Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: monoblocks

  1. #1
    First Class
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    33

    monoblocks

    Does anyone have an aversion toward monoblocks? I know they're perfectly fine, but I find myself preferring non-monoblock barrel sets.

  2. #2
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Posts
    1,415
    Why does this make a difference?
    Doug

  3. #3
    First Class
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    33
    I was looking at the AOC site and reading John Hollinger's columns regarding the development of the Ugartechea game gun and his preference for chopper-lump over mono-block barrel set ups. I thought it was interesting, because I preferred that barrel construction also, but for different reasons. I've looked at purchasing Beretta side by sides at different times and could never get over the rings around the barrels. There's a symmetry and litheness to barrels that are continuous from end to end. I know it's esoteric, I was just curious.

  4. #4
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    808
    A cheap excuse for misplaced snobbery. None of them are going to fall apart at the lump. I've had monoblock, chopper lump, dovetail lump. All still going strong as far as I know. There are far more important things to think about. Like whether you prefer an oval or a shield as your crest plate. John Hollinger is trying to sell guns. If I had an Uggie, I'd gladly trade the chopper lump feature for properly hardened strikers.

  5. #5
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Posts
    1,415
    Thanks for the explanation. It's your money and if you prefer a certain look, that makes sense to me. Next time I'm looking at a nice gun, I'll check the construction for those rings.

    My "weirdness" is the wood on a gun. If the forearm wood doesn't match the stock in grain and color, I won't buy the gun. Further "weirdness" is I like POW (semi pistol) grips on my SxS bird guns and full grips on my competition guns.
    Doug

  6. #6
    Nothing wrong with preferring non-monoblock barrels. What do you think about monoblock barrels that don't have the joining line?

  7. #7
    First Class
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    33
    What are some examples?

  8. #8
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    South Dakota/ Montana
    Posts
    4,226
    Quote Originally Posted by baldrick View Post
    What are some examples?

    A Charles Moore. Sleeved in London, a monoblock of sorts.

    B.C.

  9. #9
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    3,662
    I don't have examples of invisible monoblocs, but I do like my SO Beretta, regardless of the rings. New ones are way up into five figures and Beretta has used the monobloc system for decades. However, I do wish they would lose the lines on the side by sides.

  10. #10
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Twin Cities MN
    Posts
    470
    The initial reissue of Betetta 470s in the late 1990s had monoblock barrels with no discernible line. I owned one for awhile and really liked it-one of the few guns I have regretted selling. I was told by Beretta that they stopped making them like this because it was too expensive. I have heard all of the arguments touting the superiority of chopper lump and demi block barrels such as those on a Model 21. If monoblocks were so mechanically inferior all of those fancy target guns that have them like Perazzi's, K80s and Blazers would be falling apart. Anyone ever see a Browning monoblock fail? Buy chopper lump barrels if it floats your boat. My Simson, Ithaca, Fox and LC barrels don't have a monoblock line either
    Regards
    Jeff
    "There is no spoon."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •