Has anyone ever removed their forcing cone one their shotgun......what were the results
BB

Lengthening the forcing cones on a shotgun is the number one thing you can do to improve performance. Not only does it help hold the shot string together for a more uniform pattern, it helps reduce recoil.

What does it do to the chrome-lined barrel?

The proper question would be... "What kind of damage would you sustain trying this to a chrome lined barrel"?

Let me modify my question has any one did this themselves. And how did they do it and what success.
Thanks
BB

You can buy the reamers and do it yourself. They cost quite a bit more than what a good 'smith would charge to do the work for you, not to mention he'll have experience and you don't. Some barrels will become very thin after the removal and possibly become unsafe.Some recoil reduction will probably be realized, and patterns will probably become "tighter", although maybe not better.
It is definately something best left to those with experience.
Good Luck,
Rick

This why I quit posting here people don't realize my experiance, so , good by to all and be safe.

Huh?

Yeah, huh?

Perhaps you won't have such difficulty if you post your resume first and then your question.

So, you need to ask the question, then get upset at the answers?

How many ways do you think there are to do it? Sandpaper? Rat tail file maybe?

As was explained, the proper tooling would cost you more than just paying somebody to do it, and do it right. By asking the question, I'm going to assume that you don't have the proper tooling, so agree that it would be easier, cheaper, and safer (win, win, win) to just let somebody else do it.

Of course, I don't realize your experience either...

Question: If no forcing cone is better, why doesn't one of the major makers market such a barrel. It is certainly easier to make a barrel with a single dia. bore (ignoring choke). IMHO it's just more snake oil. If it's not, what is the explanation
for it's superiority? And lowered recoil ain't it unless you are considering that the increased gas leakage around the wad reduces muzzle velocity enough to make a difference.

RAN

You don't actually remove the forcing cone, but you knew that. Some folks refer to it as "removing the forcing cone". It is a misnomer. You only remove enough to reduce the angle making the transition from chamber to bore less abrupt which (a) reduces the tendency for the shot to spill and become deformed, which results in blown patterns, and (B), because the transition is smooth and less dramatic, less energy is needed to make the move, and we all know that less expended energy equals less recoil. Which is certainly not "snake oil". And, look at any modern trap gun, their forcing cones are what?

You really don't understand the concept at all, do you?

Malm summed it up pretty well.

As Malm tried to explain, "removing" isn't quite accurate. Nor is having "no forcing cone" very practical or efficient.

Instead of "removing", substitute the word "lengthening". You are reducing the angle or abruptness of the step down, making it a more gradual transition.



Do you also propose that a choke should be a sudden constriction, or do you see the benefit of a more gradual transition from bore diameter down to the choke constriction? And you can see that you don't get gas leakage around the wad before you get to the choke right?

Just move that whole concept back a couple feet and you have the forcing cone.

Isn't removing the forcing cone pretty much a back bored barrel.

No. A back bored barrel is one who's bore is reamed oversize.

I "smoothed" the forcing cones on a Winchester Model 23 sxs and found that its patterns were a bit better, at least by comparing 30" shot circles at 25 yards with the same shotshells. Felt recoil was about the same I guess, difficult to tell. For waterfowl with steel shot I think its a good thing to do.

A Beretta rep once told me that shooting 2 3/4" shells in a 3" chamber gives a similar result to lengthening the forcing cones.

Goes to show that gun reps don't always know what they are talking about.

"Freebore" ain't the same as a properly contoured forcing cone.

But when marketing to the uninformed masses, I guess the rep's line makes a good sound bite.

And still has a corresponding forcing cone.

All of you that think like Malm should try this thought experiment. The laws of physics require that the recoil is determined by 3 numbers: Mass of the gun, mass of the ejecta, muzzle velocity of the the ejecta. At the risk of beating a dead horse here's the equation:

Gun velocity( recoil) = [Mass( ejecta) X Velocity (ejecta)]/ Mass of gun.

This is the relation that determines the operation of a ballistic pendulum. The gun is suspended horizontally on 2 wires and fired remotely. The height that the gun rises to in recoil is proportional to the recoil energy. Nothing that happens inside the gun before the ejecta leaves the muzzle has any effect because the gun is a free body and there are no fores acting on it externally. In essence, the gun is like a bomb until the ejecta is blown out of the muzzle.

I say that if the two cases of a standard barrel and a lengthened forcing cone barrel are fired with identical muzzle velocities and ejecta masses, the gun will recoil exactly the same with either barrel. If you say not, what is the exact reason for your contention.

RAN

I never did well in school. But I did well enough to know an intellect when I read one. And RAN, you are certainly intelligent. So with this in mind, it would appear to me, that if a moving object encounters less resistance, then less energy would be required to move that object, and with less energy comes what, lower velocities? I don't know, it sure sounds plausible. I've never conducted any experiments where I've chronographed a shotgun before and after lengthening a forcing cone to prove anything, so for now it's just a theory.

You are running into the difference between total recoil and felt recoil. The "gentle push" of a big load starting sooner and accelerating more slowly feels softer than the same load immediately meeting resistance when the pressure is highest and the timing of the recoil shortest. In other words you absorb the same recoil over a longer time with a more gentle acceleration.

It is probable there is a difference in velocity as well.

One thing a lengthened forcing cone will do, at least on a super full choked trap gun is add a few feet to the pattern at clay breaking distance.

What this means is that, if you pattern your gun at 35 yards and then lengthen the forcing cone, the pattern would be about the same percentage at 37-38 yards.

One reason for that is the lengthened forcing cone deforms fewer shot, so there are a few more shot in your 30 inch pattern.

Most time this will make little difference, except it might help at 27 yard handicap, if you can get a pattern a few percentage points tighter.

Many trap guns do not have lengthened forcing cones. I had a Browning BT99 with a very short cone. I lengthened it to about 3 inches and did get tighter patterns at the test distance.

Where it is most noticeable, say you pattern your gun at 35 yards, on a large sheet of paper. There will be a few shot outside of the 30 inch circle, because of deformation. A lengthened forcing cone will get some of them into the 30 inch circle, or into the 20 inch circle, if you draw your pattern with a 20 inch circle where they will do the most good.

I have never shot a 100% pattern, but with the lengthened cones, a extra full choke tube, 7 1/2 magnum shot, AA wads and a slow burning powder, (PB and Green Dot) I have gotten some in the high 90s.

Reduce recoil? Maybe, but I had no way of testing, except my shoulder. A 9 pound trap gun with 2 3/4 dram equiv. loads does not produce much felt recoil anyway.

Why are we still talking about this?
The OP took his football and went home hours ago?

It's the post game show.

Amazing how some come and go...LOL

Carry on!