What's Your Biggest Concern

[Dean Romig]

Date of manufacture is not a concern to me.
The barrels of any old Parker (that's really all I collect and shoot) that I intend to shoot will have passed muster at every critical point along their length - juncture of chamber/forcing cone; 8" from the breech; midway along the length, and at the beginning of the choke taper. They will have no deep pits and will not have been honed beyond 10% of the nominal bore diameter for the particular gauge.

Folks say that any barrel wall thinner than .0025" is not safe to shoot but there are people who shoot guns with .0019" confidently...

Look at a piece of .0025" shim stock and you wonder how that thin of a barrel wall can withstand even a 2,000 psi pressure rise... but it can withstand 2X that much if it is far enough from the breech...

I have no fear of any composite barrel material on a Parker as long as they meet the standards above... Damascus of any description originally supplied on a Parker, Twist, Stub Twist, Plain Twist, Laminated both early and late, Bernard and certainly all of the fluid pressed steels.

The gun will be tight on face and the wood will be tight to the frame and be uncompromised.

And of course I will only shoot ammunition that the gun was designed to shoot.





.

[John Davis]

"And of course I will only shoot ammunition that the gun was designed to shoot."

How do you define that?

[Dean Romig]

Good point John -

I'll qualify my statement by saying that I only shoot RST shells or my own low-pressure reloads, according to the published load data by the powder manufacturer.
We don't all have easy access to the ammo recommended by the gun manufacturer and certainly not many of us have the original hang tags or the loads our particular gun was tested/patterned/proofed with so we need to practice common sense.
Brother Bruce Day has access to Parker Brothers load recommendations and posts it up here for us from time to time.
Myself not being an open-country bird hunter (pheasant, sharptail, prarie chicken) or a waterfowl hunter, I opt for somewhat lighter loads for my type of hunting and clays shooting.





.

[C.O.B.]

The barrels are the first concern then the wood. That stock is also 100 +/- years old. Unlike some here I don't advocate Wally World shells especially do to the stock concerns. IF I shoot factory ammo it's low pressure and light loads. I don't need an 1 1/8 th or even 1 oz load of shot to kill a bird or break a target. If your on your on and have gone mostly to 3/4 oz loads.

[mobirdhunter]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

Folks say that any barrel wall thinner than .0025" is not safe to shoot but there are people who shoot guns with .0019" confidently...

.

I agree with Dean, with the caveats he mentions. I have a number of guns that have 25 thousandths thickness out toward the muzzle. I also have several English/Scottish doubles -- with relatively recent reproofing -- that are at or near 18 thousandths out toward the muzzle...and those include 16 and 28 bore guns.

I probably err on the more conservative side on the loads I shoot, but generally shoot the "standard" loads of shot for the gauge...with any exceptions made for any gun based on my (probably very unsophisticated) assessment -- and the game I'm shooting (at!).

[Craig Larter]

What is my biggest concern----how am I going to pay for and justify this beautiful gin (gun)!!
Seriously, barrels are number one and thin barrels make me real nervous, I follow Dr. Drew's recommendations, second is serious wood issues because if it needs work it can get expensive in a real hurry. I reload and keep pressures and payloads in line with what the gun was designed to shoot, kinda the common sense approach, I have grown to like my fingers and eyes.

[TOOL MAN]

[QUOTE=Craig Larter;296869]What is my biggest concern----how am I going to pay for and justify this beautiful gin!!

LOLLLL.....even I may be taking to the GIN if this sh#$ continues!!!!

[Drew Hause]

We now have excellent data as to the pressures generated by the turn-of-the-century loads that were recommended by Parker Bros. and the other double gun makers
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...UOZEFU/preview
Scroll down about 1/3 for Parker's proof testing protocol

A DuPont Ballistic Table was published in Parker Brothers' “The Small Bore Shotgun” c. 1920 http://parkerguns.org/pages/PDF%20Do...%20Shotgun.pdf
It is clear that this table converts Long Tons to PSI simply by multiplying by 2240; NOT using Burrard’s conversion
Numbers require adding 10 - 14% for modern piezo transducer pressures.
12 gauge
3 Dr. Eq. 1 1/8 oz. = 8,110 psi
3 1/4 Dr. Eq. 1 1/8 oz. = 8,960 psi
3 1/2 Dr. Eq. 1 1/4 oz. = 9,900 psi
16 gauge
2 3/4 Dr. Eq. 7/8 oz. = 7,035 psi
3 Dr. Eq. 1 oz. = 8,980 psi
20 gauge
2 1/2 Dr. Eq. 7/8 oz. = 12,655 psi

Pretty easy to match those numbers with factory loads today...NOT that 1 1/4 oz. 3 1/2 Dr.Eq. would be a good idea for 100 year old wood.

We also know from published pressure-distance curves that the pressure with modern 1 1/8 oz 1200 fps loads after 18" is < 500 psi

OTOH I am increasingly convinced that there are VERY few vintage doubles with unmolested barrels and that "should be safe with light loads" is very dangerous advice

[6pt-Sika]

Barrels , but I tend to not get overly intrested about guns that were made BEFORE they started making a radius cut between the breechface and water table . Plenty people shoot the earlier ones with squared corner , I just prefer radiused .

[Matt Buckley]

I tend to worry more about the big factory loads in regards to the recoil and the wood. I have had more issues with older stocks cracking in different places than barrel issues. I try to keep loads around 1200 fps with moderate size loads which produce less recoil.