16 ga

[Michael Kitterman]

Hi all, I still have concerns about 16 ga and chamber length. I have a VH 16 ga made in 1907. Have tried to research the evolution of the 16 ga shell on the internet but have not been able to find much. I measured the barrels last night, from the end of the breech to the start of the forcing cone was 2.5 inches. Have been told there are 2 9/16" and 2 5/8" chambers. So if some one who is knowledgeable with 16 ga could share some advice I would greatly appreciate it.

[Mark Ouellette]

Michael,

I moved your thread because it has nothing to do with Website and Forum assistance. Rather, your question concerns a Parker gun.

Mark

[Bill Holcombe]

I am not knowledgeable about 16gauges really, but perusing RSTs site, all the 16 ga shells they sell are 2.5" shells. Not definitive info, but a pretty good indication of what shell length to use.

I know on 12s, some shoot 2.5 because they think it is easier on the gun, and some shoot 2.75 saying that it either doesn't effect the pressure, or that Parker Bros made their guns to shoot 2.75 shells in a 2.5 chamber to get a better seal.

Again, hopefully someone more knowledgeable of 16s will come by soon.

[Dave Noreen]

Thankfully I've saved this as a word document and don't have to retype it!!

16-Gauge History lesson --

From the late 1890s until after WW-I, the heaviest 16-gauge loads our North American ammunition companies offered were 2 3/4 drams of bulk smokeless powder or 22 grains of dense smokeless powder such as Infallible or Ballistite, pushing 1 ounce of shot. Those loads could be had in the "standard" 2 9/16 inch case or any of the longer 2 3/4, 2 7/8 or 3-inch cases. So, at least in factory loaded cartridges, the longer 2 3/4, 2 7/8 and 3-inch 16-gauge shells only benefit was more/better wadding.

In late 1922 or early 1923, Western Cartridge Co. added the 16-gauge to their progressive burning powder loads called Super-X, but unlike the 1 1/4 ounce 12-gauge and 1 ounce 20-gauge Super-X loads which were put up in Western's 2 3/4 inch FIELD shells, the 1 1/8 ounce 16-gauge Super-X load was put up in their 2 9/16 inch FIELD shell. When the Lubaloy shot Super-X loads were introduced in July 1929, they were put up in Western's high brass RECORD shell, but the 16-gauge still in a 2 9/16 inch length case.

The 2 3/4 inch 16-gauge shell really began to get some traction when Remington Arms Co., Inc. introduced their Model 11 and "Sportsman" autoloaders in 16-gauge in 1931, chambered for 2 3/4 inch shells. While Remington's regular Nitro Express 16-gauge progressive burning powder load was put up in a 2 9/16 inch hull with a load of 3 drams equiv. pushing 1 1/8 ounce of shot, for their new 16-gauge autoloaders they introduced the slightly faster Auto-Express with a 3 1/4 drams equiv. charge pushing 1 1/8 ounce of shot --

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/Ansleyone/Rem-UMC/16-gaugeAuto-Express_zpsa3fde229.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/Ansleyone/Rem-UMC/16-gaugeAutoExpressNo5_zps9c6b9b18.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/Ansleyone/Rem-UMC/16-gaugeAutoExpressNo7_zpsaf0b721e.jpg

I'm thin on Winchester ammo catalogues, but for sure by 1934, they were offering a similar 2 3/4 inch 16-gauge load.

The 2 3/4 inch Magnum shells with 1 1/2 ounce in 12-gauge, 1 1/4 ounce in 16-gauge and 1 1/8 ounce in 20-gauge first appear in the December 15, 1954, Western Cartridge Co. catalogues.

Western Cartridge Co. added a 2 3/4 inch 16-gauge to their Super-X offerings for 1938. From 1938 through 1942 they called this 16-gauge 2 3/4 inch Super-X shell "Magnum", even though it was still a 1 1/8 ounce payload. By Western Cartridge Co.'s March 7, 1946, catalogue the term "Magnum" was gone from this 2 3/4 inch 16-gauge Super-X shell. In Western's January 2, 1947, catalogue, the 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge Super-X shell was gone from both the chilled shot and the Lubaloy offerings, and their only 2 9/16 inch shells being offered were Xpert. This may have been an oversight, as the 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge Super-X shell with chilled shot is back in Western Cartridge Co.'s April 8, 1948, catalogue and price list, and the 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge Super-X loads remained until their last appearance on Western Cartridge Co.'s January 2, 1962, catalogue and price lists, where it is "available until stocks depleted." By Western Cartridge Co.’s January 2, 1963, catalogue and price lists the new Mark 5 was introduced and all the 16-gauge Super-X offerings are 2 3/4 inch. By the January 2, 1964, Western Cartridge Co. catalogue and price list the 16-gauge 2 9/16 inch Xpert shell is gone as well.

With Parker Bros. policy of holding chambers about 1/8 inch shorter than the paper shell they were intended for, the "standard" Parker Bros. chamber for the "Standard" 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge shell of 1907, would have been 2 7/16 inch, probably what you are measuring as 2.5". A gun made for the 2 3/4 inch shells would have a 2 5/8 inch chamber, etc.

[Leighton Stallones]

I think theoretically the chambers were 2 9/16, but they do vary depending on who did the chamber I am guess. I have found that Fiocchis are generally 2 9/16 to 2 5/8, my B&Ps are 2 5/8 and of course Federal are 2 3/4 when fired. I do not believe there is any increase in pressure to be concerned with in shooting the 2 5/8s in a 16 ga Parker chamber. I do shoot some RST 2 1/2s because I like them, but the others fit my purpose just as well. Even my M 21 Win 16 ga has a short chamber and that does not bother me even with the Federals.

[greg conomos]

I'm not a fan of modifying Parkers. Things like stock bending, choke alterations, recoil pad additions, etc. should all be ground for dismissal. But I wish every single steel barreled Parker ever made with chambers less than 2-3/4" would be rounded up by the government, sent to Del Grego's or some other reputable gunsmith, chmabers lengthened to 2-3/4", and returned to the owner.

Why? It would make no difference to the gun at all and it would end the endless stream of chamber length threads and questions.

The next time Obama is in town I think I'll grab my Parker and go talk to him about my idea. I know he'll be tight on time so I'll probably run up to him.

[Eric Grims]

I shoot 2 1/2" RST new and low pressure reloads in all my 16s and plan to never look back.

[Rick Losey]

The next time Obama is in town I think I'll grab my Parker and go talk to him about my idea. I know he'll be tight on time so I'll probably run up to him.

:clap: :clap: :bigbye:

don't forget to send Mary Bowes your forwarding address

[Rich Anderson]

I shoot 2 1/2 inch shells in all my guns regardless of gauge, Damascus or fluid steel. Your gun is over 100 years old and even though the chamber length might take the 2 3/4 length shell why put the 100 year old wood through the recoil? I'm loading 7/8's and 3/4 oz loads in 16 and haven't seen a clay target or a bird properly hit ever notice the difference.

[Bruce Day]

The recoil formula, widely available with calculators on the internet, has three variables:
weight of the ejecta ( Shot, powder, gas, wad)
velocity of the ejecta
weight of the gun

Chamber length and cartridge length are irrelevant to recoil. You want less recoil, reduce the shot load, slow the speed, or start taping on lead weights to the stock.

It's fine to like light loads under the appropriate circumstances and even better to understand what comprises recoil.

[Rick Losey]

Rich has a serious point

I have a 16 made in 1904, later rebarrelled by Remington with 2 3/4 chambers so
I shot what ever modern 16s I could find for years- until I noticed a crack starting in the wrist - could have bought a lot of RSTs for what the restock will cost

can I prove the heavier recoil did it, no, but none of the even older guns that have a steady light recoil diet have had wood issues.

since the light shells work so well, on clays or game - i am now firmly in the better safe than sorry side of the discussion

[Michael Kitterman]

Can you recommend a favorite brand of shell in say 7 shot for Dove and Quail with lighter recoil. I don't reload so no option there.

[Rick Losey]

http://www.rstshells.com

[Rich Anderson]

RST no question about it. they will mix a case for you for different shot sizes and ship directly to your door. you can't/won't find better people to deal with.

[todd allen]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/Ansleyone/Rem-UMC/16-gaugeAuto-Express_zpsa3fde229.jpg




Whenever I hear a load packs a mighty wallop, I think of my shoulder

[Michael Kitterman]

In doing some quick looking, I see there is another company offering Vintager shells for short chambered older doubles and Damascus barreled ones. Anyone familiar with Polywad? Ever buy from them?

[Jeff Kuss]

Both are good shells. Morris from RST has been a very generous sponsor for PGCA
for years.

[Bill Murphy]

RST comes to our shoots. That's enough for me.

[Michael Kitterman]

Good point! The price difference is small, I will look into placing an order with RST for short 12 and 16 ga. If they support the PGCA then I will buy from them. I will feel more comfortable shooting my 100+ year old doubles with these lower pressure shells. I have 3 Lefever and a Parker, made between 1897-1909.

[Rick Losey]

In doing some quick looking, I see there is another company offering Vintager shells for short chambered older doubles and Damascus barreled ones. Anyone familiar with Polywad? Ever buy from them?

i have used them- no issues at all

I just prefer RST - for many of the reasons just mentioned

[Jeff Christie]

I have had excellent results with the Polywad shell in all gauges. The people are most pleasant to deal with as well. Same with RST. You are well served with either-- or both.

[Michael Kitterman]

I want to thank everyone for their imput on this subject, I can say for sure that I will no longer worry about chamber length and using 2 3/4" shells in one of my fine old doubles. It seems now my only choice is whether to order from RST or Polywad, I'm sure they are both excellent choices but I'm leaning toward RST because they support PGCA.

[greg conomos]

While I appreciate the 'support the PGCA' view, might I suggest it's a tad shortsighted?

First, (I don't know) does RST really support the PGCA or does it just show up to sell its wares? There's a difference.

Second, isn't it fair to say ANY company that bothers to offer a specialty product into a niche market (assuming their product offering is viable) deserves some sort of support from its customer base?

Maybe we could all team up and really go after those SOB's at Polywad. Just who do they think they are? We'll vote with our dollars, that's what we'll do. Then, if they are still around we'll track them down one by one until there is no more Polywad. The nerve!

[Bill Holcombe]

While I appreciate the 'support the PGCA' view, might I suggest it's a tad shortsighted?

First, (I don't know) does RST really support the PGCA or does it just show up to sell its wares? There's a difference.

Second, isn't it fair to say ANY company that bothers to offer a specialty product into a niche market (assuming their product offering is viable) deserves some sort of support from its customer base?

Maybe we could all team up and really go after those SOB's at Polywad. Just who do they think they are? We'll vote with our dollars, that's what we'll do. Then, if they are still around we'll track them down one by one until there is no more Polywad. The nerve!

1st- no one attacked or said anything negative about polywad. The only criticism at all was the inverse in that no one has documented polywad either coming to shoots or being a sponsor.
2nd- Jeff didn't hem and haw when he said "Morris from RST has been a very generous sponsor for PGCA for years." That sounds like support.
3rd- He asked people for their opinions and such are being provided.
4th-Have you considered a career in politics Fish? This level of reactionism defensiveness should play well in the political sphere at this time :) :bowdown:

PS: The last comment is meant purely in jest.

[Dean Romig]

While I appreciate the 'support the PGCA' view, might I suggest it's a tad shortsighted?

Not at all - we support those who support us. We do it in our business lives and we do it in our personal lives... it's just the way it is.

First, (I don't know) does RST really support the PGCA or does it just show up to sell its wares? There's a difference.

Indeed RST (read, Morris Baker) supports the PGCA, not only in the gifts of flats of all gauges of his shotshells for our Annual Silent Auction, but in other ways as well.

Second, isn't it fair to say ANY company that bothers to offer a specialty product into a niche market (assuming their product offering is viable) deserves some sort of support from its customer base?

Absolutely! And I will support those businesses whom I choose. But, from me, the ones who reciprocate will get the majority of my personal business.

Maybe we could all team up and really go after those SOB's at Polywad. Just who do they think they are? We'll vote with our dollars, that's what we'll do. Then, if they are still around we'll track them down one by one until there is no more Polywad. The nerve!

Even though that was meant 'tongue-in-cheek', it's just overreacting.

And that's my personal opinion.

[edgarspencer]

First, (I don't know) does RST really support the PGCA or does it just show up to sell its wares? There's a difference.

Yes, they show up at most every event I've been to, and sell their wares. They are, in fact the only supplier who bothers to do so, and for that we are all grateful, as many come without ammo, and don't reload.
Additionally, they give generously, many cases of ammo each year for the Silent Auction, at the Annual Meeting, in addition to ammo in the 'Goodie Bags'. If I've been able to observe this much support, it seems logical that there's a darn sight more I don't see. As the First Mate on the tug I worked on used to say "Do you really need Nine Rays of Sunshine blown up your Touch Hole Before you see what everyone else does?" Kinda sums it up in my mind, but maybe not everyone talks like we did, lugging a few million pounds of ordinance.

[greg conomos]

My comment about attacking Polywad is obviously made tongue-in-cheek...the point simply being that I suspect they are a good company which does not deserve to get a 'thumbs down' just because they don't show up at Parker events. I apologize to those who are unable to comprehend my intention. That's what a tongue-in-cheek comment is - intentional overreaction to help illustrate a point.

[Dave Suponski]

Greg, I have been a customer of Poly-Wad for years and Jay Menefee the owner has been nothing short of wonderful with giving information. But I suspect they are a one or two man show so I think doing the traveling thing is out of the question.

[Bill Holcombe]

Granted Fish, but again no one was attacking polywad. People were simply stating they did business with RST because they like how they support PGCA, not because polywad is a bad company.

[Rick Losey]

i had the last of my polywads in the same pocket as some RSTs weekend before last

no trouble - they got along just fine

[Leighton Stallones]

I rechambered my VH 16 ga to 2 3/4 and I can tell the difference in recoil and the pattern seems more uniform

[Michael Kitterman]

Difference in recoil in what way? More or less? I had considered that option but didn't want to punish my 100+ year old wood especially since it is not cracked.