350 
FOREST AND STREAM 
[Feb. 26, 1910. 
Small Bores. 
New York. Editor Forest and Stream: In the issue of 
£eb. 5 Mr. Hedderly again writes entertainingly of the 
20 -bore. 
Mr. Hedderly writes with the courage of his con- 
victions, backed by the strength of long experience; and 
his opinions deserve great consideration. It seems from 
his evidence and that of others that the small-bores 
have become quite popular on the Pacific Coast. I 
doubt, however, if they ever gain an equal popularity 
in this part of the country. Judging from the descrip- 
toon, I should say the shooting there differs consider- 
ably from shooting in this vicinity (New York and New 
England). I think we have to work harder and shoot 
rarder for our game than our Western brethren. They 
have no shooting as hard as our battery shooting in 
open water, or our line shooting for sea ducks, and no 
upland sport that requires quickness and hard hitting 
combined like our ruffed grouse shooting. Their duck 
shooting seems to be chiefly over decoys in marshes 
and sloughs, or pass shooting. 
Mr. Hedderly states that any one with fair luck and 
skill can get the limit per day. We Eastern shooters, 
whc are not men of wealth and leisure, but have to 
take our sport when and where we can, have no such 
pleasant prospect to cheer us. Game, when we have 
access to it, is scarce and wild. A pair of grouse, half 
a dozen ducks or quail, or a few rabbits make a good 
day, and we often have to cover our empty bag with 
the reflection that “it is not all of shooting to shoot,” 
a maxim that is much more appreciated by the cheer¬ 
ful possessor of a full game bag than a tired, luckless, 
gameless gunner. 
With few shots, long, hard shots and little practice 
on game, we have still a decided leaning toward large 
bores and heavy charges. Also we shoot much at the 
traps in the absence of other sport; and the 12-bore, by 
the process of natural selection, has established itself 
as the best gun for the trap; in fact, the only gun 
under the present rules. So when we do take to the 
field we naturally prefer our accustomed 12 to an un¬ 
familiar small bore. 
In spite of all the asseverations of the small-bore ad¬ 
vocates to the contrary, there are times and places 
where the big bore and heavy load clearly prove their 
superiority. A case in point. Two friends of mine 
were making a week’s stay on Montauk Point, Long 
Island, indulging in such sport as offered. In the even¬ 
ings they generally resorted to a strip of beach between 
the ocean and a large pond where the ducks passed 
over in their visit to their sleeping place in the pond. 
1 he beach was open, affording little concealment, and 
the ducks were shy and flew fast and high. One shooter 
found that even his heavy 10-bore with No. 4 shot would 
seldom stop them. The other with an 8-bore, being 
well supplied with goose loads, resorted to No. 2s and 
Bs and with 7drs. of smokeless powder behind l^oz. 
of shot, accounted for most of the birds bagged. The 
8 -bore clearly outshot the 10-bore, the large shot and 
heavy charge, attaining a distinctly greater range and 
power. 
Also in line shooting, the 12-bore man is decidedly 
handicapped as against the 10 and 8-bores. He can 
and does make good bags by waiting until the ducks 
are at their nearest point, and then rising and shooting 
his light gun with a quickness that the heavier weapon 
will not permit; thus getting his shots at closer range 
than the heavier and slower handled big bore; but for 
range and hard hitting, the big gun distinctly out- 
shoots the little one. 
' The Forest and Stream, some weeks ago, reprinted 
from the London Field a most interesting article on 
long-range loads with large sizes of shot in the 12-bore, 
showing by experiment that the larger sizes shot closer 
and harder than the smaller, and that at long range the 
increased penetration of the large size more than com¬ 
pensated for the thinness of the pattern. 
It is in the shooting of large sizes of shot that the 
large bores show their superiority, the large heavy pel¬ 
lets giving the increase of range and striking force, and 
the increased measure of the charge giving the required 
thickness of pattern. With small shot their advantage 
is less apparent, not enough to offset their excessive 
weight and clumsiness of handling. 
If I were to lay down an offhand scale of shot sizes 
for the different bores, I should say use in the 20 up 
•° u o 8; in t he 12 No. 6; in the 10 to No. 4, and 
in the 8 to Bs. Above these limits for each bore, the 
next larger bore begins to show a decided superiority, 
increasing as the shot size is increased. 
I am surprised that Mr. Hedderly should commend a 
20 -bore for placing most of its charge in a one foot 
circle in the center of the pattern. I should consider 
this a fault, but a virtue. _ An even distribution of the 
pattern over the 30in. circle, without thick or thin 
patches in any part,. is what our best gunmakers are 
striving for. This thick patch in the center of the pat¬ 
tern is a common fault in full choke guns, and if more 
co jn mo J 1 ' n 20 s than 12s, so much the worse for the 20. 
• j Hedderly lays down the first requirement for the 
ideal 20, that both barrels shall be full choke. The day 
of the full choke 12 is past, and gunmakers and shoot¬ 
ers are both agreed in condemning the full choke for the 
game gun, the half or quarter choke being preferable, 
and the full choke being only allowable for open water 
duck shooting or trap work. 
As to the stringing of the pattern, this was shown, 
years ago, to be a necessary evil of choke-boring, the 
small orifice compressing the shot charge into a longer 
column than the cylinder or half-choke. 
It is a good point for the 20 if it will string its 
charges less than the 12; but has Mr. Hedderly ever 
tested a load of say SJ^drs. of quick smokeless powder 
behind loz. of shot in a heavy, hard-shooting pigeon 
gun against his load of 2%drs. and %oz. in the 20? The 
loads are about equally proportionate to the bores. 
Mr. L. Finletter s letter in this wek’s issue (Feb. 12) 
contains a good many hard facts for both 20 and 12 
bore men to ponder over. If we are to thrash out the 
subject thoroughly, we want more evidence of actual 
experience. Let us hear from others what their experi¬ 
ences have been, and when the evidence is all in on 
both sides, we shall be able to judge with increased 
knowledge in both fact and theory. 
To conclude, here are two extracts from the writings 
of that veteran shooter, Capt. A. W. Money: 
“As to lighter guns and smaller bores, I, like many 
others, caught the infection some twenty years ago, 
when there was a strong move in England in that direc¬ 
tion. I had 20-bores and 16-bores, but gradually I, like 
every one else I knew, came to the conclusion that for 
all-round shooting and to get the most that could be 
gotten out of a gun, there was nothing to beat the 
medium weight No. 12-bore. * * *” 
“I have seen wonderful work done in the field with 
both 16s and 12s, and I have shot them both a good 
deal myself; but the average shooter will always do 
better work in the long run, with a 12-bore, and for 
that reason it has been the standard bore for many 
a long year, and will, I think, continue to be so for 
all time. For women and children the small bore with 
its small grip is suitable, and also you can get better 
shooting out of a small bore, when it is an object to 
use a very light load, than the same load will give out 
of a 12-bore.” 
This seems to me a very sensible summary. 
Hit-or-Miss. 
The correspondence concerning 16-bores has taken a 
line which cannot fail to surprise those who have 
studied these guns in a scientific manner. To start with, 
it cannot be denied that the balance of the evidence 
adduced shows that the guns so far issued have been a 
failure. The failure is much more pronounced than can 
possibly be accounted for by the reduction of charge 
from 1 1-16 to 15-16 or %oz. The only feasible explana¬ 
tion appears to be that people do! not like half-choke 
guns. If the better handling properties of the 16-bore 
are, as some assert, a disadvantage, then the whole 
principle of gun-construction must be redrafted. No, 
the only possible explanation of the 16-bore proving a 
failure, except in the hands of the very good shot, is 
that the problem has been approached from the wrong 
end. The gunmaker who advertises that his 16-bore 
gives the same pattern at 40yds. as a 12, would be 
following sounder lines of construction if he could claim 
it had the same spread. A red herring was drawn across 
the scent when the firm of Holland & Holland claimed 
to have discovered a system of boring that minimized 
at the short ranges the wellknown disadvantage of the 
close patterns thrown by highly-choked guns. Even 
granting the whole of the claims made by this firm, it 
will be found that the relative disadvantages of choke¬ 
boring are very little affected thereby. If the im¬ 
proved result is under proper control, it can be applied 
every bit as well to 12s as any other size, and the com¬ 
parison is once more reduced to the best degree of 
choke for each caliber of gun. 
Taking 12-bore experience on the broadest possible 
basis, it may be said that each degree of choke gives 
the barrel to which it is applied a best shooting dis¬ 
tance. At the other distances the degree of falling off 
varies considerably. Irrespectively as to what has pre¬ 
viously been said, the cylinder has the greatest space 
over which it has maximum effectiveness, also the great¬ 
est space over which it has secondary effectiveness, and 
finally the greatest space over which it has tertiary 
effectiveness. The full choke has the minimum space 
of greatest effectiveness, and a similarly small radius in 
all the other degrees. Half-choke, as a compromise, 
comes naturally in a midway position between extremes. 
A good deal of notice was aroused by an article which 
appeared on Oct. 16 last naming as the gun for a good 
shot a 12-bore with half-choke boring in both barrels. 
Well, such a gun was made, and the theory was tested 
on every possible occasion. At first several encourag¬ 
ing successes at distant birds appeared to prove the 
value of the combination; but when pheasant shooting 
began, it soon became apparent that the user of the 
gun was evidently not a good enough shot to com¬ 
pensate for the many difficulties that were introduced by 
the small spread of short ranges. Some shots were 
taken from a moderately high tower at one of the shoot¬ 
ing schools in an endeavor to trace the cause of the 
lost form. The average of kills was much reduced, and 
those birds that were accounted for were converted as 
by magic into the cloud of dust which denotes the strik¬ 
ing of many pellets. In other words, the close spread had 
operated disadvantageously by necessitating absolute 
care in taking short-range shot, the charge requiring to 
be centered not on the bird, but on a spot some inches 
forward of his beak. Some such precaution was abso¬ 
lutely necessary to avoid giving the bird the whole 
charge. The idea was to chop the bird down, leaving 
the main flight of the pellets to miss in front. The 
number of bad shots that resulted from destroying the 
free working of the instinctive processes of aiming was 
most disconcerting, and form deteriorated, while using 
a gun that above all else necessitated concert-pitch. 
Need the story be prolonged further than to state that 
the right barrel has, with entirely satisfactory results, 
been reduced to improved cylinder? The gun has not, 
however, • been much used since conversion, for in its 
place another gun, true cylinder in both barrels, has 
been found best to meet the needs of the situation. A 
further argument may perhaps be introduced at this 
point. Recently one of the directors of a very large 
ammunition manufacturing business invited one of the 
company’s experts to witness a big day’s covert shoot¬ 
ing on his preserves. Here was a man of undoubted 
scientific ability, an engineer, and wholly devoted to 
exactly recording the particulars of shooting tests, seeing 
for the first time in his life the cartridges of which he 
superintends the manufacture of millions a week, used 
in actual warfare, so to speak. Such an event can only 
happen once in a man’s life at the most. Consequently 
the first impressions gained have a high; value. What 
struck him most during the day was the large number 
of chances that were allowed to go by because the range 
was too short. This surely is a most eloquent argument 
in favor of cylinder boring. 
"lhe 16-bore experiments of two years ago represented 
a most painstaking effort to settle the best system of 
boring for guns of reduced caliber or otherwise firing 
reduced charges. Improved cylinder boring was thought 
to give* patterns of too open a nature. Half-chokes 
gave the right result at 30yds., but the price to be paid 
in reduced spread at the short distances was found to be 
very great. At this stage the trade intervened and 
settled the question by adopting the 140 pattern of a 
12 -bore, thus disregarding the pellets outside the circle 
and wholly concentrating attention on what fell within. 
If a mistake was made there is no harm in admitting 
it, and very little expense is incurred in removing it. 
Choke can be taken out without affecting the value and 
efficiency of the weapon. It is, in fact, fortunate that 
the error is of a remediable kind. Had it been the 
other way round, and had all guns been made of cylinder 
boring, subsequent experience showing that they ought 
to have been choke, then a serious depreciation would 
have to be written off. The spread of the 12-bore is 
what is wanted, not the pellets in the circle: 
Valuable as unrestricted correspondence always proves 
in elucidating problems that turn on practical experi¬ 
ence, it must be understood that letters of the kind 
now appearing contain much chaff as well as much 
grain. To comment editorially on each letter as it 
appears might diminish the perpetration of errors, but 
it would militate against freedom of discussion. It 
must also be remembered that a bad argument or a 
wrong reason may frequently be adduced in favor of a 
desirable end. Therefore, while most heartily thanking 
the various correspondents who have expressed their 
opinions, it must be pointed out that in one or two 
instances the scientific bearing of the subject has been 
misunderstood. For instance, other things being equal, 
it is absolutely impossible for a reduced charge to give 
the same spread at short ranges, as well as the same 
pattern in the 30in. circle at 40yds., as is obtained from 
a larger charge. There may be the same pattern, and a 
less spread, or more spread and less pattern. A minus 
B is always less than A, but the number of people who 
think they have proved the opposite shows the rarity 
of true mathematical understanding. There are those 
who seek to reconcile their consciences by arguing that 
though there are less pellets outside the circle, in any 
case these do not count for much since they may be 
classified as the wounding margin. Here, again, is a 
full-blown fallacy based on a half truth. At 40yds. it 
may be that only the most concentrated center of the 
spread of shot is of real practical value, but at the other 
ranges, especially at very close quarters such as 15yds., 
the fringe of the pattern is of the highest possible 
value. By enlarging the area of spread, they enable the 
sportsman to mount his gun in a flash and let fly with 
instinctive aim. If the bird is bagged, as it generally 
is, the beater does not handle the bird, and suggests 
that _ it must have been struck by the outside pellets. 
He is more likely to remark, “Our guvnor can shoot.” 
The 16-bore comes into the market as a light and easily 
handled gun. Its 20 per cent, reduction of charge thins 
the pattern at the shorter ranges and enables shots to 
be taken that would otherwise be passed by. If it has 
a shorter range, due to the sparcity of the pellets be¬ 
yond, say 30yds., well, then, its very lightness should 
enable it to be fired more quickly than a heavier weapon. 
Some shots it cannot take that a 12 can. This, how¬ 
ever, is a fundamental law of nature, and it is in at¬ 
tempting to reverse nature that gunmakers seem to 
have gone wrong. Is it too late to remedy the error? 
\Ye think not. 
I notice a letter from Mr. W. W. Watts, in which he 
lays down, with no small degree of confidence, the 
reason why most men are unable to shoot as well with 
a 16 or 20-bore| as they can with a 12. I venture to 
question the accuracy of his statements: Firstly, be¬ 
cause, with but very few exceptions, no man who can 
be called a good shot ever looks along his barrels with 
one eye. Secondly, as regards the fingers of his left 
hand intercepting his line of vision, even supposing that 
he should be able to get his fingers round the top of 
the barrels, which is most unlikely, it ought to make no 
difference to his shooting; for if his gun fits him he 
does not look along the! barrels at all, but at the ob¬ 
ject only with both eyes open. In conclusion, it seems 
almost unnecessary to ask whether a 16-bore has superior 
shooting powers to a 12, sincel the Gun Club has de- 
ciaed that point, and w r ill give the sportsman using the 
former several yards start, although of course a 16-bore 
weighing as much as 151bs. 14oz., such as one of your 
correspondents, E. P. O. uses, might do wonders. 
In the case of users, of 12-bores who have forsaken 
their old love and taken to a smaller bore with dis- 
appointing results, it is my belief that these men, re¬ 
garding the matter from their experience of 12-bores, in 
order to obtain as effective results, say, from a 20-bore 
I 2, , or der “cylinder bore” to increase the size of the 
killing circle and use shot a size smaller than they would 
use in a 12 or similar game. That is to say, if for 
rough shooting they used No. 5 shot in a 12-bore, they 
would use No. 6 in a 20 to obtain a better pattern. 
J ms was the advice given to me by a gunmaker. If 
the above is the case, there is certainly ground for 
disappointment. In the first place, choke-boring is a 
necessity in a 20-bore, presumably owing to the pro¬ 
portionately longer column of shot in the cartridge case 
of a 20 as compared with a 12. While the difference 
between the killing range of a choke 12 and a cylinder 12 
may be taken at 10 to 12yds., the difference in regard 
to a choke 20, as compared with a cylinder 20, would 
appear to be nearer 20yds. than 10. In the second place, 
No. 6 shot will not do the work of No. 5, no matter 
what bore of gun it is used in; to use No. 6 shot in- 
stead of No. 5 in a 20-bore means greatly increased re- 
c ,°' al ly a decrease of efficiency out of all proportion to 
the difference in size of shot. 
My experience is that No. 5% shot is the smallest size 
which should be used in a 20-bore, but I consider that 
a 20-bore is at its best when used with No. 5. There 
is no practical difference in the killing range of a 20, 
under these conditions, and a 12-bore choke, while a 
