16 Gauge Vulcan, 1 Frame 28 inch barrels choked m,f

[Todd Poer]

I need some advice. I have about two flats of field load's for the Ole Parker that are lead shot in #8 and #6. All loads are Winchester Super X field loads that are 1 ounce with plastic shot cups. I don't know velocity but they are 2.5 dram charged rounds. The gun is factory chambered at 2 3/4. These are modern shells so they are 2 3/4 loads. Gun is worn and used but not abused and taken care of and shot sparingly in last about 30 years our family has been a steward of the gun. Locks up tight and bores are shiny and clean on inside and there is some light pitting in one spot on outside about mid barrel but not really worried about it. I feel confident gun is safe to shoot and will be for many more years. The barrels around the chambers look solid.

Two Questions

1. That dang Vulcan fluid steel looks thin at the ends of the barrels. Since I believe it is choked modified and full would shooting the shells I mentioned above hurt the barrels or the chokes at the end of barrel where it looks like those barrels are so thin. Afraid of possibly damaging the barrels.


2. RST spreader loads how well do they work on these old guns that are choked to tight for up close game. Its fun to shoot the gun on clay targets in the back pasture at about 15 to 20 yards as this gun at that choke just powders the targets, if your on them. If not you not your almost better off trying to hit em with a handful of rocks.

Thanks in advance for any help or insight. Glad I found and joined site to talk about and learn more about these great guns.

[Reggie Bishop]

I would recommend you stay with the low pressure loads. I would not consider shooting modern ammo on that gun!

[Steve Huffman]

Have your barrels checked with the proper tools not just your eyes .

[Rick Losey]

i have 1904 VH 16- re-barreled by Remington in the 1930's with 2 3/4 chambers

i shot off the shelf 16's in it for many years

the barrels are fine

the stock cracked

I keep saying -
pressure is for the barrels
recoil is for the wood

worry about both in an old gun

[Brian Dudley]

Without actually measuring the walls on your barrels with proper equipment, you are doing nothing but speculating on the subject. And, the thickness at the muzzle means nothing in regards to safety of the barrels as a whole.

[Todd Poer]

All sound advice. Yes gun was checked years ago and it is considered a safe shooter. Was told shoot with confidence and just take care of it. Can't find measurements but just recall barrel thicknesses at chamber, mid barrel and at muzzle checked out. Probably no more than a flat of shells has been fired through the gun in 20 years since I have owned it. But metal isnt getting any younger. I know that Vulcan fluid steel is tough stuff but those barrels just look thin compared to modern guns. But every Parker I look at has thin looking barrels. Have an acquaintance that has a Phd in metallurgy will ask his opinion on aging fluid steel. Heck gun is celebrating its 110th year in service.

What has me confused about these RST loads that are supposedly low pressure is that they have load offerings with velocity ranges of 1100 to 1200 fps in 1 ounce loads. Almost all shot shells they offer are for 2.5 chambered guns. My gun is factory stamped original at 2 3/4 chamber and was not modified. I did find on the loads that I have that they are 2.5 dram with 1165 fps velocity, which is less than some RST. Heck a 1 ounce load is a 1 ounce load, so what makes these RST's considered safer or lower pressure loads than the ones I have. Is it the powder or charge. I know some powders have different burn rates like a blue dot compared to a red dot powder.

My thought is to go to RST for the spreader loads anyway but, just wondering. Best I can tell is that they are suitable for guns to handle a 2.5 chambered barrel unless someone knows different. Maybe this has been discussed in other threads but I did a search and did not find anything.

[Dave Noreen]

From 1923, when the high velocity, progressive burning powder, 3 dram equiv., 1 1/8 ounce 16-gauge Super-X load was introduced, any of these guns in use very likely digested lots of them and their Peters High-Velocity, Remington Nitro Express, etc. versions. Seems about the 1990s people started getting concerned about this stuff.

[Todd Poer]

From 1923, when the high velocity, progressive burning powder, 3 dram equiv., 1 1/8 ounce 16-gauge Super-X load was introduced, any of these guns in use very likely digested lots of them and their Peters High-Velocity, Remington Nitro Express, etc. versions. Seems about the 1990s people started getting concerned about this stuff.

Interesting point. I think maybe that was about the time when steel shot was being introduced. Steel just does not act like lead at all and these guns cannot handle it, I think. I would even think copper plated lead would be rough on a barrel and RST sells those in 2.5 inch rounds.

I am not sure there is a difference as long as your shooting something soft like lead or bismuth, shot size is not too large, and charge/velocity of round is not over the top.

Not really trying to advocate anything but seems the biggest difference I can see is just that RST makes 2.5 inch shells that seem to be the same as most of the so called modern shells that are 2 3/4. I mean is there that big a difference or did someone respected just say it without qualifying it and now its accepted as gospel and why the difference.

I know mind justifies the heart. Hence somebody says I only buy a Ralph Lauren Polo shirt because of quality of shirt and the logo, but there are plenty other polo shirts with different logos, but shirts are made about the same from same cloth but sized a bit different. Its just something you identify with. Shirts maybe a lousy parable. How about a Yeti cooler vs an Engel cooler. Is one really better than the other?

Maybe I am thinking to hard or not hard enough. What is considered a low pressure load for a 16 gauge Vulcan steel barrel for gun with modified or full chokes. Is it the amount of shot, size of charge, velocity, paper wad as opposed to a plastic wad. Its like someone says trust me shoot these low pressure shells. Okay. So what makes them low pressure? Its their marketing gimmick like calling food organic and charging a premium, trust me its better for you and your pipes. Does it all come out about the same.

BTW in my search for shotgun shell Nirvana I came across this article. BTW this guy loves sxs with double triggers.
http://www.sidebysideshotgun.com/articles/balance_loads_article.html

[Dave Noreen]

“But look at the target loads that all the major ammunition manufacturers produce. Winchester, Federal, Remington--they use their very best components and materials for their target loads. You’ll rarely see a 12-gauge load with more than 1 1/8 ounces of shot, and most of them are no heavier than a 3 ¼ dram equivalent of powder.

That has more to do with the ATA limiting trap loads to 1 1/8 ounce beginning April 1940. Before that there were plenty of 1 1/4 ounce trap loads. These were serious trap loads in the 1930s --

58127

58128

58129

58130

The heaviest trap/Pigeon load Western Cartridge Co. offered from 1929 to 1949 was a 12-gauge, 3-inch, Super-X, Lubaloy, handicap trap and Pigeon load with a maximum charge of progressive burning powder pushing 1 1/4 ounce of copper plated #7 or #7 1/2 shot. See the *

58131

[edgarspencer]

I'd love to hear what your Metallurgist friend has to say about how badly this 'fluid steel' has aged. I only have a masters in Applied Metallurgy, so all I know is it's only "Fluid", going from furnace to mold. After that, it's just steel.
Given your gun is a one frame 28", you're not going duck hunting, and any pheasant and upland load appropriate is going to be easily digested.
Copper plated shot shot reacts much the same as the un-plated lead, and has no deleterious effect on the barrels. The whole point of keeping loads reasonable, getting that lead moving no faster than it needs to be going, is to reduce recoil on the 100 year old wood. Anything you think you need 1 1/8 ozs for, will be equally well accomplished with 7/8 to 1oz. 1175-1200 fps loads are unlikely to damage your 'aged, fluid steel' barrels.

[William Davis]

Gun details aside most factory 16g field loads are too strong to shoot comfortably in my Parker’s. I often buy Herters 1 oz field loads shoot them in a Remington pump & save the hulls to load for the SXS guns. Not a good load for my Trojan, way too much recoil for my Parker Hammer 16 .

Thing about 16s do you want them to perform like 12s or 20s. Targets I use RST or load to duplicate RST 3/4 oz. at 1180 FPS. Live birds 7/8 makes a fine 16g load. Either one 20 g dublicate. When I want 1 oz I use a 12g.

On low pressure, it’s a result of the components, primarily the powder. Wad too. Major manufacturers looking to save money can load faster powders with smaller charges resulting in higher pressure and recoil. Note Reserchers post quoting “Progressive “ powders in period shells. Most modern field loads don’t use more expensive progressive powders. Shoot one of RSTs 12 G loads and the same shot weight and velocity Winchester 12 G Walmart pack, you will see significant difference in recoil, and likely much higher pressure. OK in a modern gun recipe for trouble in a fine old SXS . Save money by using appropriate shells at higher cost and avoid expensive stock repairs.

William

[Todd Poer]

Man lots of people to thank for their sharing of knowledge and input. Edgar I think you have way more than enough background to adequately address my posed questions. In my opinion all PHD stands for is "Piled Higher and Deeper". The man is very smart though and lives metals. Last time I talked with him on a project involving a manufacturing process it took me two hours after the conversation looking through an old text book to figure out what he was talking about. You probably would have known immediately what he was talking about. My minor in Geology only takes me so far.

I get your points though. I also think you are right on target about the barrels and loads if the metal has been taken care of and was cleaned in its earlier days from any corrosive agents that could have been allowed to sit in the barrels. Reflecting on properties regarding copper coated lead that makes sense and with most modern shells the wad or shell cup I believe encases the load thru the barrels. The mass of load and its physical properties, or hardness probably matter most, plus throwing in velocity, etc. It definitely is not just the mass since steel has less mass than lead. Okay enough of that.

I tend to agree with point that biggest reason you want lighter loads cycling through these old guns, even if the barrels check out, is that the American Walnut used can become brittle with age and weakened if excessive oiling were to penetrate the wood near the wood metal interface, so forth and so forth. Its rare to see an old heavily used Parker 12 gauge that does not have stock issues. So now I understand the light load conundrum that slated for the charge discussion as it relates to pounding of the stock. So what is a light load.

I went to Polywad site and looked up their Vintage and Doublewide shells and they said something strange. Their site lists powder charge as 2 1/4 dram equivalent for 12 gauge. Checked the 16 Ga load, 2 1/4 dram equivalent, and it was the same for a 20 gauge. Boy that is helpful.
http://www.polywad.com/vintager.html

So as Edgar and Osthaus and others have/may eluded, the low pressure shells and loads is not just about the barrels but maybe more about the pounding of the stock, and heck who knows the delta and variables on that regarding the wood. I do know that on my gun the wood has not cracked around the lock. It does have come character dings and scratches but wood is tight and no signs of any stress there. Which brings up another question or thread. If you do not want to refinish the stock or wood, what is best way to care for these guns with aging Walnut other than limiting shooting 3 dram powder charges.

Researcher, love the handle, also appreciate your input and knowledge about the loads. It does go to show you the evolution of how guns and ammo change but essentially really stay about the same. Shot stringing, now that is an interesting topic, and not many folks nowadays even broach it. It clearly says on that old box of shells and loads from pic you provided showing "Super Short Shot Stringing". Bet you can't say that fast 3 times in a row. Time to get out the Physics text book. I think the English have it right. Square loads have a clear advantage for crossing moving targets. 3 dimensional thinking of shot travel and Newtonian Physics would be an interesting topic. I can't remember last time I have ever heard any talking head discuss about shotgun shooting and appropriately wade in on the shot string topic.

[Todd Poer]

Gun details aside most factory 16g field loads are too strong to shoot comfortably in my Parker’s. I often buy Herters 1 oz field loads shoot them in a Remington pump & save the hulls to load for the SXS guns. Not a good load for my Trojan, way too much recoil for my Parker Hammer 16 .

Thing about 16s do you want them to perform like 12s or 20s. Targets I use RST or load to duplicate RST 3/4 oz. at 1180 FPS. Live birds 7/8 makes a fine 16g load. Either one 20 g dublicate. When I want 1 oz I use a 12g.

On low pressure, it’s a result of the components, primarily the powder. Wad too. Major manufacturers looking to save money can load faster powders with smaller charges resulting in higher pressure and recoil. Note Reserchers post quoting “Progressive “ powders in period shells. Most modern field loads don’t use more expensive progressive powders. Shoot one of RSTs 12 G loads and the same shot weight and velocity Winchester 12 G Walmart pack, you will see significant difference in recoil, and likely much higher pressure. OK in a modern gun recipe for trouble in a fine old SXS . Save money by using appropriate shells at higher cost and avoid expensive stock repairs.

William

Thank you William, that is helpful. I want gun shooting more like a 20. So its really the type powder thats the biggest difference maker. Not certain about wads or shot cups. Do the RST's say they use the progressive powders? which I think just means slower burning. BTw did used to reload shells so understand about those slower burning powders we used on reloads. Shooting lefty as kid and having a Remington 1100 made for righties in a dove field with those shells and unburned powder blowing across your face, now that is a teaching moment.

I have an old Browning A5 16 gauge hand me down that came to the arsenal via wifes grandfather and dad. It just sits in back corner of case. I guess we can just burn those shells thru that gun if push comes to shove.

[William Davis]

I think, can’t prove, powder is the primary recoil difference factory promo loads compared to quality shells. No doubt they save money on shot too, less antiomony softer shot. Singling out Winchester’s with some sort of metal rims have seen them cause problems in friends O/U guns due to either inconsistent or soft metal. Money can be saved on Plastics as well.

You can’t imagine how much effort large retailers put into cheapening products.

William

[todd allen]

Recoil is all about payload, vs velocity. Has nothing to do with pressure.

[Bruce Day]

Here is what Parker specified. Use drams equivalent to the black powder dram load and you will be in specifications. TPS includes a table listing recommended service load pressures and proof pressures for persons interested.

I have shot thousands of rounds of 16 ga Federal and Remington 1 oz loads in Parker fluid steel and Damascus barrel guns. My old fluid steel PHE has close to 80,000 rounds of these loads shot through it.

[Bruce Day]

Then for those who know the recoil energy formula, which of these loads do you think will have the least recoil energy? One of the two 1 oz 1200 FPS loads or the Fed 1oz 1165 FPS load?

[Todd Poer]

Recoil is all about payload, vs velocity. Has nothing to do with pressure.

BTW did not see Bruces replies when working up my stuff below. I guess I need to find the that recoil energy formula.

Interesting point on those variables. It has me thinking even more, rightly or wrongly involving the physics. Instead of focusing on pressure at powder ignition, then maybe we need to focus on the lbs per square inch exerted by the overall event as it relates to recoil and old wooden stocks. I think several have mentioned this point. If that is the case then it really comes down to the amount of powder and the size of the load. Thinking barrel gauge as fixed constant as the control then more powder and load then more recoil. Felt recoil then goes to weight of gun as it relates to size of load, since there is no real recoil reduction in an old side by side other than maybe adding pad at butt of the stock or reducing the size of the the overall load. No way would you mess with back boring the forcing cones. Makes sense. A three inch shell with more powder and shot would definitely kick more or have more recoil. The type of powder may not mean a whole lot though.

As I can remember from reloading days, and please active re-loaders and people more knowledgeable than me please advise, is that when we were experimenting and trying to create heavier loads with #6 shot for grouse we used slower burning powders and more of it. Again I guess the term the shooting industry lingo uses is progressive powder, meaning a longer continuous burn (I am dumbing it down probably calling it slower since we are talking fractions of a second for a full charge burn). These were 20 gauge loads that we were setting up with a little over an ounce of shot. I cannot remember how much more powder. All I know is that gun kicked more and made a little more boom. Was it an effective load, could not tell but it had more shot in the pattern at 40 yards using a modified left barrel Definitely was not a square load. Shot string was probably awful, but we did not care since we just wanted to sling more shot through cover at a bird going away from us that we already had missed with the right barrel. Parting shot with a bang. I did take a few birds with them, but it may not have mattered what I was shooting at them, but it felt like I accomplished something with the suped up load.

Ya know you gotta love Hollywood though. No wonder you can't find many old 12 gauge or 10 gauge shotguns without stock issues. Cracks me up every time I see the shotgun blast scene from movie Open Range. Lets see giving the bad guy both barrels through a 1x8 board wall still has enough power to pick up a grown man and sling him 15 feet in the air off his feet. I like the scene that has Duvall looking through the hole after the shot. Why the hell has Robert Duvall not been thrown through the other wall from the recoil. I have heard it said it was not Samuel Colt that really won the West, it was the shotgun. If you want to skip to the shotgun scene I think it starts at about 3:55

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YKFVGPUskg

Anyway through all this I don't know if there is a right or wrong answer. I think as a hedge I will do more research on the RST loads as to how much powder they use and how much shot for their spreader loads, which is probably what I need to shoot anyway due to chokes. Best I can tell they don't make a 2 3/4, 16 Ga. shell and they are only 2 1/2 inch cartridges. Maybe I need to get back into reloading my own. All I know is that depending on gauge size and loads, length of cartridge should not matter if barrel is designed to take that cartridge, in theory. Which then puts me back at original question posed. What sized charge and load is safe to shoot and at what velocity. I mean in theory and practicality you could reduce powder charge alot and really lower the amount of shot to the point that they just about roll out the barrel.

Putting things in perspective and doing the math, 1 fps is equal to .682 mph at about 1200 fps at the muzzle that means load is traveling at about 818 mph. At 1100 fps means that at muzzle the load is traveling at 750 mph. That represents only an 8.3% reduction in velocity, no matter the size of the load. I don't think anyone recommend shooting a load at less than 1100 fps, not even RTS or Polywad. So they offer different load sizes and different velocities but still offer 1 ounce loads at over 1100 fps meaning they have to have the right powder charge for that sized gauge barrel to produce the velocities no matter how long the cartridge is, meaning they have to shoot about the same sized powder charge as some so called modern loads using smokeless powder. BTW I have some 20 ga AA 7/8 loads that are rated at 1300 fps which is 886 mph. Putting it into perspective 1100 to 1300 does not look like much difference but its about 136 mph different, thats pretty fast in my book and I could see why you would not want 136 mph more speed blowing through an old gun. To achieve these speeds they need more charge.

[Bruce Day]

Then for those who believe in vintage loads for vintage guns here are a two of a case of paper 16’s that I picked up. 2 3/4” 16ga 1 1/8 oz of no. 9 at 2 3/4 Dre. Reds are Win Ranger and the purples are Monark( Fed). Been using for woods grouse and quail.

[Bruce Day]

Parker 16ga guns were intended to shoot and were patterned with a 1oz load driven by 2 1/2 drams to 2 3/4 drams , which generally equates to about 1180fps. Parker patterning hang tags and specs by Parker bear this out and it is true for any PArker barrel. If you believe that your barrels are cracked, pitted or thin to the extent that shooting the design load is dangerous, I would not shoot the gun. If you believe that your stock is cracked or oil soaked weak then I suggest taking the stock off and correcting the damage or restocking so that the gun is safe to shoot with the design loads.

For recoil energy, all that really matters is weight of the shot, speed out the barrel and weight of the gun. Weight of the gas and wad out the barrel is minor in the calculation. You can find many calculators on the internet. Chamber pressure, chamber length, wad shock absorption, case material, crimp, are irrelevant
and relate only to “perceived” recoil, which means that one person may perceive it and another not.

[Todd Poer]

Then for those who know the recoil energy formula, which of these loads do you think will have the least recoil energy? One of the two 1 oz 1200 FPS loads or the Fed 1oz 1165 FPS load?

Okay. I found a shooters recoil formula. Calculator is setup for rifles but it should calculate out the same. Had to convert grains to drams and ounces of powder and shot. I ounce of shot is 437.5 grains and 2.5 drams of powder is 68.36 grains of powder. Looking at Bruce's table for my 16 Gauge I used a 7lb weight for the gun. With these inputs it calculates out at 32.85 foot lbs for the federal load.

Since I/we don't know how much powder is used in the RST loads then its hard to calculate the differences. But its an interesting point. If the charges are all the same just put in 1200 fps for the RST loads and keep then recoil energy goes up to 34.4 lbs. Then the recoil energy is less for the Federals by 2 lbs, thereabout. That is only about 4.5% difference and maybe negligible due to certain vagaries.

For giggles went and calculated what an 8 pound 12 gauge would produce at 1200 fps, 3.5 drams 1 1/8 ounce load. That recoil is 45 lbs. That is a 28% increase. If gun frame is about the same on a 12 to 16 gauge Parker and assuming wood is about same thickness, that is about 10 or more extra pounds being exerted on the stock. That might be the difference in whether old american walnut splitting out, or not.

http://www.shooterscalculator.com/recoil-calculator.php

[Todd Poer]

Parker 16ga guns were intended to shoot and were patterned with a 1oz load driven by 2 3/4 drams, which generally equates to about 1180fps. Parker patterning hang tags and published specs by Parker bear this out and it is true for any PArker barrel. If you believe that your barrels are cracked, pitted or thin to the extent that shooting the design load is dangerous, I would not shoot the gun. If you believe that your stock is cracked or oil soaked weak then I suggest taking the stock off and correcting the damage or restocking so that the gun is safe to to shoot with the design loads.

Bruce thanks for your inputs. Very interesting. So as a hedge and what your suggesting, and is just an opinion based on your personal belief, is don't go over a 1 ounce load or 2 3/4 drams of powder, assuming all powder is the same and velocities don't exceed 1180 rounded to 1200. Then it should be copacetic If everything else checks out with the gun. Therefore the really only advantage RST or Polywad are offering is store bought ammunition that is 2.5 inch shells to fit old chambered 2.5 inch guns.

[Bruce Day]

Yes. But I sometimes shoot 1 1/8 oz loads in my 1921 P or late Rem barrelled C.

Studies published in DGJ show a 5 to 8 percent increase in chamber pressure of an expanded length 2 3/4 “ inch cartridge over one 1/8” shorter. SAAMI tolerances for cartridge length for a nominal 2 3/4” load are 2 3/4 to 2 5/8”. If you actually measure you will find anywhere from 2 1/2 to 2 3/4” are common. Winchester AA are commonly short. Parker chambers were purposefully 1/8 short for better gas sealing. In my opinion, this small short chamber consternation is much to do about nothing of consequence.

Parker 16ga normal chamber length is 2 9/16”. Barrel snd chamber dimensions are provided in TPS, which is a necessity for any serious Parker shooter or collector. TPS also identifies the max service load for all gauges, which equates to the SAAMI max service load in use at the time. A 1 1/8 oz at 2 3/4 will be at max, these nasty to shoot 1 1/8 at 3 will be over. SAAMI maxes have increased for both service loads and proof loads and present SAAMI maxes will be over the limit for any vintage gun I am aware of .


All the pictured brands are fine. RST s are $110/ case, the others may be more costly. I think Midway had Feds for $120/case and often not available. RST is nice because they make up what you want when you want. Besides, Morris Baker is a good guy. But no, to get an acceptable 1 oz load, you neither have to use RST or reload. You do though if you want a 7/8 oz load.

[Todd Poer]

Thank you Bruce. I am not yet an avid Parker collector but an enthusiast. I think you need to own more the one be considered a collector. Lets just say I am very enthused about the one I got. Will hopefully be looking to pick up some other guns down the road. Hard right now to find the time to shoot the ones I got. BTW in your 16's how are those guns choked and have you used spreader loads.

BTW I have nothing against any shot shell company and I like small companies like RST. I went to webpage and did find that do offer a 7/8 spreader load that has a velocity of 1150 fps in 16 and its a 2.5 inch shell.

Also you seem to like the 16 gauge. Mine is a 1907 construct year that is factory chambered at 2 3/4. Is that rare in your opinion for these type guns in an era of 2.5 thereabout chambered guns. Also if its a 28 inch barrel did they forge the same and bore out a blank to meet the 2 3/4 chamber but did not extend the thicker metal down the tube into the forcing cone. Probably not explaining that right.

[Bruce Day]

I think it’s 6 PArker 16’s from AHE to PHE with one an O frame G hammer. And one Lefever EE 16. There are some are choked full and fuller, some open , and my favorite IC and full. I don’t like spreader wads, I think they produce inconsistent patterns . I like somewhat tight chokes. If you have a crossing bird of some size, just hit them in the head and neck. If you have a close going away away bird, just wait a bit or shoot just off center for the pattern so you don’t blow the bird up. If it’s ruffed grouse, the shot is what you get and fast and I like open chokes.

[Bruce Day]

[QUOTE=Todd Poe

Also you seem to like the 16 gauge. Mine is a 1907 construct year that is factory chambered at 2 3/4. Is that rare in your opinion for these type guns in an era of 2.5 thereabout chambered guns. Also if its a 28 inch barrel did they forge the same and bore out a blank to meet the 2 3/4 chamber but did not extend the thicker metal down the tube into the forcing cone. Probably not explaining that right.[/QUOTE]

I prefer the 16 over most others. The standard Parker 16 has 2 9/16 chambers . It is easy to mismeasure. If yours truly has 2 3/4, I suspect the chambers have been lengthened. Your V grade 16 /28 is likely on a No. 1 frame which will be about .110 wall thickness at the forcing cone and unless honed out will have a nominal bore of .660 diameter, leaving a likely wall thickness of .030 to .035. This is more than enough to bear any normal cartridge.

Remember that choke is over rated. The difference between game effective chokes of full and IC at 40 yards is about 6 to 8 inches. Open chokes add inches whereas misses are usually by feet. If you are concerned about blowing up the bird, wait a little longer or go to a small shot size. Most game is shot within yardage where 71/2 size is effective. As an example, here is what Parker tells us in The Small Bore Shot Gun. You can see that an effective killing circle ( six pellets on the bird) at 25 yards is 28” for cyl, 22” for Mod, and 18”for full. These are diameter, so cyl bore at 25 gives the shooter only 5 inches over full choke . So this tells me to practice shooting rather than worrying about chokes, or simply moving to smaller shot.

[Bruce Day]

Finally, here is a table from a Parker brochure at the time your V16 was made and showing all gauge loads. For 16ga the not recommended load of 1oz with 3 drams ( nitro powder by then, nitro meaning smokeless) was because of the 3 dram, not the 1oz. One ounce 16 loads were commonly used by Parker with 2 1/2 and 2 3/4drams. You can cross determine pressure by the velocity, shown in the table at 100 feet, not muzzle velocity as now used. The velocity at 100ft is close to or the same as the 1150 to 1200 FPS at muzzle.

These loads are fully consistent with commercially available loads today so unless there is something wrong with your gun, you should be able to shoot today what your gun was designed to shoot when it was made. I’m not going to presume the soundness or unsoundness of a gun in barrel or stock until examined.

[Todd Poer]

Awesome, Bruce. Thank you so much for your time, efforts and explanations. You have really helped me. Yep my gun is factory stamped 2 3/4 chamber and pretty certain it was never touched or bored out.

Long story/short but gun was bought in late 70's by my dad and it was only the second time that gun was ever sold. I was 13 or 14 and was with him when he bought it from an older gentlemen at a back water gun show in Alabama selling his family guns. He really did not want to sell them but he could not hunt anymore and had no one to give them to. He told us the complete history of the gun and how his grandad ordered the gun and paid $25 for it. Said it was his grand dads only gun and he used it for everything, but always took care of and cleaned the gun and only cleaned bores and wiped it down with an oily cloth. He said he learned to shoot with the gun when he was a kid and his grandad would threaten to whoop him if he did not take care of it the way he showed him. He even told me stories about how some the dings in the stock occurred and how sick he was when he found a little rust on outside of gun after going duck hunting. I think he knew one day I would end up with it so he wanted me to know about it. Gun is used and worn but has character and knowing a little of its history there is no way I could ever really do too much other keep it clean and use it, when I can.

My dad loved the gun but could'nt shoot it to well. It was too tight on the chokes and he wanted a classic old double to grouse hunt. He thought about getting barrels reamed but never did. His go to quail/grouse gun was an SKB straight grip with a single selective trigger. He got so set with that gun he never could get used to double triggers. He passed it on to me about 20 years ago since I was doing some Continental Pheasant hunts that were perfect for this gun. It takes a bit to get used to the drop but after practicing throwing it on shoulder and remembering where to hit that stock on the cheek I can do allright. I have taken a few birds in a dove field that were loping along with that left barrel that I stepped off close to 60 yards, which still amazes me because they just folded.

Seems like most hunting I do nowadays are these set out birds. I grew up hunting wild quail and grouse, on a flush I can't help myself but to get on birds quick when they flush and shoot quickly in phase. Second nature and almost a conditioned reflex. I tried slowing it down to let them get out there but then I start aiming and that never really works to well for me.

Spent a weekend hunting with a guy named Todd Rogers, his gig was an Orvis employed shooting instructor and as a guide down on a South Georgia plantation. He coached me up a bunch and I learned alot at skeet range and hunting with him. He watched me shoot an awful lot and he tried to get me to slow it down but it just was not natural to me. I guess I got too much nervous fast twitch muscle to slow it down. Plus first double barrel gun I got my dad gave me and it was an old Spainish double that was essentially cyl, cyl. If you did not learn to shoot quick then those dang birds would be out of range toot sweet.

[Bruce Day]

One of the great things about collecting and shooting Parkers is that we have a wealth of facts and figures about service loads, proof loads, acceptable pressures, Parker recommended loads and data from Parker published in The Parker Story and in contemporary sales and information brochures. We have the Double Gun Journal with its actual engineering based testing in the Finding Out For Myself articles.
So when a person asks for advice here , he can be given real information and not just opinions or personal beliefs. I think we have a lot of smart people who come here and appreciate knowing what Parker said so that they can draw their own conclusions. We have these advantages with Parker. I like Lefevers also, but we lack as much factory information with them . I don’t know enough about Foxes or Smiths to say.

Plus some people like the way they look. Top one owned by a buddy. Bottom one is a 16ga from the closet.

I invite you to join the PGCA.

[Todd Poer]

Golly Bruce;

Those guns are masterpieces. I would be afraid to shoot them, even though they probably shoot the same as my field grade gun. Also picked up on your use of the word closet, that can't be same place you store coats as well. Reckon closet means gun safe in your neck of the woods.

[Bruce Day]

Out here in flyover country Cletus bought a 20 year Corvette like he had always wanted. On the way home he stopped by the Country Corner gas station and asked the boys eating biscuits and gravy at the tables in back how fast he could drive back to Deerwood.
BobbyJoe says 120.
Sgt. Frank says 65.
Mr. Clarence says 50.