16ga.com ~ View topic

I just finished Dave Robinson's article in "Shotgun Sports" on the Rizzini Aurum 28 Gauge O/U. Robinson states the barrel bore diameters are .547" for the top barrel and .552" for the bottom barrel with rather short forcing cones. He also states the chokes are significantly tighter than standard. This is on a $2750 gun.

Now .005" inches in diameter difference might seem like a trifle at first glance. However, this is on a 28Ga. gun. That is a significant difference on a gun with bores just a tad over one half inch. This amount of difference could easily have a very real and negative effect on how the gun patterns.

I just don't get it when a double gun with interchangable choke tubes in this price range does not have two bores within a .001" of each other on a gun with bores this small. To me, this is another example of poor quality control from one of the supposed premier Italian shotgun companies. Given today's available technology and techniques, picking out a pair of barrels with matching bore diameters is not difficult, unless the folks doing the work just don't care about what they are making. Further, it's not that difficult to bore them closer than this.

I've said it before and I'll keep right on saying it. None for me thanks. I expect much better than this junky level of workmanship on the most important part of a shotgun--it's barrels, especially when asking for over 2.5K of my hard earned money. What in hell are they thinking?

Member Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 3438 Location: Illinois

16GG-You are right on the money but how many folks do the homework before handing over the cash?????Mabey the so called pristege of owning one shuts down the brain and only causes the right arm to work what hands over the bucks Embarassed

Well actually HOA, I'm asking why these Italian makers can't do a better job of building the barrels of their supposedly better guns, a lot better than they do. I can't understand why a maker would put substandard barrels on a $2500+ gun.

I can understand lesser quality barrels on overly low priced guns meant for the bottom of the market, although even here, the barrels should be good enough to shoot reasonably well. But theses folks seem to pair up any two tubes they grab, put them on whatever gun is on the line, and to hell with how the gun shoots.

I quess these Italian makers figure we should get what we pay for only if we are smart enough and experienced enough to expect it and to make sure its right. I don't like that one bit. I think anyone who pays enough to get a quality gun should get what he pays for without having to carry a tool kit or mikes and gauges around to make sure.

These Italian makers claim they are building quality guns and the gun press tends to back up those claims. Where is the integrity in today's market? I'm a bit fed up with this horse poop. I'd think the folks who like these guns for the fit and feel would be the ones to demand better quality for their money. All I seem to hear is excuses.

If the buyers would tell these makers to stick thier product where the sun don't shine until they can do better, then I think things will turn around fast. The key to this is education about what quality barrels are. Then demand only barrels that shoot both straight and effectively. This is shotgun 101 folks. You can't possibly shoot well with poor barrels, regardless how pretty the gun is. So start there.

Joined: 19 Jun 2004 Posts: 1480 Location: Mpls, MN.

European chokes, as a rule of thumb, run tighter than American chokes. Nothing new there. As to the difference in bore diameter, Europeans tend to view the choke as the sum of ALL the specifications of the barrel, not just the last inch. And, as a rule of thumb, finding a difference of .005 in a European double guns bores would not be unusual. It just depends on what the manufacturer was trying to end up with. Further, there is still some hand work performed on guns from that part of the world. From sorting, to straighening, to final honing, there are manufacturers on the continent who have said "no thanks" to American, production style, automation.

Now then, if you had typed "the gun produced poor patterns, and it could have been a result of bad barrel boring", that might have been something.

But, you didn't.

Now then, did the gun throw patterns to point of aim, within the margin of what is typical for European chokes, with the same ammunition that was available to the manufacturer? Because, if it did (and I make no secret of the fact I haven't seen the article) I guess I can't see anything to complain about.

I would also note that it is far from unusual to see differences of greater than .005 bore diameter on production American guns, of any vintage or design. I've seen individual guns that had loose and tight spots down the barrel of greater than .005.

But, I can't say that a gun with that fault always produces poor patterns. That would be an assumption, and sometimes those are wrong. And I have owned guns with simply miserable, pitted bores that, for some reason, worked just fine. Tinkering with ammunition at the patterning board does help, however.

So, how did the gun pattern? That is the real question.
Best,
Ted

Ted, your explanations are hopelessly out of date. Things have changed in the last 25 years. We now know more about what makes shotguns shoot well moreso than ever before. We also have the technology and techniques to make better barrels than ever before and do it relatively inexpensively. Even if the Italians choose to do it the old fashioned way by hand, good workmanship is still to be expected for the price. So, quite frankly, a history lesson in how it used to be is irrelevent and excuses don't cut it. Poor workmanship is still exactly that.

These NEW guns are made to take interchangable chokes, standardized, chokes meant to work on either barrel. This particular gun in the article is a 28 ga, not a 12 or even a 16. Larger bores are much more forgiving than small ones. .005" difference between these two small bores is a lot, whether you realize it or not.

If you had bothered to read the article, you'd know the author did not bother to pattern the gun. He simply stated the obvious fact that the Europeans tend to choke thier guns tighter.

Fine. These guns are being made for the American market where they will be shot with American style ammo. Frankly, I don't care how the Europeans make their guns for the European ammo. Most American don't shoot the stuff. Top quality American ammo works very well thank you, with less choke too. We rewrote the book on shotgun ammo over a 1/2 century ago. Even top quality European target ammo follows american design, because it just plain shoots much more effectively as a whole. due to our inovations, things are being done with small bores that just were not possible 50 years ago.

Top quality European target guns are also made with highly matched, flawless barrels. further, these guns have all the innovations originally designed and introduced by Americans. Otherwise, they could not compete.

But that is not the half of it. The author did not comment on how straight or how well regulated the bores were. This was not even addressed. He mentioned that he toted the gun around his Texas ranch to shoot at vermin with. Hey, now thats how to test a 2.5K gun properly. Rolling Eyes

Treat it like a cheap single shot H&R.

I've personally seen a number of these Rizzini guns, some with prices up around 3.5k with curved, poorly matched, poorly regulated bores. I would just as soon stick pins in my eyes as pay 3.5K for a gun with barrels so obviously wrong.

As you say, SOME guns shoot well with obvious flaws. But a whole bunch do not. Why take a 2.5K gamble and buck the odds to boot. Thanks but no thanks. I want the best barrels modern methods can produce--especially on my very small bore guns where the margin for error is also so much smaller and where every pellet counts.

Further, I've also miked my share of older, pre-WWII American made shotguns. Mismatched barrels are the exception and not the rule. In fact, I have been pleasantly surprized with just how uniform the best makers's barrels turned out to be. There are more differences in bore diameters, gun to gun sure enough, but not nearly as much barrel to barrel, not often. Which tends to explain just why those fine old American guns have a solid reputation for shooting well and true. They have well made, fairly uniform barrels by and large.

Let these Italian makers make the guns right so they shoot the best they can. Then, and only then will I buy any. You of course, can spend your money any way you want. But I really doubt most folks would agree with you here if they knew better. They'd want the same as me for their money.

Joined: 19 Jun 2004 Posts: 1480 Location: Mpls, MN.

Let me get this straight-the writer DIDN'T pattern the gun. You didn't pattern the gun. We don't know if the barrels suffer any of the afore mentioned problems. We have no idea how well it works, or, doesn't. But, it must not be any good, because there is .005 difference between the two barrels?

I guess I just need some more evidence that something is wrong with these barrels. I didn't read the piece, but, if this is an example of the best writing said magazine has to offer, I guess I'm not missing much.

It may interest you to know that when I was in Europe a few yars past, I watched a set of barrels being bored on a Manufrance barrel machine. The machine is from the 1920s, is two stories tall, and produces the guns choke at the rate of about .001 per inch, for the entire length of the barrel, until the final constriction is reached at the muzzle. It is a slow operation, as the measurements are made by hand, and, the barrels are bored longitudinally, with fixed stones, not radially.

Let that sink in for a moment.

There are no radial boring marks to impede the shot charge. Pressure is lower, and the shot column arrives in better shape at the muzzle, regardless of wad used. It is a phenomenal idea, and one you will never find used in the US.

Why? It costs too much. No, not every manufacturer does it that way, but, you can bet it is by far the best choke system ever developed, and, that one barrel may have a different dimension internally, then the barrel next to it.

That, in itself, doesn't prove anything.

While you might be tempted to think every advancement made in bore or choke is American by nature, this is wrong. An example, backboring was well known to Europeans in the 1920s, but, as a rule, only practiced with punt guns.

I've found the Eley fibre wad loads to work as well as any plastic shot cups for the hunting I do, and am happy not to be leaving any plastic around the woods. Some old, European ideas work just fine today, it would seem.

We need to see a pattern from this "junk" gun, with POI noted. Until then, it's all speculation.
Best,
Ted

*Last edited by 16gaugeguy on Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:23 am; edited 1 time in total*

Ted, you keep bringing up how the French do it. I'm addressing Italian guns. This gun is Italian built. Please stay relevent to the thread and leave France out of it. Thanks. Incidentally, rotoforging a shotgun barrel is also an excellent way to make them. It produces very uniform bores and very smooth surfaces. Plus, barrels can be made lighter and stronger at the same time. I think the Germans developed this way and still use it. So does Japan.

Further, You seem to want to ignore the fact that it is a 28 ga gun and its designed for interchangable choke tubes. Do the math Ted. .005 difference in a 28 gauge gun barrel will have a significant effect on pattern densities.

I don't know how many recently made Rizinni and/or FAIR O/U gun barrels you've peered down, but I do believe you too would pass on the bad ones I've seen. The flaws were that obvious and the percentage of bad ones to good ones was very significant. But its not only these makers. I recently rejected a Rota double made over a decade ago for the same flaws. so its not just a recent problem. You might be a bit of a curmudgean, but I doubt you are a fool with money. I notice you don't seem to buy many Italian made guns. I doubt an Italian gun with obviously poor barrels would entice you.

If the Europeans knew about the benifits of overboring in 1920, then why did they not introduce it into modern shotguns first? The answer has to do with another American innovation.

Americans designed and introduced the one piece plastic wad as both convenient to automated ammo production, and because a well designed one significantly improves shotgun ballistics in a number of ways. The Europeans have adapted this innovation to the majority of their ammo lines too, but still insist on short shot cups to compensate for the tight chokes on their antiquated barrel designs.

It is the one piece plastic wad with its easily obturated base that has made lengthened forcing cones and overbored barrels practical. Fiber wads demand tight bores and short cones to work best. But we both know what tight bores and short cones do to lead shot don't we.

I'll stick to plastic wads. The few I might leave out in the woods and fields will disappear into the earth soon enough. Its not like we are strewing thousands around. I've found very few out where I hunt and they don't seem to last forever as some folks claim.

They do make a 28 ga. gun much more effective and efficient if loaded into a well designed shell using good componants like hard shot. Same for a 16.

In fact, it is modern shotwads that have made it possible for the 16 to take over most if not all traditional 12 ga upland duties like 1-1/4 ounce, long range, hard hitting loads for big upland birds in tough conditions. Yes, these 16 ga. loads existed before the plastic wad. However, these modern versions are much more effective at further ranges. Same for the lighter 1 and 1-1/8 ounce hunting loads. We are hitting the birds harder and further with them too. The 16 has regained ground lost because of this factor. It is now fully capable of replacing the 12 for all upland duties and even for all but the heaviest waterfowling duties when you allow for the newer, more effective nontoxic shot available. This all started with the American invented plastic wad.

I've been given various explanations of why the Europeans tend to stick to the old ways when there are better alternatives, but none ever really made much sense ,except the "it's cheaper" one. It should not apply to a gun with a 2.5K price tag if obviously better ways are available.

Member Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 138 Location: Parma, OH

French physics are different that Italian physics? Heh! Ya learn something new everytime ya login! Very Happy

Mike Doerner

PS I'm always amazed at the mount of time and effort put into these discussions about manufacturing tolerances, pellet scrub, wad design, etc. just trying to quantify what is essentially a entirely random shot pattern. Yes I know there are things that can improve pattern distribution, but how much "precision" will yield another 10, 20, or 100 yards of effective pattern? Bore regulation is important, bore diameter less so. Vive la Entropy!

M, try whacking a good sized cock bird with a 28 ga at 35 plus yards (actually over 40 in a couple of instances). If the one you are using has the problems I've seen in some, then don't try it. You'll probably end up wounding the bird. However, it the one you are using has lengthened cones, a decently straight bore of .552", and a predictible, well designed choke of 18 points like the one I've used, it will dump them hard if they are well centered. It will do so because it will handle a well designed one ounce magnum hand load of hard #6 shot well protected by a nearly full length wad cup leaving the muzzle at 1220 + FPS.

Well designed, well made barrels are the heart of any good shotgun. Poorly made barrels can only hurt your ability to shoot well regardless of how good the ammo is. Think it through. Which do you want on your gun?

Joined: 19 Jun 2004 Posts: 1480 Location: Mpls, MN.

Still waiting for pattern percentage and POI reports.

Until then, well, speculation, at the best.
Best,
Ted

Member Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 138 Location: Parma, OH

I don't do 28 ga. Why use a garden hose to do a fire hose's job? I use a 16Ga or 12 GA Ithaca Flues......Or a 10 GA Zabala. Shocked

Mike Doerner

Joined: 19 Jun 2004 Posts: 1480 Location: Mpls, MN.

Using a 28 to take 40 yard shots at wild pheasants?

Did I read that correctly?
Best,
Ted

Guest

Yes you did, Ted. So did the rest of us, but never underestimate 16GG's ability to make it into sound reasoning.

Weren't no west Kansas pheasant, that's for sure! It would sting him a bit, you'd for sure piss him off, but he'd be giving you the finger as he flew gleefully out of range (if pheasants had fingers)! Keep that little 28ga pea shooter back where it belongs; do youself and the birds a favor. Evil or Very Mad

They were stocked birds. MA has virtually no wild birds. The closest we come are some of the holdover birds we occasionally find in the fens around some of our rivers. Its tough hunting, so naturally, I'd make sure to have enough gun for the conditions.

However, don't underestimate what can be done with a well built, modern 28 ga. gun and the right load. Please also notice I said "on a few occasions" regarding 40 yard shots. I don't commonly practice it, but the few times I felt I was solidly on the bird and did shoot, they were dead in the air.

Taking stocked pheasant with a 28 over dogs is not a stunt. I use a 28 for quite a bit of my early season hunting. Its always done as good a job for me as any gauge I've ever carried given the mild conditions we have here through October. Given those contions, I now prefer a full measured 3/4 ounce load of #6 in the bottom tube with IC choke for the first shot. It kills the birds nicely without turning them into a bloody pulp. 90% of these shots are inside 25 yards. Having a well designed 1 ounce load of #6 shot in the top tube is also a wise thing for the occasional shot past 30 yards. With this combo, I'm pretty much covered for most anything I'm going to be faced with until the conditions start to deteriorate and the birds get wilder. Then I grab the 16 of course.

PS: I see we are back to "selectively reading" posts again Rolling Eyes

My folks had selective hearing in their later years. It helped them keep the peace. Laughing