1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

WILKINSON BARREL RESULTS

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by Trap2, May 16, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Trap2

    Trap2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,685
    Location:
    Redding, California
    I got my 34" Perazzi DB-81 single barrel back from Tom Wilkinson this past Friday and just had a chance to try it out. First, a little background on the barrel. Prior to sending it to Tom, it had a .725" bore and a .693" choke. (.032"). It was a fixed choke, unaltered factory Perazzi barrel. While it broke the targets very well from the fence, my breaks were not what I would call great. It did do the job though. I shoot 3dr. max 11/8oz, loads with 71/2's from the fence. After sending it to Tom, it came back with a .741" bore and a fixed .706" choke. (.035") I shot it at singles for the first 2 rounds and it absolutely inkballed the targets! I could tell right away that the choke was either a lot tighter, or I had a lot more pellets in my pattern than before. I then moved back to the fence. Here is where the barrel would really be tested. Of couse, I expected to suddenly become a much better shooter than I was before I sent the barrel to Tom and proceeded to prove it. Well, I can tell you that the barrel DID NOT make me a better shooter, so if you are considering sending your barrel in to have it tuned fully expecting it to turn you into another Leo, save your money. What it did do, however, is make my target breaks almost inkballs from the 27yd. line, which the barrel NEVER did before. It absolutely crushed the targets. The difference was very noticeable. I'm sure that, with more rounds through it, I will, indeed, pick up that 1 or 2 targets more per 100 I was hoping for. Another benefit I was not really expecting is the gun SEEMS to have less felt recoil, especially with the handicap loads. While I have never been recoil sensitive, it was more comfortable to shoot....Bottom line is this: I'm not encouraging everyone to send their barrels in for tuning as I don't think it can, or will, help the average shooter. What I am encouraging is for the better than average shooter who is looking to gain a little advantage in handicap to consider what having a barrel tuned can do to improve your score. Having your barrel done is not a magic trick that will instantly elevate your scores. It will only help you improve in the 2 most important areas of your shooting. One is it will put more pellets in a 360 degree circle and those pellets will be more evenly distributed that they were before, and the other is in your mind, where confidence is king........Just my opinion....Dan Thome (Trap2)
     
  2. rslus

    rslus TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    66
    trap2:

    what does the tuning cost?

    rslus
     
  3. webley

    webley TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    92
    Dan,
    It’s good that you are happy with the end result.

    Tuning? The question has to be asked - is there anything about the performance of the barrel which indicates that the work has achieved anything more than that which is commensurate with having some extra constriction?

    Leaving aside the very subjective recoil aspect of course.

    Regards
    Russell
     
  4. Trap2

    Trap2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,685
    Location:
    Redding, California
    DB Bill...... I patterened it prior to sending it to Tom and got roughly 70% pattern coverage at 40yds. I have not patterned it since I got it back from Tom, but according to his correspondence, it patterned at about 85% when he finished it..

    Russell....Simply adding more choke would not have gained more even pellet distribution in the pattern. The results obtained in my barrel are a combination of backboring, lenghting the choke parralel (sp?), and trueing up the forcing cones. Choke work alone would not do the job.

    Devils Advocate.... I meant no disrespect for ANY shooter, average or above average. What I meant by my statement is that the "average" shooter may not see, or reap, the benefits of such barrel work when there are so many other improvements they can make to their game that more justifies the cost. To justify the cost of such barrel work, you must be willing to spend the money to achieve a very small return in your overall scoring. I'm not "looking down my nose" to anyone, and if anyone took it that way, you have my sincerest apology.........Dan Thome (Trap2)
     
  5. JerryP

    JerryP Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,753
    Come on Dan, you said you would pattern the gun when you got it back. You know these feel good, read the breaks reports don't go anywhere. You did save those patterns didn't you?
     
  6. webley

    webley TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    92
    Dan,
    If your PE has risen from 70% to 85% (I assume Mr Wilkinson used the same type of cartridges to test as you did?) then you have a very valuable improvement from that alone – I’d be very satisfied with that change.

    However such a tightening of the pattern is going to have a noticable affect on how the target breaks (as you’ve obviously seen) - with that in mind do you really think anyone could tell if there’s also a “more even pellet distribution” – just by watching the same breaks?

    The improvement in "even distribution" (if it exists) would be such a subtle effect compared to a gain of 15% PE that you’ll never visually be able to separate the "distribution" effect from that induced by the overall increase in density - unless you do some very thorough pattern testing & analysis of course (which I hope you will).

    Regards
    Russell
     
  7. welderman

    welderman TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    102
    If I did the math correctly, your original choke provided an 8.6% reduction in area. The new numbers give a 9.2% reduction. In other words you now have a 7% tighter choke than you started with. All things equal(which they may not be), I would expect a denser pattern from a tighter choke. I also expect there is less margin for shot placement error. I may be old fashioned, but I can't see how you can get a denser core and not sacrifice shot density in the fringe. Tom S. (welderman)
     
  8. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,840
    Andrew, let's call that a tie for champion. Here's my horse right here with a strong lead and they are already past the far turn in my experiments.

    I thought I had posted this already, but as I check I can't find it. It's just the first half anyway, since it is part one of a forcing-cone-removal test which everyone has been demanding. These are from the unmodified barrel just as it came from a gun show's remainder table; when the weather warms up the lengthened cone result will be tested and compared with this.

    [​IMG]

    As you see, this is a terrific shooter, the best I've ever tested. But let's get a little deeper into it and think about that "more even pellet distribution" brought up earlier. To do that we need to look at those 0-20 and 20-30 inch circles.

    The story they tell, as you well know, is one of astonishing variability. Concentrating on the 870's results, and taking the first shot as baseline, we see that the second shot had a weaker "core" and a 6% increase in the outer ring. The third shot is right back to baseline. They all can't be more even distribution, can they? And as you go on out to the right you see that sort of thing happening over and over again - the "hot part" of the pattern moves in, moves out, then in again.

    It's results like this that kept me from ever understanding how we are ever going to quantify the evenness of pellet coverage, beyond the crude outlines I've posted here. Have you ever made any progress in that direction?

    Neil

    © Neil Winston May 17, 2007
     
  9. jlb

    jlb Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    125
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    I would like to have the address, web sie or email for Mr. Wilkenson.

    thanks

    jlb
     
  10. KEYBEAR

    KEYBEAR Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,222
    Jerry It,s Tom Wilkinson 919-603-0167 Oxford N.C

    And the real answer is yes if you think it will your right
     
  11. Old Doc

    Old Doc Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    204
    What Mr Winston is realy saying is that Remington is still making great barrels. I had a Rem 31 TC that patterned 80% at 40yards with Federal Monarch (no skirts)shells 55 years ago. Wish I still had it. Any 31TC that I have micked since then have all been in the .740 range with .035-40 constriction. Over boring is not new. I have been tolded that the 31TC barrels were bored on the old Parker machinery, what ever that is worth. D Winter
     
  12. recurvyarcher

    recurvyarcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,450
    Just shoot the damned target...LOL!!!
     
  13. johnpe

    johnpe Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    293
    Interesting reading!! Thanks a bunch. It is data like this that leads to a greater understanding of our sport.

    As a point of information, there was a choke device that got some play in the 1970's called the A&W Diverter. I think it was made by Armalite. It was sold in two configurations; 2 to 1 and 4 to 1 ratios. I don't have a clue how one could "optimize" pattern spreads like this, but I recall seeing a target shot by holding the gun normally then on its side. The pattern was an "X".
     
  14. Tom Strunk

    Tom Strunk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,308
    Location:
    Payson, Arizona
    The last two combo guns I have bought, first a Perazzi, now a Kreighoff are sent to Tom's shop sight unseen by me. I come from a race car background and I compare Tom's work to be like blueprinting a NASCAR race engine.

    I can tell him what point of impact I want on the three barrels and that is what they will be when I receive them. I wouldn't do it any other way. Great man to do business with.

    Tom Strunk
     
  15. zzt

    zzt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,457
    Location:
    SE PA
    I have a pretty limited experience with Wilkinson barrels, but I'd have to agree with Dan and Mike. They do reduce felt recoil and the patterns are certainly consistently even. I loved mine, and a friends MX-15 Wilkinson barrels seems just as good.

    Dr. Jones, I may be willing to do some testing for you. As you may recall, my new P barrel threw abnormal patterns. The forcing cone work fixed a lot of that, but I am still not satisfied with the results. It is not as consistent as my Wilkinson barrel and seems to prefer 7 1/2 shot and 7/8 or 1 1/8 ounce loads. 1 oz of 8s, my fav, does not perform as well. My Superposed barrels and my Wilkinson barrel all digested any load I fed them with little variation. So my question to you is what would you consider a definitive test?

    My current methodology is to shoot from a rest, over a chrono, onto 50" square 40 lb white butcher paper placed a measured 40 yards + 1" from the muzzle. Results are digitally photographed and run through your software for analysis. I manually edit each file to eliminate false positive hits, and mark any hits the software did not recognize. I no longer weigh the shot charge of each shell i pattern, because I've found that I operate the press consistently enough that the average weight is +/- 1 gr from nominal and even the fliers are off no more than about 8 gr. If it makes any difference to you, the SDs of these loads are all under 10. If I decide to do this, I'd be happy to send you the analysis and summary files, and the raw camera images so you can perform your own analysis on them.

    So, how much effort is involved in providing enough documentation and analysis for you to consider the results conclusive?
     
  16. Doug Kennedy

    Doug Kennedy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    287
    Location:
    Champaign Illinois
    I'm waiting for Neil to post his testing results. He has a 3 barrel MX2000 combo that Tom has worked on the barrels.
     
  17. zzt

    zzt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,457
    Location:
    SE PA
    Andrew, geez! I thought for sure you were going to suggest hundreds of patterns. 10 each is doable. Ten each twice will take some time. I'll do them at 37 yards as you suggest, even though that means I can't use any existing data.

    I do aim when patterning. That's why I asked how you determined the centers of the patterns. I place a 1" diameter fluorescent orange dot on the paper and aim at that. That dot is photographed when I record the pattern, so I always know what POA was. From a rest with breath and trigger control there aren't any fliers, so I take the dot as gospel.

    My reloads go into 5 gal paint cans until I need them. I'll pull out about 100 of each and save them for the patterning. It's hard to see how I could introduce bias. I aim and photograph carefully and your software records the holes and performs the analysis. I don't see how knowing what I am shooting introduces any bias at all.

    Rereading my previous post I see I didn't express myself clearly. If I send my barrel to Wilkinson, I'm going to ask him for an 85% barrel (at 40). That's 5-8% better than I'm getting now, so I'll be really pissed if I spend $400 and don't get a "significant" PE improvement. I'll also expect the patterns to be more consistently even. That's actually more important to me than an improved PE.

    What I'm asking your opinion on is how many patterns are required to analyze for evenness, and how to analyze for evenness in an objective manner.
     
  18. zzt

    zzt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,457
    Location:
    SE PA
    Andrew, don't worry about your 40 yard data. I want to do all the testing with the same batches of shells, so I won't be using old data. 40 yards is not sacred to me, so just tell me what percentage of pellets must strike the paper in order to give the 75% circle the meaning you want. I can special order 60" wide paper if necessary, but I'd rather not because you can't buy a 60" roll holder/cutter.

    You once described patterns I was getting using Winchester wads as a sum of several gaussians. That's really the clumpiness you refer to above. To me, "even" patterns are described by a single gaussian distribution.

    BTW, I don't have a proposition. I've said several times on this forum that good barrel smiths can make a bad barrel good, but I doubted they could improve an already good barrel. I can think of two stock Perazzi barrels that fit in that category. Unfortunately, the owners know what they have and aren't selling. Mine is not as good as theirs, but certainly better than my Beretta barrels. Let's just say it can stand some improvement.
     
  19. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,840
    Andrew, zzt, what will be missing on a 48-inch paper at 40 yards will be a dozen or twenty pellets. The trouble is, they will be missing from a 37-yard pattern as well, often 34-yarders too. They are just gone. So I doubt 40 will be any worse than 37 in what concerns you and the "standardization" of 40 is surely an overwhelming advantage anyway, isn't it?

    Neil
     
  20. zzt

    zzt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,457
    Location:
    SE PA
    That's just about right Neil. I had to move up to 30 yards to capture all the pellets. If 95% is good enough, 40" paper at 40 yards is all you need.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.