Muzzle Filing Worked

[Black Hand]

This is a perfect example of:
Those who say it can't be done shouldn't interrupt those who are doing it...

Just because something doesn't make sense to you in no way means it doesn't make sense. Evidence is far more important than speculative thinking.

If the point of having a muzzle square to the bore is to keep from deflecting the path of the projectile(s) then the converse should be true. Evidence has indeed shown that a slight out-of-square can be used to deflect the path (in a somewhat predictable and controlled manner). As the path of the projectiles(s) is essentially fixed once it leaves the muzzle and will travel in a straight line (yes, I know trajectories are not a straight line, but you get my point), then any minor adjustment to the projectile path at the muzzle will have an effect on the POI.

That said - evidence shows it does work. All the rest is just hot air...

 

[M. De Land]

I'm talking double guns. I guess you must go back and re read my thoughts and skepticism.
All that any of you, who have muzzle filed have shown is that the the patterns can be deflected . On that point we all agree! What apparently none of you has tested and proven "like me" is if the patterns have been effected and the trajectory paths been made parallel.
The only way I know of to prove this is to test both barrels close in say 5 yards and again at perhaps 35-40 yards.
I want to see the proof of your contention before I except it as fact. It goes against any training I have ever had or read of.
By the way regulated barrels are "bent" through the use of wedges which are soldered in place.
Like the lady said: don't tell me your pregnant, show me the baby! :wink:

 

[gonpce]

All I know is that it works for double shotguns. I filed both barrels and the gun shoots where it is pointed. If you don't want to file yours leave it alone, but a gun that doesn't shoot where pointed is no good no matter who made it.

 

[Black Hand]

I'm talking double guns. I guess you must go back and re read my thoughts and skepticism.
All that any of you, who have muzzle filed have shown is that the the patterns can be deflected . On that point we all agree! What apparently none of you has tested and proven "like me" is if the patterns have been effected and the trajectory paths been made parallel.
The only way I know of to prove this is to test both barrels close in say 5 yards and again at perhaps 35-40 yards.
I want to see the proof of your contention before I except it as fact. It goes against any training I have ever had or read of.

Frankly, single or double is irrelevant. When you shoot a double, you only fire one barrel at a time, essentially making it a single-shot smoothbore. So if the shot goes where you aimed, what does it matter? You have several people telling you they've done it and it works to adjust POI. What more do you want...?

 

[Britsmoothy]

:dead: :snore: :snore: :snore:
Just don't bite brother.

B.

 

[Zonie]

One of the extremely important things we had to do on unmentionable rifles was ensure the rear face of the rear lug was at a minimum of 2 degrees angle going down and forward. ...

Sorry it took a while to set this up, but his advice was though he/we could have made such a device, the human eye could not distinguish an angle of only 2 degrees even up close...

IMO, he was wrong.

Without getting too far into trigonometry, to find the gap one would see between the part and the tool, one multiplies the distance from the contact point to the other side of the part times the sine of the angle.
In the case of a 2 degree angle, the sine is .0349.
Using this value, if the distance of .900 you use later in your post is used, we have .900 X .0349 = .0314 (or 1/32").
Almost anyone can easily see a 1/32" gap.

If one files he bottom of a barrel only .002" or .003" in from square, I doubt most people could spot it without a square to check it?

Your right about that but the way I read this and the other topic that talks about changing the angle of the muzzle, they are talking more about .03 rather than .003.

That .03 is about the same 2° angle mentioned above with a .900 diameter muzzle so, IMO, it would be just about as hard to see as looking at your breech angle you mentioned without a guage to compare it against.

Now, I will say MD is right about the muzzle on a double barrel gun if only one barrel needed to be regulated.

Having one barrel with .030 removed from say, the top or the bottom, right next to the other barrel with a perfectly square face would be noticeable.

That said, I wouldn't care if my double had such a angle on only one barrel if it caused both barrels to shoot to the same point of aim. :grin:

 

[Black Hand]

:dead: :snore: :snore: :snore:
Just don't bite brother.

B.

Sorry - When people can't accept evidence that has been given them, it just gets me a little upset.

As Neal DeGrasse Tyson said:
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

 

[Artificer]

Jim,

Thank you for the explanation and the math. Have not had to use basic Trigonometry for quite some time, so I don't have a good handle on it anymore.

Gus

 

[M. De Land]

When two barrels are attached to each other and have to use the same sighting plane they must be regulated to shoot in unison.
If say the left barrel shoots to the front sight setting between the two barrel and the other doesn't then it must be regulated to the same reference point.
That is traditionally, and as far as I know, professionally done by wedgeing (double barrel) or physically bending (single barrel).
A double gun with one square muzzle and the one right beside it filed at even a two degree angle across the plane of the muzzle diameter,would look like a diamond in a snout of a hog even if it did work without the possible defects I have already outlined!
Filing would be less objectionable in a single barrel but then again if it causes blown patterns it would still be useless in my opinion.
File if you want,I'll stick to what professional gun makers and gun schools do and teach.
Any way Guys, I like the debate and appreciate each opinion expressed. Just like a good ole fashion sitting around the camp fire gun argument!

 

[M. De Land]

OK, you filed both barrels to shoot together at one point. Now test them and see if that holds true close in and then far out. Are the trajectories parallel or do they converge, cross and then separate?
Did you test the pattern density and center before and after the filing job?
If you didn't you have no reference at all if it was degraded or improved.
The only thing you have proven is what we all agree on any way and that is that a shot column can be deflected by filing the muzzle.
That point was never in contention.

 

[gonpce]

I did change the where the center of each pattern was shooting moving one up about 6 inches and the other up and over. Both barrels are shooting the center of their pattern at 30 yardsaa far as density it was changed by the way the gun was loaded. I will do as you suggested and check it up close and farther away but really don't think it matters that much as the gun shoots great with both barrels at 30 yards and this is my turkey gun and does exactly what I need

 

[M. De Land]

If your happy with your gun that is all that matters!
As for me, I need to find a beater double and test these theories out for myself to find the truth.

 

[Black Hand]

...[strike]theories[/strike]...

Hypotheses...

 

[Tinker2]

If your happy with your gun that is all that matters!
As for me, I need to find a beater double and test these theories out for myself to find the truth.

Re-soldering double, triple or more barrels

Are my least favorite things to do.


I do understand your reluctance to accept things you see on the net.
Most of the gunsmith schools that I know of don’t teach much if anything on soldering barrels together.
That you say that you do that is impressive to me. :hatsoff:


To me the gun would need to be very important $$$ to the owner to consider re-soldering it.

I also hot blue soft soldered doubles unless they request rust blue.
And yes don’t try that at home or you will redo it all.
I am sure all of the gunsmith schools teach that the barrels will come apart.
Like most things, it is how you do it. I do hot blue them.

It is a time thing with me, time is money and the way I do it works for me

If I am going change where it shoots and nothing is wrong with it then yes I may work on the crown.
First is to make sure the crown is true. Most of what I do is on the inside of the crown in the muzzle.
It takes very little work and is hard to detect.

I look forward to your testing and reporting on your findings
I always enjoy reading your posts and I do learn from them


Thanks
William Alexander

 

[M. De Land]

I have not regulated barrels but have watched it being done and believe I can do it as well.
I have installed barrel liners with solder, sweating the inserts in place. The same principles would apply to sweating wedges and filler strips.
I think my least favorite thing to do is striking barrels in prep for rust bluing.
I've got my hot blue tanks up for sale. All I do now is Neidner rust blue and LMF browning.

 

[Artificer]

Wow, you hot blue double barrels? I'm impressed.

We were forbidden from trying that in our shop even before one of our guys tried it and the barrels did come apart and the solder ruined the bath.

Gus

 

[M. De Land]

"First is to make sure the crown is true. Most of what I do is on the inside of the crown in the muzzle.
It takes very little work and is hard to detect."
That makes sense to me!
We were taught to raise dents , modify chokes and forcing cones to improve patterning but the muzzle plane was always to remain square to the bore.
Later on back boring became common when shot cups came into vogue.

 

[M. De Land]

I always used the Brownell's Oxnate #7 but it was expensive and very messy. It sure gave good results. I can't ever remember trying a double as I was taught they might come apart as well.
I never plugged the bores either when hot bluing.

 

[Artificer]

We bought our bluing salts right from "Hough-To," which also supplied bluing salts to Brownells. We used two kinds, one for carbon steel and another bath with salts made for doing stainless steel, though I don't remember which numbers were for each one.

BTW, "Hough-To" provided bluing salts to Winchester and some other firms during WWII and possibly a bit earlier.

Gus

 

[M. De Land]

Sure is a spirited and interesting discussion by all!
I called a friend of mine up the road in Wassila Ak and asked him about filing muzzles.
He said he had heard of it but never tried it.
He buys and sells a lot of guns and would like to find out about our discussion as well so perhaps he can find me a low priced double gun we can do some experiments on.
I'd love to ring this deal out for all we can find out and post some pictures of it!