Parker Gun Collectors Association Forum > PGCA Forums > Parker Discussion Forum > 2 3/4 shells in a 2 9/16 chamber?
|
|
Parker Gun Collectors Association Forum > PGCA Forums > Parker Discussion Forum > 2 3/4 shells in a 2 9/16 chamber? |
|
| Moderated by: GregSchroeder | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Brian Dillard Member
|
Can you fire 2 3/4 shells in a 2 9/16th chamber? Obviously an older Parker, 1895 with twist bbls. Friend wanting to part ways with one he owns and thought I'd ask before jumping into the pool. |
|||||||||
|
Dean Romig PGCA Member
|
My 2-frame 1898 Titanic barreled DH 12 has 2 9/16" chambers and I regularly use 2 3/4" ammo but nothing heavy. It depends on frame size and the condition of the barrels. If you buy the gun, proceed with the utmost caution. |
|||||||||
|
Dave Miles PGCA Member 
|
Provided your gun is in sound enough condition to safely shoot 2-9/16" shells of the proper PSI. It will handle 2-3/4" shells loaded to the same low pressure. It's the pressure of the load, that is more important than the extra length. |
|||||||||
|
Richard Flanders PGCA Member 
|
I agree with Dave. I wouldn't be putting any old 3-3/4dram 1-1/4oz duck loads in it but would not hesitate on low P handloads or light to moderate Pressure factory target loads. You'll just have to be cautious and, assuming of course that the bbls are sound, always know exactly what you're feeding it if it's 2-3/4" factory loads. Factory load pressures are available on at least some manufacturers websites. Winchester has a good reloading brochure/manual that lists theirs. Last edited on Tue May 26th, 2009 04:37 pm by Richard Flanders |
|||||||||
|
Robin Lewis PGCA Member 
|
If you don't feel comfortable shooting 2 3/4 inch in it you could always step down to 2 1/2 inch low pressure shells, there are several manufactures of those out there. It depends on how you intend to use it, the 2 1/2 inch shells cost more but for hunting or an occasional round of clays the added cost does not mount up to much. I use 2 1/2 inch shells on my older guns, not so much because of the barrels but more to take it easy on the wood. I think that after a hundred years of aging and a little oil soaking into the wood, the wrist can weaken and it could fracture. |
|||||||||
|
Brian Dillard Member
|
Thanks for the "sound" advice. I'll post pics if I proceed to ownership. |
|||||||||
|
Jim Williams BBS Member
|
Not to be too repetitive, but just wanted to add another vote for the good advice already given. The two things to be concerned with (in order of importance) are 1) Condition of the gun, including wall-thickness and severity of pitting, and 2) Actual pressure produced by the shells you intend to shoot. Assuming, in the first point, that the gun is sound, the real question is the second point, "what pressure is safe?" There is no definitive answer and you must take responsibility for your own decisions, but there seems to be a consensus among knowledgeable, regular shooters of damascus barrels that 7000 psi is a fairly safe, conservative limit. This is based on duplicating the measured pressures of the original black powder loads the guns were designed for. There have been published tests that show that the increase in pressure caused by firing a 2-3/4 in. shell in a 2-9/16 in. chamber will be small enough to keep the total pressure within a safe limit provided that the pressure of that particular load is appropriate for the gun in question. Put another way, if a 2-3/4 in. load produces no more than, say 7000 psi when fired in a 2-3/4 in. chamber, it will provide slightly higher pressure in a 2-9/16 chamber but not enough of an increase to take it out of the range of safety. As I remember, 2-3/4 in. shells in 2-1/2 in. chambers provided an average increase in pressure of something on the order of 10%, sometimes a little more or less depending on the load. It should also be noted that individual rounds of the same load can nearly vary that much in pressure tests. Jim |
|||||||||
|
Erick Dorr PGCA Member
|
Brian, I have a PH twist with bbls in good shape that I have shot a couple of times with 2-3/4" RST low pressure shells and with some Remington loads from Walmart. I am under the impression that the chambers are 2-5/8" but I can't be sure how I know that now. At home, I generally use the actual lengths of a 2-3/4 inch loaded shell and a 3 inch loaded shell to measure chamber length. The "3" inch shell is something like 2-21/32". If it doesn't fit it isn't a 2-3/4" chamber. I've shot maybe six boxes of RSTs and as many Remingtons with no problems. I just haven't started reloading yet which is the best route using low pressure recipes. Erick |
|||||||||
|
Brian Dillard Member
|
Great advice from all, again I thank you for the comments and time. Headed over for a round or two of single malt and discussion on the purchase today. Brian |
|||||||||
|
Dave Miles PGCA Member
|
Erick Dorr wrote: Brian, Erick, I have a couple Twist barrel Parkers, and I wouldn't shoot any Remington loads from Wallyworld in my guns. They aren't low pressure. But you do what you feel comfortable with. I know others on this site who do. Ya Bruce.  |
|||||||||
|
David Hamilton PGCA Member
|
Brian, There are shells from B&P which are a bit shorter than our 2 3/4" standard as well as a low pressure shell called Sub-Sound which are 2 5/8". These and the Competition 2000 low velocity loads are fine in old guns in good condition. B&P will ship to you free? So they say. They are good shells. David |
|||||||||
|
Brian Dillard Member
|
David Hamilton wrote: Brian, There are shells from B&P which are a bit shorter than our 2 3/4" standard as well as a low pressure shell called Sub-Sound which are 2 5/8". These and the Competition 2000 low velocity loads are fine in old guns in good condition. B&P will ship to you free? So they say. They are good shells. David David, Can you give me an email or contact info on B&P?? Thanks, that's a good lead. B |
|||||||||
|
Dave Miles PGCA Member
|
Brian, If your going to buy shells, buy the RST's. http://www.rstshells.com/shells.htm |
|||||||||
|
David Hamilton PGCA Member
|
bandpusa.com will each B&P web site. RST is made in USA but expensive. B& P has backed off their high lead prices and the free shipping is nice. David |
|||||||||
|
Bruce Day PGCA Member 
|
Brian, see TPS, p. 515 for the service and proof pressures used by Parker. A 2 3/4" shell factory loaded, for a working service limit mean of 10,500 and max of 12,000. Proof mean was 15,900. Service and proof mean pressures in the pre 1900 hammer era were less; I don't know those. Parker patterned 12ga guns at either 1 1/8oz or 1 1/4oz at 3 1/4dre, regardless of barrel composition. Most shells you buy commercially are below 10,500. The Rem duck loads I shoot through my damascus guns run about 9,500. A hot trap load will run about 10,000 psi. Parker proofed all barrels the same, regardless of composition. There is a letter advising about different wear characteristics, but not rupture strength. Parker continued to use damascus barrels until 1927 ( the last found so far). Some people like to suggest that damascus barrels are for black powder, and by extension, fluid steel for nitro. In truth, both barrel compositions are for shooting cartridges of certain pressures, with the pressure service limits and proof limits as used by Parker. We have people with their own ideas about using low pressure loads for damascus. Those ideas are based upon their beliefs, not Parker use data, and reflect their own thoughts about gentle use for old guns or what is most easy on their shoulders. I like soft shooting also, but my guns, damascus and fluid, can handle a lot more than I like to shoot. If you have a gun with sound, thick barrels ( a typical original Parker 12ga wall thickness is about .035) and sound stock wood, I see nothing preventing a person from using Parker original cartridge pressures. I do and have for quite a few years. Be careful with those light fluid steel barrels. I saw an acquaintance last month, new top end Spanish gun, less than 60 shells through it, blown left barrel into his hand. Cast, painful, took pictures, probably legal proceedings. I think he said that wall thickness was about .020 . That's why the gun was light. People want these light game guns, but it comes at a price. Last edited on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 11:06 pm by Bruce Day |
|||||||||
|
C Roger Giles PGCA Member
|
My only complaint about the Remington Black loads is they are dirty as hell, lots of black residue, just check how dirty your gloves or hands become after a round of clays, otherwise they shoot just fine. Roger |
|||||||||
|
David Hamilton PGCA Member
|
Bruce, You are quite correct as usual about Parker guns. As for the pressures one can shoot in an old gun, much depends on condition. Many guns have thinner barrel wall thickness than when they left the factory. Such guns must be an especial class in which pressure resistance will be less than the original proof by the factory. I have such guns and I shoot them and enjoy target shooting with low pressure loads. David |
|||||||||
|
Bruce Day PGCA Member
|
David, that's a fair statement. I see people automatically assuming that because its damascus, it was designed or made for black powder, or that one has to shoot low pressure loads. Its not so. Parker was making these things in the teens and twenties and had been proofing them with nitro for years. They weren't designed for a powder, they were designed for a pressure. And they were making the barrels for loads that "shot hard" to use Parker's expression. We've also heard that black burned slower than nitro, then the tests in the DGJ found just the opposite. My experience is with post 1900 barrels, I don't own a hammer gun and the only pre 1900 gun I own is a heavy 1889 Bernard 12 that I could load sticks of dynamite in. I also appreciate that there are all kinds of nitro, bulk nitro to great selections of fast or slow burning, etc. Now if you have a bored out barrel, that's different, the key is to know your barrels. I have 12's that range from .028 to .045, and both are 30" 12ga 2 frame Bernards. Popular statements suggest not going below .025, but the Brits find guns passing proof with .020. A friend measured his new Rem 870 barrels and found .054 and its like its a piece of galvanized pipe out there. Those Spanish light game guns get down in the low twenties, but it can come at a safety price in my opinion. Over and over I've seen original Parker barrels at 032, 034, 035, very comfortable, very strong, and I feel comfortable shooting loads through it that I like. Last edited on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 01:23 am by Bruce Day |
|||||||||
|
Richard Flanders PGCA Member
|
I think you're right Bruce. I generally shoot lighter loads through my lighter barreled damascus guns but know they would handle heavier loads... I just don't like to shoot heavy loads. I have, however, shot a lot of stiff old duck loads through my oldest Parker, an 1883 twist bbled hammer gun. It has very stout bbls and seems to handle them without complaint and I don't worry one bit about them blowing. I doubt they're as stout as your Bernard bbls, but aren't much less so. That old gun really reaches out with 3-3/4dram 1-1/4oz loads and 32" bbls. If I ever hunted ducks with my 1903 #2 framed DH12 I would not worry about using the same loads. Last edited on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 02:35 am by Richard Flanders |
|||||||||
|
Bruce Day PGCA Member
|
Exactly. You can use these things as they were made to be used, and without babying them. If you shoot light loads, its because you want to, not because you need to. |
|||||||||
|
Brian Dillard Member
|
Great conversation, thanks to all. However this leads me to another question. So...if say a barrell left the factory in the early 1900's with a wall thickness of .38 and on average 5-6 boxes of lead ammo has been shot per year for 100 years, what thickness would one expect the barrels to be here 100 years later. I guess the real question is, what is the wear rate with average shooting assumed no steel shot has gone down the tube? |
|||||||||
|
Don Kaas PGCA Member
|
.370 +/-...early fiber wads were abrasive... Rebluing and abrasive cleaning tools probably caused more wear on the outside and the inside respectively than shooting did...Many very well used 90 year old VH Parkers with original exterior finish (or lack thereof) on the barrels still measure .729-.731" in the bores indicating to me the wall thicknesses are pretty much what they were when the gun left Meriden... Modern steel shot does not wear barrels excessively due to the thick poly wads...The problem with steel shot in old gun barrels is the tendency of the barrels to bulge at the chokes due to the non-compressibility of large steel shot. Also modern steel loads tend to be very hot subsituting velocity for shot mass. |
|||||||||
|
Brian Dillard Member
|
Interesting...thanks Don. I love this site...questions asked always come back with well thought out answers. |
|||||||||
|
John Mazza Member
|
"We've also heard that black burned slower than nitro, then the tests in the DGJ found just the opposite." Bruce, I always heard that black powder burned quicker than nitro. In fact, it was this claim that I have always heard used to "caution" one on the use of smokeless powder in old shotguns. The claim was that the bulk of a charge of black powder (BP) burns very quickly and generates maximum pressures at the breech end of the barrel. (Of course, the pressure drops off rapidly as the charge accelerates down the barrel...) This is why old BP shotguns have those fat breeches & taper rapidly toward the muzzle. Smokeless (SP), with it's "progressive burning" characteristics (due to chemical composition, granule size & shape, coatings, etc.) burns at a different (generally slower or "controlled") rate. The potential "issue" is this: given the same "maximum pressure" from a BP and SP shell, what will the relative pressures be at the same points along the length of the barrel ? So, (as a hypothetical example) let's say a BP shell developed a max pressure of 7000 psig (...and this would be at the chamber), and then at 10 inches down the barrel (from the chamber) the pressure was only 3500 psig. Now, take a hypothetical SP shell that also has a chamber pressure (max pressure) of 7000 psig but, at 10 inches down the barrel, it's still producing gasses & still maintaining 5,600 psig. IF (and this is a big "if") a "thin barrel wall-loving" gunsmith made this barrel & optimized the taper for this chamber pressure AND this pressure distribution, then certain SP loads may cause problems (if not right off the bat, perhaps after extended use). Granted - if a gun was made this way, and the proof load didn't blow it - it's probably deemed good enough. (At least when it was new...) Early smokeless powder (like Schultze) was not quite as powerful as some modern smokless powders. Bottom line - I shoot RST shells in my old Parkers. And in an old German hammer drilling (ca. 1904, 16 ga.) that is very light weight, I have 1 1/2 dram & 5/8 ounce BP loads that shoot well in it. So, I'm a big fan of low pressure smokeless loads in typical guns in decent shape, but in "iffy" situations, I prefer very light BP loads. Any great science here ? No, just my 2 cents... Just be careful out there ! |
|||||||||
|
Richard Flanders PGCA Member
|
John, you need to get ahold of the Sherman Bell article in DGJ where he did testing on BP loads vs smokeless with respect to pressures along the barrel length. It was indeed surprising what he found. I can't remember the results and would have to dig the reference out, but perhaps someone else can refer you to the proper issue. All I remember is that his tests seem to debunk the classic myths of how BP burns and what pressures it creates and where. |
|||||||||
|
John Mazza Member
|
I'd like to read it. I'm open to all information sources, especially guys like Sherman Bell who have actually "tested" these theories. Thanks ! |
|||||||||
|
George Blair Member
|
John, find a copy of the DGJ, Summer 2002 which is Vol 13 issue 2. Bell's article will shed plenty of light on black vs. smokeless pressures, and burn rates. DGJ may have back issues avaliable, if not check ebay or some of the online used book stores. George |
|||||||||
|
John Mazza Member
|
Thanks, George ! I'll check it out. (I often wondered - IF black powder burned so fast, then what were all those glowing sparks & stuff flying out of my barrel ? I used to shoot all kinds of muzzleloaders, & it was amazing to see the fireworks that came out of the muzzle at times...) |
|||||||||
|
Drew Hause MD Member
|
Pressure curves published by DuPont in the mid-1930s. Bell's results were similar. Last edited on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 07:08 pm by Drew Hause MD |
|||||||||
|
John Mazza Member
|
Very interesting ! (I wonder what the pressure peak would have been for 2F black powder ? I was surprised how high the pressure was for the BP load was - until I saw that it was 3 F.) |
|||||||||
|
Brian Dillard Member
|
Ok... so I bought it. I didn't need it, he really needed to sell it.It's a 1898 DH with Damascus barrels and a fish tail top lever. However it has a butt stock that I don't think is original, it has the oval initial plate like a DH should have but it's checkering is more like a GH, it has the original skeleton butt plate as a DH would with the correct checkering behind it....what it seems to be missing is the little "tear drop" carved in the wood just infront of the wrist. My CH came with a DH stock straight from the factory....could a DH have come with a GH stock??? I haven't checked under the trigger guard yet, we're packing for a weekend trip (leaving early as it's rained here 14 out of 17 days now!!). Will post pics next week. |
|||||||||
|
Bruce Day PGCA Member
|
Brian Dillard wrote: ....what it seems to be missing is the little "tear drop" carved in the wood just infront of the wrist. Brian, I suggest you pull the TG and check for the SN under the tang. On special orders anything is possible, but I have never seen an original DH without drop points. CH guns were different. Again, they all had drop points, but the grip checkering on some is the same as a D, and sometimes with a little extra embellishment. I have a C with D grip checkering but with the inletted checkered side panel. It letters. The C's were supposed to have that curve or bump in checkering, but not all did. The TG is removed by taking out the tang screw and lifting the tang out of the stock grip channel. Once lifted, hold up and swing to the right to unscrew at the front stud. On all original stocks you will find the SN and on most D's and above, you should find a grade stamp ( "3") below the SN. Also the stock channel will be machine inletted and without chisel marks because the factory did the stocks on duplicating and inletting fixtures. This simple check usually resolves lots of discussion and speculation about correctness or originality. Its quicker to check than it is to discuss it. |
|||||||||
|
Bruce Day PGCA Member
|
John Mazza, the Sherman Bell tests are an eye opener. Most of us have seen these now for years, and they are wonderful at dispelling theories conceived who knows where. So, Parker and other makers stated that a ruptured breach could be an overload and anything mid barrel ( about 10" down) and beyond was due to an obstruction. You see that's consistant with the pressure/distance graph, and it didn't matter whether it was smokeless or black, the pressure is significantly reduced after 10". Now I like the RST fellows also, and they make great cartridges, but my point is that with Parker damascus guns, a person may choose to shoot RST's, but he doesn't have to because his Parker is weak or otherwise not strong enough to take reasonable factory loads. And Don Kaas is spot on with his statement about shooting steel. These modern shot cups are heavy plastic and the designer of these loads contends that the shot does not touch the bore. If you have a more open choked Parker, or shoot the smaller size steel shot, tungsten shot, whatever you want, it will pass through the chokes without bulging and without bore or choke wear. The key with these shells is the same as with lead....check the pressure and stay within the Parker service limits, which you see are really very liberal. |
|||||||||
|
Dave Suponski PGCA Member
|
Bruce, This is just my opinion and I am well aware of Parker factory proof testing of both Damascus and Fluid steel guns.But I think advocating shooting store bought Winchester,STS and other brands of shells in damascus guns is unwise. If for no other reason than the age of the damascus barrels. ALL steel deteriorates with age.That is a well known fact.I also shoot my damascus guns but chose to stay at 6500psi or lower. You have had good results shooting your damascus guns and so have I but I think it best to err on the side of caution. |
|||||||||
|
Bruce Day PGCA Member
|
If all steel degrades with age, then fluid steel does too, and a person should shoot light loads in Vulcan, Titanic, etc. What does the steel do? Recrystallize to martensite? I'm not sure steel does degrade with age, with the age of 80-110 years we are talking about. Didn't we have a big debate about this a couple years ago with metallurgists weighing in on both sides and in the end it was not at all settled? |
|||||||||
|
Dave Suponski PGCA Member
|
My mistake...I should have been more specific. I was talking about damascus barreled guns. Bruce just keep doing what you are doing |
|||||||||
|
Bill Murphy PGCA Member
|
Y'all can say what you want, but Don and I will continue to fight the good fight with empirical evidence of well used guns of all known makes that started life at .729 and 100 and more years later are still .729. In fact, my evidence includes guns that I have fired tens of thousands of times and the bores are still at the original measurement, and even the forcing cones show no sign of burning or erosion. |
|||||||||
|
Bruce Day PGCA Member
|
What I have found is consistant with those findings. Parker talked about wear but the barrel wear I have seen in old Parkers comes from honing, not shooting. I don't want to be reckless but I also don't want to limit the usefulness of the gun without some verifiable reason. If someone has some evidence, I'd like to see it; without that I see no reason not to use the gun as Parker made it. I'm gone for a week bicycling 543 miles across Kansas, starting west of Syracuse at the Colo border tomorrow. Dodge City is supposed to be 99 on Sat, then cooling off into the low to mid 80's the rest of the week. Pleasant scenery, get to check out the pheasant road count, look for hunting locations and eat plenty of homemade pie. Maybe next year we can get about 100 PGCA riders? By the time I get back we should be all changed over to the new website. Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 12:58 am by Bruce Day |
|||||||||
|
Lee R. Moege Member
|
Have a great road trip Bruce! One of my friends from here in Holton, [Roger Hower] is on the same ride. This whole discussion has been very informative as I have a similar thread going on the Fox Collectors web site. Yes I have two loves!. I have a Fox AE 20 gage with 2 1/2" chambers and Chromox barrels. I just finished running the bore dimensions and IF I were going to lengthen it to 2 3/4" I would have barrel walls at that depth of .080/.081. As it is they are about .120. I think in this case, I'm not uncomfortable with a lower pressure 2 3/4" load at all in a plastic shell as they measure 2 1/4" before unfolding. Fox chambers are somewhat tighter and forcing cones shorter than some others I have seen. The bores are .621 and .623 and choked Imp. Cyl./ Mod. with muzzle wall thicknesses of .032 and .036. However I have a split case of RST #71/2 and #8's coming. Have a GREAT Day [no pun intended] Lee. |
|||||||||