Perazzi bore's
- Thread starter bigmac1
- Start date
Help Support :
schmokinn
Well-known member
I don't believe any Perazzi have chrome lined barrels,is this a problem for you?
Jezek
Active member
The only difference between the Hi-Tech bores and previous guns like MX-8 and so on is that the bores are 0.732" and not the one-time standard with them, 0.740' (or so). This provides, according to an interview I saw, the unlikely combination of reduced recoil and increased penetration.
Neil
Neil
Last edited by a moderator:
schmokinn
Well-known member
If you go the custom route you can choose your bore size usual standard size for most Perazzi is .724/18.4 of several right ups on the Hi Tech they all list an 18.5/.728 bore size including RUAG the importers site.
Not sure where you got your information from but i would look again.
Jezek
Active member
schmokinn, I got my bore diameter information from a 2016 interview at the Shot Show of Mauro Perazzi by a German website on a popular video site. That aspect of the High Tech is mentioned at 1:40 and covered in more detail at 2:50 and following. Mauro says the bore diameter is 18.6 mm.
Schmokinn, you are right; Perazzi will supply bore diameters to customers' requests. I'd always wondered what performance effect the enlargement of bores was having as we watched them go from 0.724" to 0.740" in a tidal-wave from almost all manufacturers. I had a 2008 MX2000 with the popular 0.740" bore; a few years ago I ordered a new TM9X to the "old" specifications: 0.724" bore, 2 3/4" chamber, 0.040" choke which matched the choke in the MX2000.
I patterned them (best available commercial trap shells, ten shots, 40 yards, pellets counted and analyzed by shotgun-insight) to evaluate differences in pattern percentage, pattern spread, and pattern evenness (central thickening). Readers here might want to make a guess at the magnitude and direction of the differences I found in the three tested performance parameters of these two guns. They can then check their predictions against the experimental results here:
http://www.claytargettesting.com/Bore_Diameter/Bore_Diameter.pdf
Neil
Schmokinn, you are right; Perazzi will supply bore diameters to customers' requests. I'd always wondered what performance effect the enlargement of bores was having as we watched them go from 0.724" to 0.740" in a tidal-wave from almost all manufacturers. I had a 2008 MX2000 with the popular 0.740" bore; a few years ago I ordered a new TM9X to the "old" specifications: 0.724" bore, 2 3/4" chamber, 0.040" choke which matched the choke in the MX2000.
I patterned them (best available commercial trap shells, ten shots, 40 yards, pellets counted and analyzed by shotgun-insight) to evaluate differences in pattern percentage, pattern spread, and pattern evenness (central thickening). Readers here might want to make a guess at the magnitude and direction of the differences I found in the three tested performance parameters of these two guns. They can then check their predictions against the experimental results here:
http://www.claytargettesting.com/Bore_Diameter/Bore_Diameter.pdf
Neil
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no information on the chrome/not chrome question with regard to the hi-tech model.
However I have checked out a few recently and the bore size does vary - as least the bore stamped on the barrels varies. I haven’t actually measured them...but some are marked 18.4 and some 18.6.
However I have checked out a few recently and the bore size does vary - as least the bore stamped on the barrels varies. I haven’t actually measured them...but some are marked 18.4 and some 18.6.
An interesting debate , especially Neil Winston's findings .
When we consider that under British Proof rules the Beretta DT11 when introduced was technically in the 11 bore dimensions making it illegal for clay shooting . But maybe Beretta do have indluence on the proof regulations?
When we consider that under British Proof rules the Beretta DT11 when introduced was technically in the 11 bore dimensions making it illegal for clay shooting . But maybe Beretta do have indluence on the proof regulations?
NW's stats are indeed interesting.
Has anybody reputable done a similar thing with fibre wads in tight vs over-bored barrels ??
All the stuff I read 'suggests', fibre wads need tighter bores to work effectively - especially in cold (as in pheasant) weather.....
However the fashionable gun for pheasants at present appears to be a Krieghoff Parcours - bored 18.7.......
Has anybody reputable done a similar thing with fibre wads in tight vs over-bored barrels ??
All the stuff I read 'suggests', fibre wads need tighter bores to work effectively - especially in cold (as in pheasant) weather.....
However the fashionable gun for pheasants at present appears to be a Krieghoff Parcours - bored 18.7.......
schmokinn
Well-known member
"However the fashionable gun for pheasants at present appears to be a Krieghoff Parcours" fashion and GOOD taste 2 very different things :wink:
Last edited by a moderator:
Wonko the Sane
Well-known member
I've not seen any new ones but I've seen a number of older Perazzis and I have never seen a chrome anything.
I was under the impression that clay shooting rules dictated cartridge not bore size as the criteria. And I have mentioned this to Neil before that among bunker shooters it is well known that 18.4 bores hit harder regardless of what his silly chronograph thingie may imply
I would suggest that poor taste is indeed a recognized level of taste and has been the basis of any number of fashionable trends. Fortunately for many the rules surrounding gun use/ownership do not include any stipulations of refined good taste.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jezek
Active member
Wonko, the ATA rule which sets the size criterion of permitted arms as chamber-size rather than bore-size is a consequence of the arrival (drum-roll and gasps) of the Baker Big Bore with its 0.800" diameter barrel. Gob-struck reviewers opined that it would completely take over ATA shooting what with its reduced recoil, increased shot speed, and supernaturally good patterns. Also joining the parade were 0.780" lash-ups from Moneymaker and countless barrelsmiths opening bores that were never either designed nor intended for it to 0.750" or more.
Disinclined to bullheadedly limit progress in shotgun performance, and perhaps even believing some of what they read, (which no one should have done), the ATA just switched from a limit of "12-gauge bore" to limit of "12-gauge chamber" and a far as I know there has never been a ripple of problem with that wording, nor, it seems, on the pond into which the Baker Big Bore has largely disappeared.
Jezek
Disinclined to bullheadedly limit progress in shotgun performance, and perhaps even believing some of what they read, (which no one should have done), the ATA just switched from a limit of "12-gauge bore" to limit of "12-gauge chamber" and a far as I know there has never been a ripple of problem with that wording, nor, it seems, on the pond into which the Baker Big Bore has largely disappeared.
Jezek
Last edited by a moderator:
Cosmicblue
Well-known member
I believe this to be the case, however the bores are mirror polished so one would be hard pressed to tell the difference chrome or not..
Jezek
Active member
Readers here who liked the report of patterning tests of bore-diameters might be interested in other publications on my website:
http://www.claytargettesting.com
The final link on the left to the home page, "VIDEOS," needs some explanation. It is very widely believed in the US that the cause of "cheek slap" and the resulting pain and damage is incorrect pitch. Whenever someone cites the problem in a web forum, he or she is advised that a tiny change in that stock dimension will clear things up. A little thought - for example, how much will the center of force on the shoulder be moved up or down when you slip a matchbook cover or two under the pad at the top or bottom? - lead me to film some 1200 frames-per-second videos to see how much changes in pitch, some of them far more than anyone would actually do - would lead to changes in muzzle-rise.
You can download the videos and, using a viewer which lets you move step-by-step, forward and back, through the frames, for example Windows video viewer or Quicktime 7 (or the newest Quicktime sometimes). Count the frames and see how many 1/1200 seconds it takes to move from one phase to another in gun movement and compare the distance moved vertically and horizontally relative to the crossed scales.
I think you will agree with me that improper pitch is not a causative variable in cheek slap.
Also, you can see (and count and measure) in other videos the effect, if any, of porting and compare fixed-breach and semi-automatic trapguns.
One last thing. The videos show that prior to muzzle exit (defined by a puff of smoke about three frames into the recoil event) the gun just moves straight back, muzzle-rise beginning later. I compare this to the belief in the UK that "muzzle-flip" causes shotguns to shoot lower than geometry would predict. I wonder what about a gun moving straight back could cause it to bend down.
Jezek
http://www.claytargettesting.com
The final link on the left to the home page, "VIDEOS," needs some explanation. It is very widely believed in the US that the cause of "cheek slap" and the resulting pain and damage is incorrect pitch. Whenever someone cites the problem in a web forum, he or she is advised that a tiny change in that stock dimension will clear things up. A little thought - for example, how much will the center of force on the shoulder be moved up or down when you slip a matchbook cover or two under the pad at the top or bottom? - lead me to film some 1200 frames-per-second videos to see how much changes in pitch, some of them far more than anyone would actually do - would lead to changes in muzzle-rise.
You can download the videos and, using a viewer which lets you move step-by-step, forward and back, through the frames, for example Windows video viewer or Quicktime 7 (or the newest Quicktime sometimes). Count the frames and see how many 1/1200 seconds it takes to move from one phase to another in gun movement and compare the distance moved vertically and horizontally relative to the crossed scales.
I think you will agree with me that improper pitch is not a causative variable in cheek slap.
Also, you can see (and count and measure) in other videos the effect, if any, of porting and compare fixed-breach and semi-automatic trapguns.
One last thing. The videos show that prior to muzzle exit (defined by a puff of smoke about three frames into the recoil event) the gun just moves straight back, muzzle-rise beginning later. I compare this to the belief in the UK that "muzzle-flip" causes shotguns to shoot lower than geometry would predict. I wonder what about a gun moving straight back could cause it to bend down.
Jezek
Last edited by a moderator:
Quite likely since they have a branch of the Italian Proof House on the premises and the Italian proofing standard is accepted in the UK without the need to reproof.
Wonko the Sane
Well-known member
Just for the record, "chamberless" .800" bore shotguns existed at the turn of the 20th century. With all the attached hype that Baker, et al, conjured up nearly 100 years later.
And on the muzzle flip thing there have been several discussions on your fave doublegun forum replete with Hogwarts Physics galore. Impervious of course to rational thot and any similar fantastic notions. "Flip" has be promulgated by every shooting authority in history on both sides of the pond. And of course there is the SxS horizontal barrel convergence to offset the ........ well, clearly many things simple data has no influence on at all.
No, on this I do not agree. Many times in many places I've noted that I took a nearly unshootable slap-wise SxS Beretta and made it a pleasure to shoot by doing nothing more than reducing a staggering (thanks to the prior owner) nearly 8" of downpitch to 0". Perhaps some planetary realignment may have been the actual causal factor but all I was aware of was the zip pitch factor. And I already mentioned to you in another place that I think your pitch experiment is flawed by the meat interface element.
I think it more likely that nobody actually GAF about some arcane limiting dimension. I could of course be worng. The puzzling aspect to me is why the factories handicap themselves and their clients with those bigger bores when the folks who are really in the know have long time realized the harder hitting quality of 18.4 bores. Just another of those Mysteries of the Cosmos innit?
Last edited by a moderator:
