Pattern Placement and General Shotgun Ramblings

[Sarge]

My recently acquired 11-87 Remington is turning out to be a peach of a shotgun. It has run with Federal or WW Universal field loads and now that I’ve got my favorite Limbsaver pad on it, it mounts as fast and sure as any single-barrel I ever owned.

One of its few gremlins was that when I mounted it and aligned the beads, it put most if the pattern below the bead. This was apparent on thrown clays because when I began instead of really hammering them, I would see good-sized pieces go spinning off. I'd also occasionally feel the stock give my cheek a bump. This is a subtle reminder that you’re not mounting the gun correctly and it was most apparent when I’d get on a roll. Essentially I had to drop the stock away from my face and stack the beads to hit. So off to the pattern board which confirmed via the full choke at 40 yards, the best part of the pattern was below the bead.

Why? Later Remingtons use a 6-48 thread version of the Marbles ‘Expert’ sight that has a substantial base under it. This elevates the bead about 0.030 above the rib, which is already an elevated plane.



This is the second ribbed Remington shotgun I’ve had this problem with. A basic understanding of sights tells us that if the front sight is too high, the point-of-impact is going to be low. The answer was to replace the OEM sight with a simple 6-48 bead sight- which has served its purpose perfectly since they’ve been putting ribs on shotguns.



And back at 40 yards with the same load, the pattern centered right where it should. Just to prove my point, I took it back to the clay thrower. I let the birds get out about 25 yards, then mounted the gun fast and hammered them. The gun mounted, aligned and tracked much easier and it powdered clay birds.

Is POI that important in a shotgun? The gentleman for whom this forum is named certainly thought so, and he summed it up well in a comment on my 870 Special Purpose post from 2009:

Originally Posted by Dave McC

Good on you for patterning,Sarge. More of us should do more of that.

I'd go with a bigger piece of paper and check POI/POA. Make sure it shoots where you look. I posted a sticky over on THR's Shotgun BB a while back that may help you.

If you've access to a standard trap field, there's another way.

Stand at Post 3 with the trap locked down to only throw straightaways.

Use the Full tube at first.

Note how they break. If you powder them most of the time, great, but if a big piece consistently flies away in any direction, you've not centering them. Some judicious adjustment is in order.

Tweaking the POI will do wonders for your hunting and clay fun.

Enjoy....

I miss you Dave

[stepmac]

While we want our shotguns to shoot where we are pointing them, one can overthink this thing. When you pattern your gun, if it is really far off, then you'll need to fix it. You may have to bend your barrel. However, most shotguns will kill just fine and patterning it, unless the pattern is really off and holidays large, then ignore them.

Shotgun shooting is about stock weld, follow thru and pointing the gun at the target. It is not rocket science.

[Virginian]

I have 6 Remingtons and 12 barrels, some with simple beads, some with the Bradley type as in your picture, and couple with the newer style with the round base and "cylindrical" bead on top. They all shoot to POA for me, and I pattern everything.
Everyone's sight picture is a bit different. It is perhaps most noticeable with handguns, where one person can set the sights and place perfect groups in the bull and someone else pick it up and it is shooting 10" to one side at 25 yards. The type of sight on the shotgun and the rib are supposed to be taken into account during barrel manufacture such that the end result puts the pattern at POA for most people. If you measure the difference between the center of the bead and the rib surface with both your different sights it will be apparent that difference is not enough to throw your POI off that much. Apparently when you are shooting at clay pigeons your eye is "seeing" more of that larger total blob out there and compensating.
But, as long as you have reached a happy result that is all that matters. When I got my first shotgun with a middle bead I had a heck of a time. Finally removed it entirely. Eventually as they got more popular, I trained my brain to ignore it I guess.

[Sarge]

This was a very simple change that resulted hitting with the middle of the pattern instead of the edges of it. I'll take any help I can get.

Middle beads were a little odd to me at first too and yes, I am still tempted to get rid of them. Like you Virginian, I finally got used to them and now they disappear into the front bead when the gun fits acceptably- and I do everything correctly. Personally, I see the bead(s) on every shot.

[dahermit]

I was given a video on how to trap shoot at one time. In it, the supposed expert stated that the purpose of the beads was not to aim as with a rifle, but to make sure of the position of the barrel on the trap house just before you call for the bird. When the bird is thrown, the eye should be on the bird, not the gun/beads. That is what I did and it worked out well for me.
So, if the purpose of the beads is as was explained in the trap-shooting, how-to video is correct, you should not be using the beads in the manner in which you describe, and logically, not even know (or care) if your pattern was under or over the beads.
If I am wrong about this, please explain it to me.

[Virginian]

I am not a "world class" wingshot. At one time I was fairly close. I started hitting targets many years ago when I started concentrating on the target and letting my brain learn what sight pictures worked for what. I only see the barrel/bead/rib in my peripheral vision.

But, everyone is different. What works for you, or some "expert", may not be the same. Good form is somewhat different, in that it can benefit everyone. No one has ever become a really good shot by reading what someone else said about it. When shooting birds in the field you do not have the chance to check your mount and look at the beads before asking the bird to fly. One reason I find trap not much use to me, as it is an end unto itself.

[buckhorn_cortez]

Why? Later Remingtons use a 6-48 thread version of the Marbles ‘Expert’ sight that has a substantial base under it. This elevates the bead about 0.030 above the rib, which is already an elevated plane.

Depends on where the manufacturer regulates the barrel. On a shotgun designed for trap, the pattern is generally 70:30 above the rib so that you can see the clay above the barrel and keep it in view at all times.

I also wouldn't trust factory chokes to, necessarily, be the best. I recently tested the improved modified choke on my Beretta SV10 and it consistently shot left of the aiming point. An aftermarket choke shot centered on patterning test target.

After testing the remainder of the Beretta factory chokes, I've relegated them to the extra parts box and replaced them with after market chokes.

I second the point you've made that you must pattern the shotgun - and I would add, with the load you're going to be shooting as that can be affected by the performance of the choke.

...and logically, not even know (or care) if your pattern was under or over the beads. If I am wrong about this, please explain it to me.

You have to know where the gun shoots in relation to the barrel aiming point - that's part of what you find out through pattern testing.

As for using the beads on a trap gun, the beads are used to assure you've mounted the gun correctly. The mid-bead and front bead are used so that you've aligned the barrel with your eye.

Both beads should be co-aligned so that the mid-bead is overlaid with the front bead and aligned (left/right) with each other. After that - you don't look at the beads, you just watch the target and keep the clay above the barrel. But, remember, this is on a trap gun with the barrels regulated 70:30 so that you can see the clay at all times.

As you continuously track the clay pigeon with your eyes, you are aiming the barrel properly as it has been aligned by the beads on top of the rib. At that point, hitting the clay depends on the type of lead you're using - swing through, pull away, or continuous lead and making sure you're continuing the swing as you shoot.

[Sarge]

A little explanation may be in order.

I started (45 years ago) like most country boys, hunting with whatever old pump or double my elders let me to use. I favored the SxS through my 30’s and did OK on live birds (dove, quail and ducks) with them. By then I had 10 years of exposure to fighting shotguns and I adapted to pumps with short barrels. I started hunting with whatever shotgun I was issued, to enhance my familiarity with them. This has proved to be a sound decision. I still prefer my barrels no longer than 23 inches and now I hit significantly better with them.

Those 10 years turned into 30 and during that time, we were conditioned to use the bead to plant a slug or load of 00 buck on the sternum. So I have used the sights for years and I will keep on using them. I require anything I shoot, to shoot to the sights.

I shot a little skeet in NRA/LE instructor school, but that was ’91 and I hadn’t shot clays since then. I knew it was a weak area in my overall shooting skills, so I set about improving it. I bought my wife a shotgun for her birthday and a little 32 buck mechanical thrower. We are not talking competition clay shooting here. After a little basic instruction she started breaking birds real well; nothing complicated, just crossers. This also provided me some much needed practice and like the Missus, I’m a whole lot better than I was six weeks ago. If nothing comes of it besides that, I’m happy with the outcome.

These skills must be transferable or they are worthless to me. I start with the shotgun in a ready carry position, exactly like I would do if I was hunting or approaching a hot call. I call for the bird and track it with my eyes as I’m mounting the shotgun. I’ve practiced mounting it enough that the beads disappear into each other w/o effort. They just materialize off the back edge of the bird; and when the bead just passes it I fire and keep swinging. For me at least, this invariably results in a broken bird. But I definitely see the bead on every shot and I am using it to place the pattern.

[Sarge]

I'm glad you commented on chokes Buckhorn, because that was another component of my 'ramble'. I've had or shot a half dozen of these RemChoke barrels and I have yet to see one that will pattern with the old fixed-choke Remington barrels, using the factory tubes.

Granted I am using box-store bulk loads; but I could always get even patterns from fixed-choke Remington barrels. Is there an aftermarket, flush fit choke tube that can be depended on to shoot like that?

[Virginian]

I have shot over approximately 3,500 patterns with factory fixed chokes, RemChokes, Browning Invectors, Carlsons, Trulocks, Colonials, some custom chokes from Stan Baker and Ralph Walker, and even some cheap Red Heads off the rack in BassPro. Aside from the different constriction vs. bore diameter providing different patterns, I have not found any significant difference in quality of pattern between any of them.
When shooting hard non toxic shot, it is of course imperative to use choke tubes rated for the shot.
I have run across a couple of "defective" choke tubes along the way, and they were promptly replaced by the manufacturer. I have also seen one barrel where the choke was not installed correctly from the factory, and that was also corrected after a bit of arguing on the phone first.

[Bake]

1. Fixed choked barrels shoot better patterns than barrels with interchangeable chokes.

2. Some of the best fixed choked barrels are the Remington barrels made in the 50's & 60's.

3. Remingtons shoot low.

Ok, I said it, you'll can starting yelling at me now...

Addendum #1: Change 3. to read: Remingtons shoot flat.

[buckhorn_cortez]

Aside from the different constriction vs. bore diameter providing different patterns, I have not found any significant difference in quality of pattern between any of them.

Then I would suggest looking at how you're evaluating the quality of the pattern. Let me give you an example. The Beretta factory chokes for the SV10 are flush chokes with a continuous taper. I compared the improved modified (IM) Beretta choke (final constriction 0.704) to a Muller U3 (final constriction 0.705) that is a taper / parallel design.

The Muller choke tapers from the bore diameter toward the muzzle and the final constriction. The last 1-inch of the Muller choke is a parallel section at the final choke constriction.

I used B&P F2 shot shells with #8 shot for the pattern tests. The Beretta IM put 74% of the shot into a 30-inch circle at 40 yards, while the Muller put 75% of the shot into the 30-inch circle. Sounds comparable so far - and if that is your "quality" evaluation - then you need to look further.

I shot five pattern targets for each choke and then averaged the results. The problem with the Beretta choke is that it clumps the shot and that creates holes in the pattern that are large enough to cause misses. The Muller choke also had some holes, but on average, there were 50% less and the holes themselves were about 30% smaller.

Beretta average: 10 holes / 9 clumps

Muller average: 5 holes / 5 clumps (holes 30% smaller)

If you further divide the 30-inch pattern circle into a 10-inch circle and a 20-inch circle and count the shot, you may find additional information.

Beretta: 10" - 12.0% 20" - 29.3% 30" - 32.4%

Muller: 10" - 14.4% 20" - 31.2% 30" - 29.6%

As you can see, the Muller provided a more even pattern overall with less clumping, less holes - and the holes were, on average, 30% smaller.

So, the question is not about percentage in a 30-inch patterning circle - but, which choke provides a better pattern. Without a doubt, the Muller choke provided a much higher quality pattern. If you're looking to decrease misses, then you need the best quality pattern, with the least amount of holes that could result in missing the target.

Unless you count shot into subdivided circles, and evaluate the number of clumps and holes; and the shot distribution percentage in each circle - then you're not getting the entire picture of the true quality of the pattern.

[Virginian]

Small use arguing with a Muller fan. You are obviously sold on the $s buys results theory. I admit no experience patterning Beretta choke tubes of any ilk.
Fixed choke barrels do not shoot any better than ones with properly installed choke tubes. It is not magic, and I am a fan of Remington fixed choke barrels.

[buckhorn_cortez]

Small use arguing with a Muller fan. You are obviously sold on the $s buys results theory. I admit no experience patterning Beretta choke tubes of any ilk.

I am not a Muller "fan" and didn't buy the chokes with the idea that "$ buys results theory." This is pure speculation, assumption, and projection on your part. I use Briley, Rhino, and original Browning Invector chokes in other shotguns. It's not exactly like I have no experience with other choke manufacturers.

I have read about Muller chokes on the Shotgunworld forum, and the mere mention of the product sends many people, as demonstrated by your response, into fits of speculation as to why the choke has been purchased and used.

Frankly, I had to find out for myself because the amount of prejudice and misinformation on the subject is staggering.

I patterned the Beretta chokes first and they are substandard - based upon my experience patterning Briley, Rhino, and Browning Invector chokes. After proving to myself that the Beretta chokes under-perform, I decided to use aftermarket chokes - and chose Muller because I wanted to see if the chokes live up to the hype.

In my testing - they perform better than the factory Beretta Optima-Choke HP design. This is fact and is based upon a very thorough and controlled testing plan that only collected data, and didn't manufacture it to prove a bias that one choke manufacturer was better than another. This is borne out by the 1% difference in total pellets in a 30-inch circle difference - that is so little as to be a non-factor in evaluating performance dfferences.

The real difference is in the clumping and holes in the Beretta choke pattern - and that WILL make a difference in the number of hits as the holes are large enough to totally miss a clay target.

Now, would the Muller choke perform better than a Briley choke in the same gun? I don't know. That's the next step in sorting out the supposed Muller performance advantage - purchase a Briley improved modified (the closest to the U3) and compare it with the Muller choke. Also, the Briley is a tapered / parallel design just like the Muller, so the design is exactly the same as the Muller. What I don't know is if the geometry is the same - and I have the tools to make the measurements to find out how the two compare for taper length and parallel section length.

As for price - in fact, the Beretta extended Optima-Choke HP chokes are virtually the same price as the Muller chokes - $70 versus $75. The Briley titanium chokes are even more expensive - so, what's your point?

I just go by facts and I'm very careful in setting up the test procedures so that the data comes out without observer/tester bias being involved. I setup the choke tests to find out absolute performance and not to prove that a certain belief or bias is true.

If I'd have said I tested the Beretta chokes against a Briley choke - would you have had the same negative reaction? Probably not because that would fit in with your personal value judgments learned from reading "Internet experts" opinions - sans any facts to back them up.

What you've demonstrated is a negative opinion/bias against Muller based upon what you've read as you have admitted having NO experience with either Muller or Beretta chokes.

And you're opinion is supposed to be believable on this subject? Why?

[Virginian]

I was being facetious.

[BigD_in_FL]

Pattern hole counting is marginally effective in gathering true data as you are trying to use a two-dimensional piece of paper to calculate results for a three-dimensional cone-shaped pattern. You do not know where the actual pellets in your clumps are - are they all together as they travel or are some in front and some trailing behind in the cone? Can't tell from a stationary target

[Virginian]

Pattern hole counting is marginally effective in gathering true data as you are trying to use a two-dimensional piece of paper to calculate results for a three-dimensional cone-shaped pattern. You do not know where the actual pellets in your clumps are - are they all together as they travel or are some in front and some trailing behind in the cone? Can't tell from a stationary target

Very true. But, it's the best approximation we have unless we shoot at moving long sheets of paper like Brister did, and then do the math to build a 3D picture of a pattern, and then you would need to build a 3D intersection pattern with the target, etc., etc., and then every shot/pattern is random/different, so the best you get is a better approximation anyway.

[BigD_in_FL]

EXACTLY, why is why - if you are smoking the targets, don't sweat it!....