Barrel regulation

[MC1952]

Here’s a question for the group. There’s a fellow on another forum who regularly puts down Fox shotguns. His latest issue is that barrel regulation was a known problem with Fox shotguns and the reason so few were ever used in competition.

“ The guy set himself as an expert and elitist with the single purpose in life of being the greatest upland grouse and woodcock hunter. He then writes at length about taking 34 years to figure out his Fox gun had poorly regulated barrels. These barrels did not change regulation. Any decent shooter would figure that out prior to ever carrying that gun behind a dog. Poor regulation was a known Fox issue and one of the reasons you seldom or never saw one shot in serious competition when other doubles were commonly utilized.”.

Has anyone here ever run into this problem? I’ve had several Foxes and know others who actually have many and I’ve never heard this.

[Jeff S]

By “regulation” is he talking about barrel convergence? I remember checking two of my Foxes at 40 yards. I don’t have the results with me, but the difference between the two barrels wasn’t enough to cause me great concern. However, I was merely shooting traditional “shot”. I suppose to test barrel convergence accurately one would have to shoot a light beam through the barrel.

I don’t know, nor have I ever met the person that made the statement. Might be an excellent marksman. Personally, I would be suspicious of “operator error”. Just my humble opinion.

[44whiskey]

jeff, i expect it is referencing both barrels shooting to point of aim .also dubious it takes 34 years to discover this. i shoot X on butcher paper at 35 yards with normal shot shell and just eyeball ctr mass of shot string, all the best ,fred

[Jeff S]

Thanks. One afternoon I shot about 20 times, each time at fresh paper, while resting my gun on a bench. I was surprised at the inconsistency, but I’m willing to take the blame. At 40 yards the bead covers the bullseye. Shooting 7 1/2’s through a mod choke at 40 yards is a lot different than a 30.06 with a scope. Precise it is not. My experience has been that the center of impact will be within 12” at 40 yards, but I haven’t done any tests in the last couple of years. It certainly is a fun, and worthwhile experience. Sometime I would like to go through the exercise with a more experienced shooter. It would be fun to learn/see someone else’s patterning expectations. Often I’ve seen people pace off 20 yards and shoot at a grease board and declare “pretty good”. There’s more to it than that.

[Stan Hillis]

Not only is he wrong in the blanket statement about Fox guns, I am pretty sure I know who the guy on the other forum is. I'll take a s.w.a.g. and say he is a die hard L C Smith proponent. He has little credibility on the forum I'm thinking of.

I am a stickler for regulation on every gun I keep in my stable. It has to shoot both barrels to the same point of aim or I send it packing. I have acquired two doubles in the last 8 years that did not, upon test firing on the plate. One was a Dickinson 30" barreled .410 that I ordered to my dimensions. The other was a 28" barreled 20 ga. Fox SWE. I was using 1/2 and 11/16 oz. loads in the .410 to test regulation, and 7/8 oz. in the Fox 20. Both cross-fired badly, to the tune of pattern centers being about 8" to the off-side. But, both guns were found to be perfectly regulated with a heavier payload. The .410's patterns moved back to center POA when I went to 3/4 oz. loads at 1145 fps. The Fox's did the exact same thing with 1 oz. loads at 1165 fps. Both of these are factory loads.

I have patterned many other Fox guns and never found one that didn't regulate the patterns with the proper load. They may not always be the load you want to use, as in the case of the Fox 20 SWE. I wanted to use 7/8 oz. loads in her for quail and woodcock, but she likes the one ounce loads so well I just let her have her way. It is widely proposed that we should use wimpy loads in these old guns to "protect the wood and lockup, after all they are 100 years old, or more!", but the guns don't always want that.

[44whiskey]

good info stan, a lot of physics at play and the engineers and craftsmen obviously understood thisl

[ROMAC]

Reading this, it made me curious to know if lighter barrel weight guns are more prone to "load regulation" issues than heavier, more stout barrels. The thinking being the lighter barrels may be more "whippy" or flexible.

[44whiskey]

roger, my guess is that the lighter mass and length would effect regulation more than flexing.the two barrels fully soldered supporting each other would seem to make a ridged structure but i am not an engineer. i would like to here others opinions on this.thanks fred

[vaturkey]

Hopefully Frank will weigh in on this. I expect he has done more patterning with Foxes over the years then most.

PS. I've never had an issue that I'm aware of, but have not put many patterns on paper. Did shoot my Abby Gun a lot on the patterning board when we were figuring out the proper measurements when it was being stocked and my goodness it hit were it was supposed to with either barrel.

[MC1952]

By barrel regulation I am assuming he was referring to the barrels not shooting to the same point of impact. If he was referring to them shooting high or low, that would normally be a stock dimension issue.
The poster on that other forum doesn’t like Foxes. Calls them crude and unreliable. I was thinking of replying to him if I had something to go on, but I think I’ll just let it go. And he’s not the LC Smith gentleman.
I put all of my guns on paper. My two Foxes shoot both barrels right where they should. I wonder where he got his information.

[Silvers]

I learned virtually everything I know about barrel regulation and patterning from the late Kenny Eyster in Centerburg Ohio. Ken did competetion choking for national sporting clays and skeet shooters and I've heard him called the (then) modern day Burt Becker. I spent a total of 9 days in his shop on three occasions watching him doing his magic on barrel bores and chokes, and while test shooting the guns I brought to him for work. Just a few days ago I came across the test results for two different Perazzis. Pertinent to this thread I can offer up the following.

Kenny emphasized that test fring must be done while the gun is shouldered as when hunting or shooting clays. NO shooting off the bench as with rifles because the shotgun will print differently.

Testing should be done with at least three shots per barrel, then taking the mean per barrel for POI and for pattern efficiency (percentage). A single shot is better than nothing but doesn't account for the wide variation from brand to brand, and from shell to shell.

The OVER barrel of one of my Perazzis had a POI range of minus 3" to plus 4.7", and the UNDER barrel was minus 5.5" to plus 4". That was with five different commercial shells and three shot composites per barrel. And that was with an over/under. A side by side would likely have wider ranges due to horizontal torque from the recoil.

Net, we're shooting shotguns not rifles. Do some paper patterning with a range of shells and chose the one that regulates well in your Fox or whatever. Also I think anyone who makes blanket statements about Fox barrel regulation should be able to tell us about number of guns tested, gun details, shells used, etc. frank

[Bruno]

Frank,
Thank you for sharing! Very interesting and helpful information.....

Mark

[Silvers]

Forgot to mention that we did the testing at 35 yards for his "Eyster #2" barrel boring and choke in both barrels, and thus the POI divergence (inches minus or plus) would be greater if shot at the regular 40 yards. Here' a snippet from the test report on one of the Perazzis.

frank

[Stan Hillis]

One other thing I have found to be true with shotguns is that how tightly you hold the gun, with both hands, will affect the pattern placement. It affects a rifle, even off the bench and sandbags. Why wouldn't it affect a shotgun? And, the lighter the gun the more it will affect it. I can change where my patterns print by 8"+, with my little .410s, by how tightly I grip them. I very much agree that regulation testing, and POI testing in general, should be done offhand, just as the gun would be held for game bird/target shooting.

The gun begins it's recoil movement while the shot charge is still in the barrel. This is why velocity is so important to regulation.

[Sporrns]

“ The guy set himself as an expert and elitist with the single purpose in life of being the greatest upland grouse and woodcock hunter. He then writes at length about taking 34 years to figure out his Fox gun had poorly regulated barrels. These barrels did not change regulation. Any decent shooter would figure that out prior to ever carrying that gun behind a dog. Poor regulation was a known Fox issue and one of the reasons you seldom or never saw one shot in serious competition when other doubles were commonly utilized.”.

Pure BS - If it took this guy 34 years to figure out his Fox had poorly "regulated" barrels, it tells us he never patterned his gun in the first place. So far as the phenomenon being a "known Fox Issue", I guess Askins, Sweeley, Becker and Buckingham wasted their time (not to mention William C. Letterman!). Kevin