Cleric

You are one weird fellow. That being said, that really cracked me up!

You mean... ???

Kent Fasteel in a variety of sizes. Can't bring myself to spend the money on that heavy nontox stuff.

I was trying to figure out a single word that would earn that... must be a fluid string of profanity. Quite talented Generally speaking, this exercise is a good one. We all should be highly critical of any "non-profit" or humanitarian effort to which we give our money. Bottom line, if their operating costs are high, that's less of our money which is going to our cause. If they are performing actions outside of the bounds of their charter or worse (Tuck's example), that's our money being wasted again.

Another one tangling with Tucker... do you ever get tired of it? I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Tucker. Your first post is pretty much incoherent. If you have a point, could you put it into two sentences or less? I would like to reply, but cannot seem to string together enough of your words to make an response sensible either. However, I will say, which seems on-point to your post (I think) that DU has the highest operating costs by percentage than any other conservation nonprofit. Field and Steam did a report on it... about a year ago? I can dig up the issue and page number if the need be. Thanks!

Don't hunt goose a lot, so I started with a short-reed for a challenge. Oiy. Need to pick up something different... when I'm not buying duck calls... so, maybe not for a while

I'd be seriously concerned about the density of the stuff. Probably can't pack too much of a whallop.

Have a few of cheap to mid calls... all blow about the same. The Winglocks are something I haven't tried, but really need to get on my lanyard. I have a RNT Original in Acrylic which is my only "high-end" call. I have to say that the acrylic material really does make a substantial difference for me. It is a great call.

Is that like leaving your kid with your brother and sister-in-law when you go on vacation? Excellent read, thanks for the link!

Bingo! But cryoing the barrel would drive the price up on the pumps, bringing them closer to semi price...

Hmm. Quite interesting. I wonder how that process stacks up against Benelli's. Admittedly, that was a lot cheaper than I expected it to be. While I doubt cost is the only factor, I suspect it is a major one. The pumps are significantly cheaper than the semis and are, clearly, geared to hit a different economic bracket of consumers.

The reason is (drumroll please) - $$$!

Polychoke!

Quite a few... but there are some words with more than 2 syllables... so proceed with caution buddy

Heh, glad to hear that you find excuses... I mean, inspiration in all sorts of places. The shotgun is an endorsed method of zombie defence. How do I know? I have read the Zombie Survival Guide: http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Survival-Guide-Complete-Protection/dp/1400049628 That book is a riot. If you at all a fan of zombie movies or just plain excellent humor writing, you MUST read it. Every friend I have loaned it to now owns a copy.

Ouch, yeah. The Nova and the 350 are far from the same. Pick both up and you'll know why. They are all owned by the same company, but the quality does vary. Don't think you'll be getting a Benelli gun when you buy Stoeger.

Bob Wards might carry it. I know the Sportman's Warehouse in Missoula does.

Be careful about getting any kind of cleaning solvents on that camo finish. They will speed along its demise. Have a blast in Mexico!

If you just bought it and it has rust, return it. At the very least, take it back to the store and make them clean it up (or give you a good discount). As for regular lube and rust-prevention, my Nova does well on the Breakfree CLP. Good stuff. [ 10-21-2006, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Cleric ]

As far as I know, the stainless barrel only comes in rifle sights. So, for a duck gun, you'd have to get used to swinging with those. I have a standard Nova that is my muck gun. I havent' had any problems with rust on it that would make me want to swap out to stainless. Besides, in MT, if you clean it well, you don't have enough humidity to worry about any serious rust. (Dillon is home for me)

I've long held-off from joining a conservation organization. Not because I wasn't concerned, but because DU seemed too much like banquets and stickers and Delta I didn't know enough or see enough about to make an informed decision. Tucker, you've pretty much confirmed my perception of DU. Maybe it is time that I drop a check in the mail to Delta...

I suspect you will get a bag of mixed answers on that question. While more pellets typically mean more opprotunities to kill down-range, that doesn't mean they will always pattern well. In addition, consider the range and size of your desirable spread of shot. Perhaps pattern both and hunt both and see what works best for you. I would suspect that if you are harvesting the number of birds you would like to already, the move up in payload and price isn't worth it.

Doh! Sorry Tuck. I should have figured you wouldn't insult my fading high-school science skills (how many years ago...?). The best determination I've heard for determining pellet count is to cut the desires shells open. Fancy math will only give you approximates and Kent doesn't have a listing of that information (that I am aware of).

Hmm... my high-school chem and physics must be slipping. However, Wikipedia also agrees with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density Density is a function of mass (weight)/volume.

Hmm, the prices I have seen on the Kent TM isn't what I would call wonderful. They add up to be about $2.00 a shell. Still, better than bismuth, which runs about $2.50 a shell. If you have a better price, let me know. At any rate, density does not equal weight. Density is a function of mass (weight) to a specified volume. According to Kent, Tungsten-Matrix comes in at 10.25 g/cm^3. Good ol' steel is about 7.85 g/cm^3 (lots of variation here). Kent's approximation of 40% is generous. I would say that they are erroring on the side of caution. However, since you specified an approximate weight (an ounce), you should be in the clear. What you are solving for is the volume, which in this situation takes the form of #5 pellets... eh, a bit rough, but it'll do. So... Yeah, I think your math floats. Calculating it on my densities, I come up with 153 pellets per 1.25 ounces.