Benelli SBE II vs. Beretta Extrema2

[DawgByte]

I'm looking to replace my 32 year old Remington 1100 (great gun) with something lighter and more versatile. I'm looking for a rugged and extremely reliable semi-auto with a soft recoil and low muzzle flip. I will use the gun for waterfowl and pheasant hunting as well as sporting clays.

I've narrowed my choices to the Benelli Super Black Eagle II and the Beretta Extrema2. Yesterday I shot the Benelli and was impressed with it's light weight, handling and clay crushing abilities. Recoil was about the same as my 1100 - perhaps even less. Another hunter I shot with yesterday had the Beretta Extrema2. He loved his gun. I picked it up and was suprised at the weight - it was as heavy as my old Remington 1100. Unfortunately I didn't get the opportunity to shoot the Beretta, so I'd like to get your opinions on these two guns.

Thank you,
DB

 

[kennyboy]

Both Benellis and Berettas are on the same par. However, I would choose the Benelli just because Benelli is the premier name in autoloading shotguns.

 

[JohnBT]

Beretta owns Benelli. Looks like a tie.

John

 

[kirbythegunsmith]

Some comments

I am a great disbeliever in the one gun duzzitall. You may primarily shoot light and medium 2-3/4" shells, but they will have to go through a longer chamber. There is a price to be paid for the extra travel of the shot prior to cramming through the forcing cone. Pellets get more deformed and steel shot wads get more abused when they must open to fit against the chamber walls between the crimp and end of the chamber. Deformed lead pellets don't fly as straight after a while, slow more quickly, and lose pattern consistency and killing power. Damage to steel shot wads reduces the protection provided to the barrel and choke tubes. Poorer pattern consistency is another result of deformed steel shot wads.
If there was a 2-3/4" barrel to change on those guns, I'd have other advice.
Those guns may be very capable for waterfowl, but I can typically make guns pattern much better than factory with my special steel shot conversion work.
I never trust a factory choke tube hole to be installed straight, so for your own situation, pattern the point of impact with a fairly tight choke at a close distance to see if the impact and point of aim is close. I have personally seen impacts off as much as 11" high at 19 yards, for example. That was the one almost 22 years ago that got me started educating shooters about crooked choke holes. Of course, a gun that hits close to point of aim is not a guarantee of a choke hole being straight, since it could be stepped over like the 2 tracks on a railroad: parallel but not on the same centerline.

I have also done work to reduce operational drag and increase reliability for light loads in mechanisms originally meant for stout shells.


Did you read my posts on the problem 20 ga. 1100 eject-reject a few down on the list?

[email protected]

 

[PJR]

You may primarily shoot light and medium 2-3/4" shells, but they will have to go through a longer chamber. There is a price to be paid for the extra travel of the shot prior to cramming through the forcing cone.

Nonsense. Both Beretta and Perazzi offer their target guns with 3" chambers. If the makers or the owners thought this was a concern the guns would be available in 2-3/4" only.

As to the debate between the two guns mentioned and the potential applications I'd question the need for 3-1/2" shells. If you need them and want to use the gun for clays I'd suggest the Beretta. Its gas handling system will be more amenable to shooting lighter target loads. The recoil system of the Benelli isn't as accomodating.

If 3" magnums will do look at the Beretta 391 or the Benelli SuperSport. Both are lighter guns and will be more suitable to waterfowl, clays and pheasants IMO.

 

[kirbythegunsmith]

Nonsense?

I suppose target shooters are all experts on the workings of a shell-to-chamber fit. They shoot what a sponsor provides, and of course, we know manufacturers NEVER have an agenda. Maybe they should provide 3-1/2" chambers, if long chambers are such a miracle, or maybe 4"?
For many years, manufacturers were telling everyone that backboring and lengthened forcing cones were useless, at least, until they pretended to have just discovered the "outstanding" benefits.
How many years did Browning NOT have backbored barrels? 90?
And now, they think backboring is the best thing since sliced bread.
Give me a break.
Has anyone else the memory of being told that shooting the 22 short in a long rifle-length chamber would have less potential accuracy, since the bullet must transit the extra length of the chamber prior to engaging the rifling?
Let us not forget the same for 357 revolvers shooting 38 shells. The advice was to put your 38 style loads in 357 length cases, to reduce bullet jump.
The same effect, and more, happens to the shot load, wad, slug, or whatever is being fired. Chamber length matched to shell length is basic precision and backed by physics, not the opinions of shooters, manufacturers or anybody with a crystal ball.

I try to explain the reasoning behind my statements, and use logical deduction as much as possible. Analogies may sometimes improve the understanding.
Which kicks worse?
A gun held against the shoulder, or one held an inch away from your shoulder that builds up speed prior to contact?
A short shell in a long chamber builds speed prior to being forced into the FORCING CONE (not called "forcing" without reason), and since it had to enlarge in diameter once it is NOT in the hull, the shot load must endure a greater magnitude of radial squeeze than if it merely left the interior diameter of the hull. Build up speed, add more squeeze, more shot deformity, physics 101.

Think this could be of any benefit for your knowledge base?

[email protected]

 

[PJR]

A short shell in a long chamber builds speed prior to being forced into the FORCING CONE (not called "forcing" without reason), and since it had to enlarge in diameter once it is NOT in the hull, the shot load must endure a greater magnitude of radial squeeze than if it merely left the interior diameter of the hull. Build up speed, add more squeeze, more shot deformity, physics 101.

Think this could be of any benefit for your knowledge base?

My knowledge base is just fine. To quote Brister (pg. 168, Shotgunning: The Art and the Science) on the subject,

The belief that a 3-inch chamber reduces velocities and power of the 2-3/4-inch shells used in it seems to be more fable than fact, although in some guns the 3-inch chambers may pattern worse (or better) than in standard chamber. I've seen it work both ways.

Sorry, I guess Brister missed Physics 101.

You do know who Brister is I trust?

And if Brister isn't enough for you how about O'Connor? That would be Jack O'Connor from page 90 of The Shotgun Book.

Many believe that shooting short shells in long chambers opens up patterns, but this is questionable. The considerable experience I have done shows little if any difference between patterns with a 2-3/4 inch shells in a 2-3/4 inch chamber and a 3-inch chamber.

And while I would never put myself into the same august company as Brister and O'Connor I've patterned enough to determine there is no consistent difference in the patterns that can be ascribed to the length of the chamber.

I guess I'll just have to tell those poor schlubs shooting Perazzis and Berettas who paid for them personally that their target guns are just no good with the 3" chambers. Maybe I'll get one cheap.

 

[kirbythegunsmith]

Clarifications

I might make the observation that none of the comments of Brister or O'Conner involve taking a barrel that is a 2-3/4" and patterning, and then trying lengthening the chamber on the SAME barrel to test pattern again. The haphazard manner of randomly shooting different barrels, and comparing the aggregate, is not scientific or controlled, just averages.
I refer to SPECIFICS only, in that even though they may not have tried going from short to long, I HAVE gone from long to short.
There is a marked difference, especially when you are trying for the edge of performance, not the spread of a skeet pattern.
The other situation that may be noticed is the random alignment of the chamber to the bore via the forcing cone.
Picture 1 shows the 4 o'clock position of the forcing cone is much more than at 10 o'clock position of this 28 ga. O/U import.
Picture 2 shows more shadow at 5 than at 10 o'clock.
Picture 3 has much more shadow at 2 than at 8 (12 ga. import semi)
Picture 4 has much more at 9 than at 3, and you may notice that there is more total shadow, since the bore diameter of this side by side is much tighter than the bore of picture 3's barrel, and the chamber is also larger in diameter, so more expansion (radially) of the shell, and more squeeze to a SMALLER than normal diameter, adding more injury to the load than normal.

A sample measuring of chamber length of barrels marked as 2-3/4 has several answers for nominally equal barrels:
Winchester 37, 2.6" with forcing cone roughly 1/2" max
Remington model 10, 2.65", forcing cone max. of 3/8"
Winchester 1200, 2.75, with 7/16 forcing cone
Savage single shot, 2.8", .3 forcing cone
Have several NIB 1100 barrels from the Remchoke intro. period that have 3" from the factory, but marked 2-3/4, with the 2 gas ports, too
Have seen factory chambers of varying length, diameter, mating alignment to the forcing cone/bore transition

12 gauge bore diameter variance, not counting backbored barrels sold by the factories, have been from
Ithaca 37 magnum, .715
Browning BPS and many others, .717
Winchesters of 1200/1400 to .736+
Remingtons (1100, 11/48, etc.) from .721 to .746

Total variance for conventional barrels marked 12 ga. and of significant production, in excess of .030 difference, almost enough to make a full choke in a lot of barrels.

So if we look at the random nature of several barrels, with different amounts of off-center nature of the forcing cone, difference of bore diameter, variance in chamber diameter, nominal length chamber differences of barrels marked as being roughly equal chamber length, typical choke action of shotguns being sometimes markedly different for the same choke markings on otherwise identical barrels, patterning differences of shells, weather conditions of temp/humidity/wind variance even across a few hours, and yet somebody will then make a pronouncement from on high, since they happen to be a well-known and respected (even by me!) writer, well, I say the answer is still known by physics, not questionable due to anecdotal shooting reference without scientific controls.

I made tests on one barrel with lengthening the forcing cone very long (much longer than Ralph Walker mentions in his book, I guess you know who he is?) of an 1100 skeet barrel, patterning at 25 yd. with the same box of AA 9's 1-1/8 oz. shooting on paper roughly 40" square, admittedly less than purely scientific analysis.

"Before" tests had 550-580 pellets on the paper, and "after" had 620-640, and there are only about 660 in the whole shell. So, about 10% of the total shot load that had been OFF the paper was now filling out the fringes, for more liklihood of getting a bird being shot at (and less likely to chip a clay or wound a bird not in the aimpoint area), but the center was not any tighter. In fact, the center where formerly doubles and triple pellet strikes in practically the same hole had been present, were now exhibiting some spread between them!
Conclusion to me was that the center became more uniform without being denser, the fringes became more filled toward the edges, the flyers were markedly reduced in number and dispersion, and many of my shooters have remarked how even small gauges with fairly open chokes can reach to much farther distances than they have been capable of, previously.
Their comments are decidedly unscientific, but the body of weight that they represent has me convinced that they aren't lying, just to make ME feel good, so I make this small claim to refer to my experience as significant, if nothing else.

I have personally inspected highly engraved O/U's, high dollar trap guns, combo sets, and have seen ALL of them have crooked choke hole installations FROM THE FACTORY!
Someone owning a Rolls is not necessarily smarter, just richer. Somebody being a champion racer is not the same as being a racing mechanic, maybe just a better example of hand/eye coordination and experience.

No one should necessarily consider themselves the answer to all questions, but may be capable of deductive reasoning with SOME questions.

[email protected]

 

[PJR]

Kirby, presumably when you lengthened those chambers you changed the specifications of the forcing cone making it 1/2" shorter which could contribute to pattern changes. Unless you lengthened the chamber AND recut the forcing cone to precisely the same geometry and smoothness then your tests could hardly be considered indicative.

You believe shooting 2-3/4" shells in a 3" chamber leads to poor performance and I don't. No amount of discusion here is going to chance that. But I'm not going to lengthen my 2-3/4" guns to find out.

In any event it doesn't matter because this thread is about semi-automatic shotguns both of which have 3-1/2" chambers in which 2-3/4" shells will be shot. That might give some a case of the vapors but I wouldn't worry about any pattern degradation because of the longer chambers. I shoot a 3" chambered target gun and it patterns just fine. YMMV.

 

[kirbythegunsmith]

Excuse me?

There is nothing in my posts about me lengthening chambers, only shortening longer ones to precision length for specific shells, so your comments to that notion are void.
What I have tried to make clear is that, when all else is equal, that shooting short shells (of any type- rifle, shotgun, rimfire, etc.) is bound to have a degrading effect. You may choose to think that I said "poor performance" when the gist was the fact that there is a difference.
It seems to me that the situation of people using 3" chambers not noticing a great difference in performance (Brister & co.) does not answer the problem of 3.5" chambers having a magnified effect with a 3/4" difference in length vs. 1/4".
Someone may say that there is not enough of a difference for them to care, or spot, but you have no evidence to say that the effect that I describe is absent, just not severe enough for you to get -"the vapors?"
I will be secure in the knowledge that I have a valid and proven point, with your exception being in a lack of percepting it as a significant degree of difference (at least in the 3" question), but I was trying to give advice to shooters contemplating a 3.5" gun, so your lack of worry in respect to a 3" chamber may not necessarily translate into someone elses perception of 3.5" chamber length effect on short shells.
I was not trying to exaggerate the condition present, but I have seen no mention AT ALL of the situation in any advertisements or articles pertaining to the point that I made of 3.5" having a real chance to add injury to shot loads. Therefore, I consider my mention as close to groundbreaking for ALMOST ALL READERS, who have seen no mention nor thought of consequences along this line. A couple of mentions in books about 3" vs. 2-3/4" having questionable differences is old history now that the 3.5" has established itself on the scene.

I have callers to my shop that, when I mention the fact that factories have installed choke tube holes mis-aligned to the bore, will tell me that their gun shoots "just fine", but then admit that they haven't patterned the gun on paper, but still break targets OK. I even have some that tell me that they aren't that great a shot and wouldn't be helped by having a straight choke tube installation. I do find it very hard to believe that shooters with equipment that is off will be no better with equipment that is "on target".
A race car with a mis-aligned front end will drive better with the front end aligned. A shotgun with a straight choke will be more accurate and consistent with the pattern and pointing. A chamber made to fit the shell is an integral part of making the gun fit the duty.

I concern myself with educating shooters with the information about what is the best for the situation, what is a detriment, and let an informed shooter then walk into the final choice with the knowledge that someone cared to let them know that differences exist.

Does anyone think that less information leads to better choices?

[email protected]

 

[PJR]

How do you shorten just the chamber?

I can see it would be possible if you cut 1/4" of an inch off the rear of the barrel and reset it into the action. It would be strange thing to do but I suppose possible.

Do you tube the gun with smaller chambers similar to the various subgauge inserts?

Re-sleeving barrels might be an option but because they are different barrels the patterns couldn't be fairly compared.

The only way to prove your theory would be to take an assortment of 2-3/4" chambered barrels and lengthen the chambers, recutting the forcing cones to identical dimensions and patterning with the same ammunition. I might believe your "theory" if proved by that test but until that time it doesn't hold water.

 

[DawgByte]

Not sure of the science only the results

I didn't have the luxury of patterning the Benelli SBE II over the weekend. However, I did field test it and can say with a certain level of confidence that it produced a more consistent and superior pattern in comparison to my 1100. I was shooting the same 2 3/4" shells in both guns. Both were choked Modified and had 28" barrels. The Benelli consistently dusted the clay targets, while the 1100 merely broke them.

I can also report that of the 25 hunters shooting Pheasants at least half were using Benelli's. However, the one guy shooting the 391 Extrema2, swore by his decision. The only thing that makes me hesitant about the Beretta is the additional weight, as it's very heavy for a modern semi-auto.

 

[TrapperReady]

The only thing that makes me hesitant about the Beretta is the additional weight, as it's very heavy for a modern semi-auto.

The Extrema2 is designed primarily as a waterfowling gun. The extra weight which feels like a liability when you're carrying through a field after pheasants becomes a distinct advantage if you're lighting up some heavy duck and goose loads (especially high-velocity 3.5" steel).

 

[kirbythegunsmith]

holding water

Why does the theory of shorter chambers matched to shorter shells cause so much apprehension among a few? I do (and did) not mean to impugn that anyone owning a gun with a long chamber and shooting bunches of shorter shells has a screw loose, especially when no one has had what (at this point in the firing line) amounts to the COURAGE TO BUCK THE TREND and attempt to make logic out of what has become a mantra deduced from a manufacturer's sales pitch. Catch as much unsolicited grief about an honest attempt at enlightenment to see what being branded a heretic is all about.

Trying to go from a shorter chamber and then lengthening the chamber, while trying to PERFECTLY duplicate the forcing cone angle, finish, and a multitude of other details is a way to overcomplicate things, and the choice of someone NOT TRYING TO MAKE THINGS EASY TO PROVE, since it is the only method that is apparently acceptable.
There IS more than one way to prove this point that I have ALREADY TESTED AND PROVEN, and this is the method.

See the barrels pictured.
The left barrel is an easily removed barrel from a Winchester 97 takedown model, and the next one is the same without the collar and barrel extension attached. Notice that is also placed about a quarter-inch down from the end. Imagine removing a quarter inch from a barrel that has a 3" chamber, and has been previously tested.
The barrel may now be re-tested with a shorter chamber, and the forcing cone, finish, and everything else is absolutely the same- no duplication hassles! A spacer may be made to fill in the gap to bring the barrel back out to 3" for corroboration testing, and change back and forth repeatedly.
The third barrel is a .410 3", and may have the shank reworked and rim edge reset to do the same thing with 2.5" .410 shells in the before and after mode. Making this one into a reversible arrangement may be done with a bit of design work and machining of adapters.
Barrels 4 and 5 may be adaptable, but would require considerable effort to ensure the integral nature of the chamber front end, but still theoretically possible, but definitely not a good choice.

How many of you realize that a shot charge or bullet can be traveling at 300 feet per second in around a half-inch of initial travel? I was not aware of the suddenness of acceleration to be of that magnitude, but read it in an article. It does make sense if there is any chance of a 2" snubby to get over 700 FPS in a .38 revolver. Have you seen what happens to lead impacting something hard at a few hundred feet per second?
Remember the arcade air tommyguns that you used to try to shoot out the red star? Those pellets were definitely not re-usable after hitting the angle backstop plate.

So the conclusion here is, taking a 2.75" barrel, cutting it to 3", test firing, shortening the barrel to 2.75" chamber length position, test firing again, is a possibility within the reach of any advanced tinkerer, and will verify what I have proven and explained with the preponderance of evidence presented.

Thank you for understanding.

[email protected]

 

[PJR]

Altering a couple of old clunkers is hardly proof of your theory nor enough for anyone to regard your statement about shorter shells in longer chambers as anything other than fanciful conclusions based on little fact.

As for "catching unsolicited grief" when you post BS don't be surprised to get called on it. Any grief I caused you was of your own making when you put yourself above Brister and O'Connor.

And I'm done with this thread. Sorry to the original poster about the odd turn this took and I won't contribute to it further.

 

[JohnBT]

"Remember the arcade air tommyguns that you used to try to shoot out the red star? Those pellets were definitely not re-usable after hitting the angle backstop plate."

Sure I remember them. The ones I tried were so inaccurate that I'm still convinced the pellets weren't round to start with.

I personally haven't had any problems getting good patterns with 2-3/4" shells in 3" guns, or even with 2-3/4" and 3" Hevi-Shot shells in my one 3-1/2" gun(SX-2). I will say that the 2-3/4" guns I've used over the years that had fixed chokes seemed to pattern all but perfectly compared to the ones with choke tubes, but these were much better guns to start with (IMHO, YMMV) - Model 12, SX-1, A-5, Wingmaster, etc.

I love these dicussions, I just don't have much to add to them unfortunately.

John

 

[kirbythegunsmith]

Facts or fanciful?

I provide valid information, not BS, and have not converted the 2 old clunkers, but have done many-many-many other barrels, and have 19 years in my own gunsmithing shop, besides a graduation from a top gunsmith training facility, almost a 2 year investment.
Making precise chambers is the hallmark of an expert gun builder. Period.
Technology moves ahead in spite of nay-sayers.
Quality rifle barrel installers strive to be precise at chambering, throating, and other minute details.
Shotgun barrel specialists are no less capable of attention to detail, and there are plenty of pictures and explanations here in my posts to make open-minded people see that chambers ARE a detail to consider.

I prefer to give shooters with lesser exposure the benefit of my knowledge, research, and archives so they can have a "leg up", and would not allow personal animosity make me lose sight of the fact that I can be helpful to others. I educate and explain with patience and as much detail as I can to allow others to understand the concepts that are the hallmark of my small addition to progress.

I had a customer call about a SBE that he had purchased because a buddy had just gotten one, and his buddy's gun shot true to aim, but his didn't, and was hitting to the right. I had built a long-range goose gun from his old BPS 10 gauge long ago, but he was thinking of an automatic lately, so here he was.
What if his buddy had gotten the one that didn't shoot straight? Do you think that he might have been leery of trying his luck, and hope for the best?

Here are pictures of a 391 after exposure to some excessive moisture. I don't remember if it might have been a boat paddle.

The stock attaching nut was rusted tight, and unscrewed the spring tube from the frame, even after soaking with premier penetrant.
Once the stock was loose, there was an alternative for removing the nut.
Picture 3 has a nice bit of rust inside the mag cap, as well as the choke tube surfaces, and the hole was a duplicate case of rust.
Picture 4 shows a little of the funk, and there is some rust peeking out around the spring and pin.
Does anybody have any problem with picture 5? I tell people that you can expect choke tubes to be installed off-center, but sometimes it takes a picture to prove the point. There it is, right in front of you, and now you are officially informed.
I've been like the lone voice in the woods, trying to educate shooters about crooked chokes for over 21 years.

[email protected]

 

[kirbythegunsmith]

Chambers and forcing cones

There is much opinion from shotgunners about the benefits of lengthening forcing cones, especially when the amount of lengthening is discussed. Many shotgunners now understand that the forcing cone lengthening procedure has benefits.
There are a number of manufacturers that provide their shotguns with forcing cones not like the typical contours of yesteryear.

So- when the theory of forcing cone lengthening is more and more established, there must be enough observance that benefits accrue from the procedure: in particular, the reduction in pellet deformity in lead shot loads.

Is there any reason to doubt that lengthening the forcing cone in a long-chambered gun is of benefit to the shot in a short shell, if there is any reason to alter the forcing cone in any other shotgun barrel?

I tell shooters that lengthening the forcing cone in any long chamber will mitigate the extra pellet deformity that is inflicted on the pellets, but that more benefit is potentially present when the forcing cone is altered in a barrel with matching chamber and shell length.

I believe that shooters will have more understanding of my initial statement by the time that they have absorbed all of the information presented: there is a price to be paid when shooting a short shell in a long chamber.

I usually use a vehicle analogy for comparison.
Let's say you need to bring home a load of gravel for the driveway, once or twice a year (i.e. shoot a big shell) so you drive a dump truck.

The rest of the year, you suffer through poor gas mileage and (boy-o-boy) is that thing a pain to parallel park.

Some ability that is seldom needed may be better avoided. If there is a need, go right ahead. Maybe the 3" Benelli gun (as one example) might be sufficient, if you need magnum, but not necessarily super-magnum, performance at certain times.

[email protected]

 

[DawgByte]

? for kirbythegunsmith

Given the information you've provided, would you recommend the Bennelli M2 over the SBE II, because of its 3" chamber?

Additionally, is there any tangible evidence to support the following Benelli statement:

"To put more pellets on target the M2’s barrel and chokes are cryogenically treated, frozen to -300° F, which changes the bore surface at the molecular level making it more uniform and relieving stresses in the steel. The end result is a denser and more uniform pattern that puts up to 13.2% more pellets on target."

 

[kirbythegunsmith]

Clarification

I will say to anyone that feels no need to shoot shells larger than 3" to not get any gun with a chamber with excess length. Extra capacity is excess capacity, and ALWAYS comes with a price to be paid, however small. Buy a truck with the extra-long bed, and your mileage may not be much different, but the turning radius may be larger, just like extended cab, dually, 4x4, and other options causing some sort of difference.

One new wrinkle that I just saw, was a new 870 express that had a 3" frame set-up with the barrel being marked for 2-3/4" or 3" shells on 3" frames, and to only use 3-1/2" shells on the super-mag frames. This is not great for giving shooters choices about chamber-to-shell fit, and I was disappointed with the bore uniformity and finish, besides. The problem that a manufacturer may have when parts fit more than one type of barrel or frame, for instance, is the potential for ignorant shooters making a problem that could potentially be dangerous. The gun parts must be made more lawyer-proof since shooter knowledge is so problematic.

No wrong answer, but a safety issue is going to have to be considered, at least. It is not necessarily an easy sell to tell a shooter about the benefits of forcing cone lengthening for less pattern problems when they have just bought the cheapest version that they could find of a particular model. There is still the mitigation benefit for the too-long chamber mostly shooting the shorter shells. Lead shot still is deformable, regardless of opinion: otherwise, it would be impossible (practically) to overchoke a load of shot, either.

I am not saying that there is a right or wrong choice as a blanket statement, but there are uninformed and ill-informed decisions being made every day. Having information that shows the magnitude of difference in choices of significance may be of use for picking the options that are of benefit. An eskimo may not appreciate air-conditioning in a vehicle, but knowing that it aids in humidity reduction for windshield de-fogging is something that a fair number of drivers might not realize.

Whenever any advert starts to use numbers to prove a benefit, see that they usually mention "up to". Once upon a time, somebody wrote a humorous piece about going through the popular auto-parts accessory catalog to find all the miracle gas mileage improvers, and see what you could be claiming to get by the time you used everything available. By the time that you are done installing, you'll have to siphon gas out at the end of each trip.
I do not discount the benefits of cryo treatment, but all mechanical parts will differ individually in the amount of residual stress and benefit.

This still enters into my supposition that factories don't think much of improvements, until they decide that there is a selling point to be had by making new claims. Benefits vs. claimed benefits is a whole 'nuther ball of wax.

[email protected]