|
07-30-2015, 09:40 AM | #23 | ||||||
|
The moratorium is barely holding on
|
||||||
07-30-2015, 12:32 PM | #24 | ||||||
|
|
||||||
08-02-2015, 11:02 PM | #25 | ||||||
|
Can the long ranges take modern 3"?
|
||||||
08-03-2015, 09:08 AM | #26 | ||||||
|
its still 70 - 80 year old wood
i expect if the barrels are in original condition they could, I am sure someone like Researcher can tell us the standard proof pressures of 1930 Vs now
__________________
"If there is a heaven it must have thinning aspen gold, and flighting woodcock, and a bird dog" GBE |
||||||
08-03-2015, 12:53 PM | #27 | ||||||
|
Pressure isn't the issue. SAAMI spec for 12-gauge (except for the new 3 1/2 inch) was then/is now 11500 psi. Up to 1935, 1 3/8 ounce was the heaviest payload being pushed out of the 3-inch 12-gauge progressive burning powder shells, and after that the 1 5/8 ounce 12-gauge 3-inch Magnum load was available.
Some of the older 12-gauge 2 3/4 inch and longer shells, with the heaviest loads which our North American ammunition manufacturers offered, 3 1/2 drams of bulk smokeless powder or 28 grains of dense smokeless powder pushing 1 1/4 ounce of shot, had pressures above what SAAMI specs are now according to several old DuPont powder booklets I have. Then again, those booklets were promoting their DuPont Oval progressive burning smokeless powder and its higher velocity and lower pressure. I'd certainly stick with lead and the softer non-toxics, no steel or other harder non-toxics. Though I shot quite a few 1 5/8 ounce 3-inch Magnums in my Super-Fox in my youth, I'd probably stick to 1 3/8 ounce at no more than 1300 fps now days. |
||||||
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dave Noreen For Your Post: |
08-04-2015, 08:49 PM | #28 | |||||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||||
|
|