoil it is probably minor and a secondary consequence of the longer cones.

 

[Plain]

I believe we have a NEW record Lasurus thread this one from 2003 :lol:

LOL! There have been some spectacular resurrections of dead threads on SGW over the years, but this one may indeed take the cake. :lol:

 

[BobK]

Old post or not, don't worry anout "length of forcing cones". Just shoot the gun, point it right, and clays break or critters drop!

 

[H & H Rods]

Old post or not, don't worry anout "length of forcing cones". Just shoot the gun, point it right, and clays break or critters drop!

Extremely sound advice.

 

[4th. down]

Brian, the 525 and the 682 are shooters - don't worry about the length of the forcing cones - much to do about nothing IMHO. Have had forcing cones lengthened in 6 guns - I could not tell the difference in clay breaking or patterning. The 3 guns I now shoot have never had forcing cone work and they shoot very good and the cones were not lengthened when the guns were made.

 

[unplugged]

4th down "and others" that don't understand a "Lasurus" thread (Back from the DEAD)
"Brian" asked this question in 2003!!!!!!!!!!
:H