Strength of Guns

[Bruce Day]

Pete, absolutely correct. And the interesting point is that the modern progressive powders produce higher velocity for a given shot load and do it at a lower chamber pressure than the same amount of earlier smokeless powders. So if you want to think about modern powders as being easier on the barrels, I think that would be right. The recoil, as you note, is a different issue.

Some other sporting clays fellows and I were sitting out the rain one day and started looking at the difference in lead that you would have to pull if you dropped from say 1200 fps to 1150. On a 1 oz load, it made a big difference in recoil and about a 4 in difference in lead at a usual crossing range of 30-35 yards. Thats what I remember, it would be interesting to work through the lead tables again.

[George Blair]

Take another look at the tables...the table that Bruce posted was over 100ft, Dave referred to over 40 yds, My take is that was the average velocity for that distance. Measuring muzzle velocity in those days may have been a problem.

[Bill Murphy]

Pete Lester, George Blair brought up a good point. The Parker tables with velocities in the nines are average velocities over 33 1/3 yards. Muzzle velocities are probably more like what we are used to, in the elevens or twelves.

[J.B. Books]

Bill Murphy, how were velocities actually measured back then over 100'? The ballistic chronograph as we know it was not invented until the 1950's. Number 7 is no longer a popular size but a 7.5 fired at 1298 fps is going 1030 at 10 yards, 836 fps at 20 yards and 704 fps at 30 yds. The average velocity would be 967 fps from muzzle to 90'. Do you think all the loads listed were around 1300 fps muzzle velocity to be so consistent over 100' per the chart?

[AmarilloMike]

They shot a plate that lifted a weight. In effect converting kinetic energy into mechanical energy. They knew how much the weight weighed and they measured how far it was liffted. Then, using 1/2 x mass x velocity-squared equation they could back into the velocity of the shot.

Clear as mud I am sure. I have seen pictures of a machine and it looked something like a saw horse with a plate hanging down and a tape measure attached to it. When the shot hit the plate it would raise it and the tape measure would record how much.

Best,

Mike

[Double Trouble]

AKA: Ballistic pendulum.

[Bill Murphy]

Pete, before reading the reply so kindly provided by Mike, my answer would have been "I don't have a clue." My post was intended only to clue you into the fact that the loads listed in the Parker Small Bore Booklet are not neccesarily "anemic" as you suggested. I have no idea of the exact muzzle velocities of those loads. I think my estimate was "in the elevens or twelves".

[J.B. Books]

Bill that would make sense. Perhaps we need to refer to the Dram Equivalent as an indicator of what muzzle velocities were back in the day. Black Powder was capable of near 1300 fps m/v 1 1/4 ounce loads per Sherman Bell so 1100 to 1300 m/v was possible and likely.

I still believe in the benefits (to guns and shoulders) of light loads for their lower recoil and great performance due to less crushing and scrubbing of pellets in the shorter shot columns. I think they are smart choice for vintage guns.

[Bill Murphy]

Looking back at the Small Bore Booklet chart, the first two items are common loads that we are familiar with. The "average" velocities listed are 903 and 921 FPS. We know these loads to be 1175 to 1200 FPS loads at the muzzle.