Kent Bismuth in 12 gauge Trojan

[Scott Chapman]

Looking for comments about using Kent's new Bismuth Waterfowl 2 3/4" 1 1/4 oz, 1325 fps, 10,800 psi loads in my 12 gauge Trojan 30".

I had the Trojan checked out by Kirk Merrington a couple years ago and he gave me the thumbs up that it was in good shooting shape.

It is my understanding that I should be more concerned about wear and tear to the wood than the barrels and action.

I ran a box or so through the Trojan a couple weeks ago in Canada. They did produce noticeable recoil, but the #5s sure did stone ducks at a goodly distance, especially high over head mallards with the left barrel.

[charlie cleveland]

scott you will get mixed feelings about this load from every body...to me no more shells than you will shoot in your gun i would say shoot them....i have guns that i shoot steel shot at ducks with it is a long range lc smith 3 inch chambered gun i even shot several 3 inch steel thru it my barrels are modified choke...i have not hurt the barrels and the wood is still fine....this is my opinion on your gun but listen to others also....charlie

[Brian Dudley]

Why ask about shooting them in it now that you already did it? It must not have bothered you all that much at the time.

That gun has likely digested hotter loats than that in its past.

[Rick Losey]

You reference the pressure

Figure out the recoil


Pressure is for the metal

Recoil is for the wood

[Scott Chapman]

Why ask about shooting them in it now that you already did it? It must not have bothered you all that much at the time.

That gun has likely digested hotter loats than that in its past.

Just because I did it once and got away with it (I didn't know the pressures were +10,000 psi at the time) means that I want to continue if the sage advise is against the practice.

I thought that I had read somewhere on this forum that 12 gauge Trojans had pretty stout frame #2 and that higher pressure loads from standard "high brass" loads in the old days (2 3/4" 1 1/4 oz lead) should not be a great concern.

My son hopes to use the Trojan to take a few ducks at the end of the month on the opening of youth only weekend. I wanted some reassurance that I can turn him loose with the Bismuth.

[Craig Larter]

Why not purchase RST bismuth with pressure and velocity ideal for vintage guns. No worries.

[Dean Romig]

Indeed get some RST’s - why start your son off with those heavy flinch inducers?

A looong tome ago when I was about 13 I shot a borrowed Trojan with off-the-shelf heavy duck loads. I was too small for the gun to begin with let alone stuffing such cannon fodder into it. Yup, I developed a flinch and I kept on shooting the Trojan because it was way cooler than my cheap little single shot 20.

I guess my point is why shoot that stuff when there is something less punishing and about as effective?





.

[Tom Flanigan]

I agree with Dean. I also don't think the hot 1 1/4 oz loads at 1325 fps. are the most effective. My duck guns patterned the old pigeon load of 1 1/4 at 1200 fps. better. I did a test in Sasketechawan of the +1300 fps loads vs. the 1200 fps. loads. In addition to a significant reduction in recoil, I definitely had more ducks dead in the air with the 1200 fps. loads. I could tell difference. I think it was the shorter shot string of the lower velocity loads that made the difference. I don't know for sure and my test was far from scientific, but I am covinced that the +1300 loads do not perform as well as the 1200 fps. loads. I never use +1300 1 1/4 oz. loads for anything after that test.

[Garry L Gordon]

All that you do to (or for) and old gun is cumulative. If its materials are stressed, it will catch up with you (and the gun) -- or the next owner -- in some fashion. Yes, they are tough, but why pound an old gun when you don't have to...and with the options for shells that we have now, you don't have to. If it's about the cost, well, I can't help there. That's between you and your wallet (or spouse, who may have your wallet anyway).:whistle:

[nick balzano]

SPORTING CLASSICS MAG. JUST DID AN ARTICLE ON THESE SHELLS WHICH I THOUGHT WAS A LITTLE MIS-LEADING. THE AUTHOR STATED THAT THESE SHELLS WERE GOOD TO USE IN OLDER VINTAGE SHOTGUNS. wITH THE LOAD SPECS THAT WERE PUBLISHED, i THOUGHT THEY WERE TOO HEAVY AND STATED SO IN MY COMMENT TO THAT ARTICLE. tHAT WAS MY HUMBLE OPINION.

[Pete Lester]

Why not purchase RST bismuth with pressure and velocity ideal for vintage guns. No worries.

Better yet, why not learn to reload and control every variable yourself; shot weight, velocity and pressure.

[Scott Chapman]

I have a MEC 500 and have found a load for AA hulls, RP12 wads, 1 1/4 oz bismuth and longshot powder at 1250 fps. Listed at 7500 psi. I'll have to set it up!

[Frank Srebro]

Many seem to have forgotten that the 12 ga/1-1/4 ounce so-called “high brass” progressive load was the standard over many decades in all manner of steel-barreled shotguns for ducks, geese, pheasants, turkeys, foxes, etc. Yup, 1-1/4 ounce of lead shot at 1330 speed.

So, other than the shot material, what’s different about the ballistics of the new Kent Bismuth load that was cited in the first posting here?

[Tom Flanigan]

Yes, the 12 bore 1 ¼ oz load at +1300 fps was “standard” for many years. That is why you see so many vintage guns that saw a lot of service with cracks behind the tang, some small and some large. Try finding an L.C. Smith that was used a lot without cracks behind the lock plates. Some is due to poor design but heavy loads exasperated the situation. I have repaired cracks in many Parkers around and behind the tang. We have more information now and know more than our predecessors who pounded those guns with heavy loads. Now years later, we are privy to the results of the effects of those loads. We can learn from history and not continue to make the mistakes of the past. Virtually every Parker I own that has seen a lot of service is cracked behind the tang. And over the years, I have repaired many others guns with the same issue. I don’t believe 1 ¼ oz loads at +1300 should ever be used in a vintage gun, some of which are over 100 years old. It makes no sense to do so.

[todd allen]

All these years have taught me this. When shooting a SxS, go with the lightest load that gets the job done.
One ounce at about 1150 fps, or so, should be your benchmark. 1 1/8 oz should be considered on the heavier side. 1 1/4 oz should be your max. The reloading bench is your friend, if you're going into the heavier loads. First, find out how a 1 oz. load works for you, and be prepared to be amazed.
The beauty of a well crafted, good handling side by side, is to run loads through it that compliment the concept. Otherwise, get a Benelli autoloader.

[Tom Flanigan]

I have to say Amen to that. I have extensive game shooting experience over 55 years. I carefully pattern all of my guns and have tested different loads on game, most notably on ducks and geese on the breeding and staging grounds of Saskatchewan over many years. My conclusion from all my experience is that sensible loads are best, by far. The 1 oz. 12 bore load, as an example, is a wonderfully effective load that patterns extremely well. I would not feel handicapped in the least with that load on ducks as long as the range is kept to around 35 yards or a bit more. Many would be amazed at just how effective and efficient that load is.

I use the old pigeon load on ducks, geese and turkeys because I like the denser patterns of the 1 1/4 oz load at 1200 fps on geese and ducks to 45 yards. But I would feel very comfortable if I was forced to use only the 1 oz. load. I'll be frank, it is my opinion that the 12 bore 1 1/4 oz load at 1300+ is an abomination in a vintage double. Strong words, but my extensive experience backs up my opinion.

[Frank Srebro]

This must be our age of enlightenment …. well I'm so happy to learn that old time serious duck hunters like Buckingham, Sheldon and Askins got it all wrong, using 1-1/4 and 1-3/8-ounce heavy progressive loads when ducks wouldn't work the decoys and taking longish shots over the water and against the sky, both where it's so hard to estimate actual distance. How many can resist that temptation nowadays? Those I named and others of great experience must have just plain fell for the hype in all those long range tech articles by professional ballisticians and were duped by adverts by the likes of Western, Ajax and Peters.

Good to know that some of you have the skill to center punch ducks flying at different speeds, distances and varying angles with modern efficient loads. Great! Good shooting! Me, I often can't do that and might hit the bird with the fringe of the pattern. I always liked that saying about the difference between 1-ounce and 1-1/4-ounce ….. "when the gun goes bang that extra 1/4-ounce has to go somewhere". :)

[Craig Larter]

I have been hunting ducks for decades going back to the lead days. In my experience the best load I have ever shot for ducks is 1 3/8oz Kent TM at 1350fps at over 10000psi. Just for my own concern for my vintage doubles I have developed a 1 1/4oz TM load at 1200fps at less than 6000psi for late season mallards and blacks. I figure why take a chance shooting hot loads. That being said I have shot hundreds of ducks with 1 1/8oz of bismuth. Most important in duck hunting is having a well trained retriever.

[William Davis]

While I believe in mild loads Bismuth is not a dense as lead and looses velocity faster, may be a point for higher initial velocity. Having said that Vintage SXS Gun always better to shoot lower recoil and no doubt low recoil facilities hits.

William

[Drew Hause]

Turn-of-the-century Live Bird loads were usually 1 1/4 oz. 3 1/2 Dram Eq., or more; Sporting Life, Dec. 4 1897
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1897/VOL_30_NO_11/SL3011024.pdf
J.D. Gay...used a Parker gun, 4 drams Hazard “Blue Ribbon” (Bulk) smokeless, in Leader shells, a Winchester factory load.

In the 1927 Western Cartridge Co. advertising flyer for the "Super-X Long Range Load" by Capt. Chas. Askins, the 12 Gauge Duck Load is described as 1 1/4 oz. with 3-1/2 Drams (Dupont Oval) with a muzzle velocity of 1400 fps (modern numbers are measured 3 feet from the muzzle and would be about 1330 fps) and a breech pressure of 3-3/4 tons or just below the current SAAMI 12g maximum of 11,500 psi.

And a steady diet thereof in a 100 year old gun may do this

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL1373/6511424/15127852/270528918.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL1373/6511424/15127852/270528963.jpg

So it would seem reasonable to be proactive and glasbed or reinforce the head of the stock in some way before using boomer loads

Staple and fresh acraglas

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL1373/6511424/15127852/270528965.jpg

or the Parker "dumb-bell" wood insert courtesy of Dean

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL1373/6511424/15127852/407719258.jpg

[Frank Srebro]

…… I use the old pigeon load on ducks, geese and turkeys because I like the denser patterns of the 1 1/4 oz load at 1200 fps on geese and ducks to 45 yards. But I would feel very comfortable if I was forced to use only the 1 oz. load. I'll be frank, it is my opinion that the 12 bore 1 1/4 oz load at 1300+ is an abomination in a vintage double. Strong words, but my extensive experience backs up my opinion.

Just wondering, where is it you're using the old pigeon load for ducks and geese? Lead shot has been banned for waterfowl since 1991 in the US and since 1999 in Canada. That includes coppered lead shot as generally used in pigeon loads.

[Tom Flanigan]

I load my own Bismuth loads at 1200 fps. Actually, my tests of the +1300 loads vs 1200 was with lead way before lead was banned in Canada. I've never used coppered shot. The "old pigeon load" I refer to is the general pigeon load of years ago of 1 1/4 oz of shot and around 1200 fps. It does not refer to any "pigeon load" of current vintage. Pigeon load as I use the term is an old term I picked up long ago from the old timers in my home town of Pawling, NY. Some of those old boys shot flyers back in the day.

[Tom Flanigan]

So it would seem reasonable to be proactive and glasbed or reinforce the head of the stock in some way before using boomer loads

Yes, I would agree that that would solve the problem. I have sometimes relieved a sliver of wood from behind the lock plates of L.C. Smith guns and reinforced with acra-glas. It's solves the cracking problem so common on these guns. I like to get to them before they start to crack. Wood can be relieved in the stock head of Parkers and reinforced with acra-glas also but I have never done that with a gun that wasn't already cracked. My solution is to never use boomer loads since, in my opinion, nothing is to be gained but heavy recoil.


Many times a crack such as you have shown in the pictures does not show on the exterior for some time. I have taken Parkers apart that seemed ok until the stock head was exposed. I hate to see this. It's not a hard fix and its a permanent one, but its better to use sensible loads to prevent further cracking or any cracking in the first place.

[Tom Flanigan]

The first sentence in my post above was written by Drew. I guess I screwed up the quote notification attributing it to him.

[Tom Flanigan]

This must be our age of enlightenment …. well I'm so happy to learn that old time serious duck hunters like Buckingham, Sheldon and Askins got it all wrong, using 1-1/4 and 1-3/8-ounce heavy progressive loads when ducks wouldn't work the decoys and taking longish shots over the water and against the sky, both where it's so hard to estimate actual distance. How many can resist that temptation nowadays? Those I named and others of great experience must have just plain fell for the hype in all those long range tech articles by professional ballisticians and were duped by adverts by the likes of Western, Ajax and Peters.

Good to know that some of you have the skill to center punch ducks flying at different speeds, distances and varying angles with modern efficient loads. Great! Good shooting! Me, I often can't do that and might hit the bird with the fringe of the pattern. I always liked that saying about the difference between 1-ounce and 1-1/4-ounce ….. "when the gun goes bang that extra 1/4-ounce has to go somewhere". :)

Many of the old boys such as Elmer Keith talked of heavy loads and long shots. Elmer used his Ithaca 3 1/2 inch ten bore to take geese to 80 yards. I've read most of their stuff including Askins who was Elmer's mentor. But I never shoot over 50 yards, never ever. And I never let the opinions of others become my opinions, even the likes of Askins and Keith who I truly enjoy reading. My comments are based solely on my personaL experience. I read what they had to say and then find out for myself. I have shot countless patterns and extensively shot all types of game for 55 years. My opinions are my own based on my actual experiences and testing. I am careful to preface my statements with "in my opinion". It's just that, my opinion. Others are free to read my posts and disagree. Thats what it's all about. Nobody would question the experience of Jack O'Connor or Elmer Keith. But both of those gentlemen disagreed on most everything. Jack O'Connor touted the .270 for elk and moose. Elmer Keith said anyone who hunted elk or moose with a .270 was a damn fool. My own experience taking moose with the .270 convinced me that Jack was right and Elmer was wrong. But my opinion is based on my experience, not the words of either gentlemen.

[Drew Hause]

I'm not buying the marketing, or gun writin' guy hyperbole.

Parker Bros. 1929 Catalog
"Magnum, Super, and variously named guns about which so much is now being written are not a new development in the gun makers' art. For the past twenty years Parker Brothers have made guns to handle heavy charges of powder and shot, giving good patterns at long range. Recent improvements in powder and by shell manufacturers have served to make the Parker Long Range gun even more effective, so that today the Parker built and bored to secure the full power of modern loads with which one may confidently expect to bring down game at distances a few years ago considered impossible, is up to date but not new. Parker Long Range guns are built to guard the user against abnormal recoil. The weight of the barrels is so distributed that the gun handles the heaviest loads with comfort. The purchaser of a Parker Long Range can rest assured that he will receive a gun, easy to handle, sufficiently heavy and properly bored to shoot the heaviest loads for the killing of wild fowl at extreme ranges."

Pattern testing by David Williamson with .042" choke 32" LRWF at a measured 80 yards using 3 inch Winchester (plastic) hull with 38.35 grains of Blue Dot, Winchester 209 primer, Winchester AASL wad, and 1 3/8 ounces of #5 nickel plated shot. The average number of pellets was 246 and measured weight 1.353 ounce.
Number of pellets in duck for 3 shots: 5,6 & 6. Pattern % in 30" circle: 5.3 = 13 pellets, 8.1 = 20 pellets & 8.5 = 21 pellets.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL1373/6511424/17318961/411836838.jpg

Any chance this "duck" is dead in the air?

[Bill Holcombe]

Many of the old boys such as Elmer Keith talked of heavy loads and long shots. Elmer used his Ithaca 3 1/2 inch ten bore to take geese to 80 yards. I've read most of their stuff including Askins who was Elmer's mentor. But I never shoot over 50 yards, never ever. And I never let the opinions of others become my opinions, even the likes of Askins and Keith who I truly enjoy reading. My comments are based solely on my personaL experience. I read what they had to say and then find out for myself. I have shot countless patterns and extensively shot all types of game for 55 years. My opinions are my own based on my actual experiences and testing. I am careful to preface my statements with "in my opinion". It's just that, my opinion. Others are free to read my posts and disagree. Thats what it's all about. Nobody would question the experience of Jack O'Connor or Elmer Keith. But both of those gentlemen disagreed on most everything. Jack O'Connor touted the .270 for elk and moose. Elmer Keith said anyone who hunted elk or moose with a .270 was a damn fool. My own experience taking moose with the .270 convinced me that Jack was right and Elmer was wrong. But my opinion is based on my experience, not the words of either gentlemen.

Who needs a .270? I know a grandmother in my town who has taken 3 elk with a .257 bob.

[Tom Flanigan]

A .257 Roberts in the hands of a cool and experienced shot is likely a better elk killer than a 7mm magnum in the hands of the typical weekend tyro who, because of the excessive recoil, doesn't properly sight in his gun or practice to efficiency.

The .257 Roberts is one of the classic great cartridges of the past, just as effective today as it ever was. They are a pleasure to shoot.

[Frank Srebro]

Many of the old boys such as Elmer Keith talked of heavy loads and long shots. Elmer used his Ithaca 3 1/2 inch ten bore to take geese to 80 yards. I've read most of their stuff including Askins who was Elmer's mentor. But I never shoot over 50 yards, never ever. And I never let the opinions of others become my opinions, even the likes of Askins and Keith who I truly enjoy reading. …....

I'm pretty sure the Askins mentioned in the quote is Askins Jr, not the senior Askins who was the noted shotgun expert. Anyone interested in shooting vintage shotguns should get a copy of Modern Shotguns and Loads by Capt Charles Askins (senior) that was originally published in 1929. The book and its reprint are generally available on Ebay etc. You'll be absolutely flabbergasted by the Cap's extensive detail in this book, to include the pellet counts and efficiencies derived from hundreds of objective patterning tests of all gauges, and at ranges up to 60+ yards for ducking loads. He wasn't one to come up with opinions without having extensive data to back them up.


Back to the very first question by the original poster, regarding the Kent 12 ga/2-3/4-inch load with 1-1/4 ounce of its new Bismuth shot. Speed was cited at 1325 which is on par with the our familiar American 12-gauge "high brass" load of lead shot. It might be good for anyone interested to check with Kent or other sources to determine where that velocity was measured, i.e., at 3 ft as typical with American shotshells, or at the muzzle (or back calculated to the muzzle) as often done on foreign made shells? Indeed if the latter, that 1325 would be more like 1250 or so per the American protocol.

[Scott Chapman]

So my take away from this thread thus far:

1. My Trojan in good shape should be fine to shoot the Kent Bismuth shells. They might kick a little more than the RST shells (of which I shot the 2 3/4" pheasant variety through this gun and they performed admirably on brant in Mexico earlier this year).

The son who was wanting to use this gun is 5' 10" and 175 pounds, plays football and has shot with 4-H trap and skeet since he was old enough to shoulder a reduced length Beretta 20 gauge autoloader. Recoil probably will not be as bad a those "hypersonic" 3" 1700 fps shells that he was shooting through his Beretta. (Those shells will rattle your fillings!)

2. A steady diet of "boomer" loads might cause damage to stock head if oil soaked or weakened due to age.

(Thank you Mr. Flanigan! The word "Boomer" makes most Texans cringe because down here it is associated with the University of Oklahoma who is a nemesis to both the University of Texas in Austin and my alma mater, Texas A&M.)

I would not want to be caught dead using a "boomer" load.

I fear the cost of a preemptive repair would probably exceed the $800 have in the gun, but it is something for consideration.

3. Handloading Bismuth is probably the best way to provide adequate hunting ammo in the long run.

4. Elmer Keith didn't like either Captain or Colonel Askins because they didn't use enough gun...or maybe that was Ruark?? I am confused but as long as I don't shoot at 80 yards I'll be fine.

Thanks to all!

[Rick Losey]

.or maybe that was Ruark??

Ruark was the use enough gun guy

[Scott Chapman]

Ruark was the use enough gun guy

Indeed. It was a feinted attempt at "gun-nerd" humor:rotf:

[Drew Hause]

Kent Cartridge manufactures shells in Kearneysville, WV and as such follows SAAMI standards in reporting velocity as 3 feet from the muzzle.

Gamebore manufactures shells in England, and as such follows CIP standards, which report significantly higher velocity.
Scroll toward the bottom here
https://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=363546&start=20

One example
Eley VIP Game 32 gram plastic wad #6 shot UK website = 410mtps (1345 fps)
Eley VIP Game 32 gram plastic wad #6 shot SAAMI tested = 1222 fps

[Tom Flanigan]

Scott, you were looking for comments on using 1 ¼ oz loads at 1325 in a Trojan. You certainly got a lot of comments, pro and con, which is a good thing. You can decide for yourself which way you want to go, maybe based in part on the comments on this forum. I wish you the best with your decision, whatever it is.

I am passionate about using boomer loads in vintage American doubles simply because I have seen and repaired many such guns with cracks behind the tang or the stock head. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I generally attribute this to the heavy loads used over a long period of time. My opinion may be wrong, but I choose not to take chances with an aged gun, as all vintage American doubles are.

There are others that use the traditional heavy loads and take the occasional shot beyond 50 yards. I have no argument with them. We each set our own limits and boundaries. Mine is never to shoot over 50 yards at anything and keep my loads within the bounds I consider appropriate for old guns. To each his own.

[Garry L Gordon]

I sometimes hunt with a young man relatively new to hunting. I'm still working on him to appreciate using a classic firearm. When we go duck hunting, he always marvels that my shot to kill ratio is so much better than his. I (generally have to) remind him, "but, I have only two ducks and you have 6." He laments that he is not as good a shot as I. I assure him that I am not (and believe me that's the truth), but I try not shoot beyond my capabilities or those of my guns and loads. I don't have to kill lots of birds to be satisfied, but I do have to do right by the birds, and my guns. A hundred year old gun deserves respect. So do the birds.

I could not agree more with Tom...except, he's obviously a better shot than I ever will be, so my shots are more limited in range. Hey, "a man's gotta know his limitations," and his personal ethics...and what's really important to him.