12 gauge 3" shell introduction.

[J.B. Books]

Originally Posted by Dave Noreen

Paper Shotshell Lengths


From the 1890s into the early 1920s, these longer shotshells didn't carry a heavier payload than one could get in a 2 3/4 inch 12-gauge shell, just more/better wadding, which many serious Pigeon shooters believed to be an advantage. The maximum smokeless powder loads offered in the 2 5/8 inch 12-gauge shell and the 2 1/2 inch 20-gauge shell were a bit lighter than those offered in 2 3/4 inch and longer shells.

Just curious if there is any actual evidence the "more/better" wadding measureably improved patterns in the longer shells?

[Drew Hause]

Took some lookin' Pete. This is interesting "Mr Griffith on Shot-gun Patterns"

The Field March 7, 1891 Vol 77:325
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA234

You can enter 'wadding' in the search box and find more hits

[J.B. Books]

Originally Posted by Drew Hause

Took some lookin' Pete. This is interesting "Mr Griffith on Shot-gun Patterns"

The Field March 7, 1891 Vol 77:325
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA234

You can enter 'wadding' in the search box and find more hits

Not easy to read. Looking at page 239 it would seem a thin field card vs. a thick field wad produced a slightly better pattern. All things being equal I would expect the longer shells with equal payload had "thicker" wadding. Could the longer shells with thicker wadding have reduced pattern effectiveness? However there is more information to take in here. what's your take?

[Researcher]

Thank you for finding this Drew.

This is a British take on things as of April 1897, and how the folks at the Schultze powder factory perceived things. Interesting, but mainly is dealing with 2 1/2 inch British shells and a wad column from 1/2 to 5/8 inch long, nothing near as long as the wad column would be in a North American 3-inch shell. When he discusses the shell actually fitting the chamber, he shows the shell openning into the forcing cone being a bad thing, but the diagram shows the shell protruding the full length of the forcing cone, not the 1/8 inch several American manufacturers came to favor. Also, quite a short forcing cone in all his diagrams.

Would be great if we could find something like this from a North American Company, DuPont, Laflin & Rand, etc. from maybe somewhere in the 1900 to 1910 vintage.

[Drew Hause]

1895 American made shotgun shells are reviewed in the April 13, 1895 Sporting Life, but it's all marketing. I've never seen comparison testing by any U.S. shell maker or sporting publication
http://www.la84foundation.org/Sports.../SL2503014.pdf

It would appear the Top Guns believed the hype, or just used what the manufacturers paid them to use