Titanic Steel

[gerrydelmonico]

How good was the T13 Titanic Steel that was produced in the 1930's Parker? Will it handle "modern" 2.75" hunting loads?

[Dean Romig]

The steel will handle the loads but remember that the wood is old and could crack or split under heavy loads. Most of us generally try to keep the pressures down by buying ammo that is made for older guns. Today's "off the shelf" ammo is made to pretty heavy standards so as to operate autoloading guns without a problem.






.

[gerrydelmonico]

Good advise. Thank you!

[Pete Lester]

Rule of thumb, pressure stresses barrel steel, recoil stresses wood stocks. Your titanic barrels if they have what is considered "servicable" barrel wall thickness will handle current factory loads. However, as you increase both payload and velocity you increase the force of recoil. The contact points between receiver and stock are small. Age does not make wood stronger. Stick with what are moderate velocity, lighter payloads. This is much easier to do if you reload. If you are like me you will be pleasantly surprised at the performance of lighter loads, 7/8, 1, and 1 1/8 ounce out of 12ga and 3/4 and 7/8 out of a 20ga, again at moderate velocity, 1100 to 1250 fps.

Best shells for any old shotgun are, lower pressure, lower velocity, lower shot weight. I really recommend you get into reloading if you are going to shoot old guns on a regular basis. It simply opens up so many possibilities. The problem with factory hunting loads are the premium stuff are generally heavy loads in terms of recoil and the "bargain" loads are put together with inferior components (giving poor patterns) such as soft lead shot to save money.

If you don't reload, remember you are shooting a graded Parker, check out RST shotshells, they are pricey but many of the loads were designed for use with older guns.

Finally, most cracked stocks are the result of loose screws that hold the stock in place. Keep them tight. However, don't put a screwdriver on your gun unless the screw driver fits and you know what you are doing. If you don't have either, take it to a trusted professional.

[Dean Romig]

Thanks Duke.

[Pete Lester]

Thanks Duke.

Your welcome, next month I am thinking the Skipper from Gilligans Island or maybe Gilligan :)

[Dean Romig]

Or the Professor...

[Rich Anderson]

Bruce I have a bunch of Remington Express #6 16ga loads. I used to use these when I had a Browning Sweet Sixteen but won't use them in MY Parkers. Are you comeing to the U.P. shoot ot The Southern? I'll sell them cheap.

[Dean Romig]

I didn't know I wasn't supposed to use those shells.


Bruce, I'm guilty once again of generalizing. I should have taken into consideration the fact that there are those who shoot "off the shelf" ammo in their old Parkers... so, please excuse me. No offense intended.

Personally, it matters not to me what others choose to shoot in their old doubles. But I would suggest those new to the game of collecting and shooting these fine old guns to simply err on the side of caution.

[Pete Lester]

[quote=Dean Romig;32319]........ We all generally try to keep the pressures down by buying ammo that is made for older guns........quote]



Gee, I didn't know that was what we all generally do. Last weekend on Kansas pheasants that were getting up long, CH shot the Rem Express Long Range 1/4oz at 1330fps for his 12ga Titanic barreled DHE and I was shooting Rem Express Long Range 1 1/8oz at 1295 through a PHE 16ga fluid steel. I also used a CHE 16ga Bernard damascus and was shooting Fed 1 oz out of the box loads. I lent a CHE 12ga with fluid steel barrels to another fellow and he was shooting out of the box Fed 1 1/8oz loads. Years ago Art Wheaton got a pallet of free pheasant loads from Remington for us to use in our Parkers and I ended up with a case of 12 ga Express Long Range and a case of 16 ga Express Long Range. I've been using those for the past 7-8 years now for long range birds. I didn't know I wasn't supposed to use those shells.

It is personal choice whether one uses light/moderate loads or heavy/stout loads. Without seeing "the" gun in question I think it is always good advice to recommend use of a light/moderate load. I have run plenty of heavy loads through fluid steel Parkers built before the '20's. I didn't hurt them as they are solid guns with tight stocks. However, after I started reloading light/moderate loads, especially the 7/8 ounce 12ga and 3/4 ounce 20ga I found I was giving up very little in observable performance on clays but lost a lot of recoil. Another bonus is that the cost of lead shot makes up 45-55% of the cost of each reload, lighter loads stretch your dollar too.

About the only time I shoot a heavy load is for waterfowling, however I recently stepped up to a 10lb NH 10 bore. I have found that gun with 1 1/4 ounce load will fold a duck or goose like a cheap suitcase if I do my part.

Light/moderate loads, gentle on your gun, gentle on your shoulder and gentle on your wallet. Like Mikey said in the old comercial, "try 'em, you'll like them" :)

[Bruce Day]

I deleted my posts. The fellow asked about hunting loads, not clays loads, so I responded about hunting loads that I use and that I know that others use who are major collectors of Parkers. I have a 10ga Parker, but I prefer to carry the 16 for long walks after pheasant , as I am not fond of carrying an 8 lb gun, and I used the 16 for many years on ducks.

I am certainly no expert. I just like to hunt late season pheasant and a person should never do what I do.

[Pete Lester]

Todays light loads in terms of payload and velocity were hunting loads prior to the 1920's. From what I can tell they must have worked pretty good back then.

[Dave Suponski]

Geez Bruce if you post a reply that may spark some honest discussion why not just leave it there instead of deleting it. After all this is a DISCUSSION FORUM. I am sure that folks that read this stuff can make their own decisions and separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Bill Murphy]

Did Bruce do that again? That is most inconsiderate. As I recall, we once banned a poster for disruptive behavior that included many deletions of posts. That poster was also disrespectful to other posters!!

[Bruce Day]

We have been through this appropriate load business many times and I see no possible resolution to it. When a person asks what can he shoot I somehow have the idea that he should be shown the Parker recommendations about what his gun was patterned for, and the Parker load tables and the Parker service and proof load tables. That can be combined with a subjective recommendation about using low pressure loads for clays, but the objective statement is what Parker recommended and individual's subjective views may be the low presure recommendations. I personally reload low pressure for clays and usually shoot factory loads for hunting. On the other side are those who always say to shoot low pressure without mentioning what Parker recommended. I do not see the situation as resolvable, as I have posted photo after photo of Parker pattern tags, load tables, catalog tables, etc, all to no avail when a person asks what he can shoot and the answer is we all shoot low pressure loads.

[Eric Eis]

Bruce what people are saying, is when a "newbe" asks for advice go slow, it is much safer to recommend low presure loads (as you have not seen his gun) then to go off and tell him he is fine shooting long range max loads. You don't know the condition of the stock (and neither does he) so just because Parker said you could shoot X load through the gun the gun is now at least 70 years old and probably much more and the stock may or may not be able to take that kind of pressure. I know you have a lot of experience with these guns you can look at a stock and know right away what you can shoot through it but the guy asking the question has no idea so that's why everyone recommends low pressure loads to a newbe and after that you can treat your guns anyway you want but for the first time user it's better to be safe the sorry. Eric

[Bruce Day]

Then why don't why guys give such a new person the full explanation? Give him the load charts, the TPS service and proof tables, the catalog recommended loads. He says he has a 1930's D; I assume 12ga and you know as well as I do that those were almost always 1 1/2 frame, maybe a 2, with a 1 1/4oz at 3 1/4 dre per Parker hang tags, which is still under the service limits. That is a stout load and one can buy such shells from all the modern manufacturers.

Why must people presume that the stock is infirm, or that the barrels are thin? Why don't we just ask him? One of our new guys that was with me the other day showed me his new old GHE 12ga from the late 1920's. That gun will handle these reasonable modern loads. 1 1/2 frame, good barrels, great wood, even thicker than usual in the wrist. Why don't we give these guys the full story instead of maybe presuming that they are not capable of understanding Parker loads or recognizing that they have a cracked wrist or something else that would limit the gun?

Maybe we do a FAQ that carries the full explanation, with a subjective recommendation to use or reload for low pressure when a person doesn't need to use the full capabilities of the gun, but we have never been able to achieve any consensus on that.

To me its like a person saying he has has a nice old Corvette and people writing in and saying he shouldn't drive it over 60 mph.

[Dave Suponski]

OK, So I but a nice old Corvette...It looks pretty good so I stick the key in it and promptly take it up to 120 MPH...Seems silly to me. I think I would drive it for a while and see how it handles and such. Same thing with a new to me Parker.I understand that for the target games we don't really need to push the envelope on loads but the new technology developed by RST,Poly-Wad etc.has proven to me that I don,t need to use promo shells in my guns. I also understand that for long flushing Pheasant's and water foul you need loads that can reach out and touch them but I still don,t think that means 10,000 PSI shells. Bob Fabian, Scott and Pete Lesters home brewed stuff has proven that time and again.

[Bruce Day]

That's an interesting subjective view, but my guess is that a Parker gun owner might be capable of receiving and understanding what Parker said, listening to subjective views of others, and judging for himself. Maybe I've way overestimated the intelligence of a Parker owner but to me its not rocket science.

I guess I don't like the low pressure police approach and believe that a new Parker shooter is best served by a full explanation in which objective Parker statements are separated from various individuals' subjective recommendations. I generally shoot lower recoil loads because I see no reason to pound the gun or my shoulder, but there are times when I feel a need to use the full capabilities of the gun, and I will tell anybody that a Parker is very capable and I am not afraid of running full loads through my gun when I have hard to kill far out birds.

[Dave Suponski]

It has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with information and with shotshell technology changing ie: better patterning loads at a lower PSI why beat yourself and the gun up? I just don,t understand. Parker Brothers load data is very interesting from a historical stand point but there are too many unknowns for me to take it as gospel.I'll tell ya what you shoot what you want and so will I. But when the newcomer asks about recommended loads I will continue to explain that lesser is sometimes better.

[Bruce Day]

That's why the issue is unresolvable. To me its the difference between what Parker said and people's personal opinions. Nothing I can say or present will turn some folks from their opinions.

I'll continue to shoot low recoil loads most of the time and full loads when I need to late season and long shots.

[Bruce Day]

I just had a telephone conversation with Dean, whom I have high regard for and have always had much in common.

I told Dean an interesting anecdote. Last Tuesday hunting out in SW Kansas I was using a C Bernard 16 ga with 7/8oz #5 shot at about 1150 fps, a low pressure handload. I shot two pheasants from a fair distance , well knocked down, and lost both, never could find them, yet I got a good shot on them. I don't like to lose birds, yet most of us lost at least one bird that day, late season, hard feathers, long shots.

The next day I switched to my fluid steel P 16 with factory max 1 1/8 loads, then for the next two days did not lose a single bird. They were tough birds, one I hit in the head and body, it dropped both legs and flew for 200 yards, shedding feathers. Then it went straight up, typical of a head shot, and at the apex of its climb, dropped straight down dead, whereupon a hawk was on it immediately until Charlie got there before I did and chased it off. I feel that going to heavy and max loads made the difference and again, I hate losing shot birds.

To me, there are times when you need all the capabilities the gun will give you. Much of the time you can get away with reduced recoil loads, and to me reduced recoil means reduced shot load and/or speed from max. Sometimes I need all that I can get.

I think that Dean and I may be able to work out a FAQ answer that takes all that into effect and gives a complete answer to this question about "what can I shoot" that we get every couple weeks. The answer will deal with a check the condition of your gun issue also.

[scott kittredge]

try 6's all the time, i use 7/8ths oz 7's at 1100 in my 20 and 12 and it hit them hard out to 35 and 40 yds stone dead, remember these are shotguns not rifles. you can alway hit where you aim.i would just try smaller shot to fill in your patterns. i have shot geese out to 30 yds with 7/8ths oz bismuth 6's out of my tight choked 20( a 20 is not my goose hunting gun just in a pinch a few times:whistle:) and for them most part they are dead or not going any where. i load ALL my shell. i think the fastest FPS i shoot is 1250 1 1/4 bismuth out of a 2 frame 12 but for the most part i shoot between 1100 to 1190 fps and not to many hit birds go too far if any where at all :cool:

[Bruce Day]

I've shot hundreds of pheasant out here. I like #6 for close and #5 for farther, I feel that 5's carry energy better. The shotgun ballistic tables bear out that 5's retain energy better. Don't hunt many ducks, but that was my experience with ducks also except I would go to a 12ga for bigger than #5 shot. I think a 16 is pretty well maxed out for a good pattern with #5 shot. I use #6's on the quail we have out here, they don't die very easy either. These birds out here you have to hit hard to kill and if you don't they will crawl away and you can lose them.

By the way, I hunted SW Kansas at the end of Nov, guided really, and took back up shots except when I was the only hunter near the bird. I exclusively used the 7/8 oz #5 shot handloads and did not lose a single bird in three days, limiting out for three days running. Now my shooting didn't deteriorate that fast .....the difference was that it was later season and the birds were heavier feathered and got up farther away. Some of the Nov shots were long distance after being hit by others. That's why I was so frustrated in Jan to lose birds and went to max loads.

[Pete Lester]

to me reduced pressure means reduced shot load and/or speed from max. Sometimes I need all that I can get.



Not always so. Again reloading has it's advantages. Although the pressures are lower recoil is a function of force = mass x acceleration ie. they are still gonna kick and be rougher on the stock than a light load.

From the Hodgdon Reloading Center

Federal Gold Medal Hull = Lead Shot 12ga 1 1/4 oz. Longshot Powder 30.7gr Win. 209 primer Rem. R12L wad 7,700 PSI 1330 fps

Federal Gold medal Hull = Lead Shot 12ga 1 1/4oz. Longshot Powder 33.4gr Win. 209 primer, WAA12F114 wad 7,200 PSI 1385 fps

Federal High Power Hull = 16ga Lead Shot 1 1/8 oz. Longshot Powder 25gr Win. 209 primer Rem. SP16 wad 8,300 PSI 1240 fps I believe a 1 1/8 ounce 16ga is a magnum loading.

As far as birds go there is not a bird more tenacious to life than a Giant Canada Goose ('cept maybe an Ostrich and don't like the taste of Ostrich), those who have had to dispatch enough birds that came down with a broken wing will know. Again, right size shot, right choke and within the working range of the load and gun and light loads will knock the snot out of them.

[Bruce Day]

I've been having troubles reloading Fed 12s and 16s. Have MEC progressives for both. I'm getting primers sunk down too deep and therefore the hammers don't hit deep enough. Both have been expanding too much to eject and I've been pulling the shells out with the rim of another shell. The Feds load low pressure and my buddy Mike Koranda loves them but lately I've just been throwing them away after firing, and that includes those nice paper Feds. If I don't sink the primers down, then I can't pull the shells out of the turret. Rems and Wins I have had no problem with.

[Pete Lester]

Well then maybe these will work.

Winchester AA Hull = Lead Shot 12ga 1 1/4 oz. 800-X 27.5gr Rem. 209P primer Rem. SP12 wad 7,800 PSI 1275 fps

Winchester XPert Hull = Lead Shot 16ga 1 1/8 oz. SR 4756 23gr Rem. 209P Rem. SP16 wad 8,900 PSI 1150 fps

[Bruce Day]

Well, I'm sure they would, and I reload low recoil for clays shooting all the time. Love the 7/8 loads in 12 and 16 ga, and 3/4 loads in 20, but is there something wrong with my barrels that I don't know about that would limit my use of these guns?

Those reloading formulae that you are using mean low pressure for barrels, and are not lower recoil than commercially made similar loads, recoil being formulaic based upon the speed and weight of the ejecta. I think I have pretty good barrels and wouldn't even consider a gun without good barrels.

I think I was imprecise when I spoke of low pressure above. What I should have said was that to me low recoil means reduced shot load and or speed from max. As you recognize, low recoil and low pressure are different, but generally connected. Low recoil is easier on the gun and shoulder, low pressure easier on the barrel hoop stress. Low pressure can be managed by speed of burning of the components, low recoil only by shot and shot cup weight , the weight of the gas coming out of the barrels and the speed of everything upon exit.

[Pete Lester]

is there something wrong with my barrels that I don't know about that would limit my use of these guns?

I would say obviously not. However all Parkers have 70+ year old wood and many guns are 100+ plus years old. Stocks do not crack by themselves. Screws can be loosened by recoil. The contact points between receiver and stock very small and will not be getting bigger. To me the point here is, you don't need heavy loads for many applications so it is good advice to limit their use if and when possible. The benefits of lighter loads are numerous, often better pattern percentages, they can help stop bad habits like lifting one's head off the stock in anticipation of recoil, they stretch reloading dollars further. They will kill game and clays better than one would think possible especially if all one has shot before is modern guns and heavy loads. It is good general advice to use lighter loads in old doubleguns when possible including fluid steel Parker's.

[James Brown]

OK, so assume good road, good tires, just changed oil, checked transmission fluid and rear end grease, 357, four speed, four barrel, how fast can I go without creating too much pressure???

[Pete Lester]

OK, so assume good road, good tires, just changed oil, checked transmission fluid and rear end grease, 357, four speed, four barrel, how fast can I go without greating too much pressure???

Depends on whether you have 2 3/4" or short chambers :rotf:

[Bruce Day]

Pete, I absolutely agree and do shoot light recoil loads much of the time. But lets take for example the 1 1/4 1275 fps load you have above. The recoil formula doesn't care what pressure was generated by the slower burning 800x powder and I suspect without calculating that the recoil is about the same with that load as it is with for example a 1 1/4 commercial Fed Game Shoc load that runs about the same speed. With your load,the pressure for barrel hoop stress is likely less than the Fed commercial load. So again, cutting back the weight and speed of everything that comes out of the barrel is the only way to reduce recoil, and sometimes I feel that I want the max, and if I have a gun in good shape, why shouldn't I use it to its capabilities once in a while?

[Bruce Day]

OK, so assume good road, good tires, just changed oil, checked transmission fluid and rear end grease, 357, four speed, four barrel, how fast can I go without greating too much pressure???


Damn that's nice. But don't take it over 60mph. I'm sure you never do.

[Pete Lester]

and sometimes I feel that I want the max, and if I have a gun in good shape, why shouldn't I use it to its capabilities once in a while?

I don't believe I said you shouldn't. My point is the best advice to anyone new to a Parker shotgun is to be kind to it in all ways including use of lower pressure, lower recoil loads when possible recognizing most guns are sporting some old wood (wow now there's an opening) :)

[Bruce Day]

No you didn't say that. Maybe we can get together a FAQ response that will take into account facts that we know about capabilities yet at the same time provide subjective recommendations.

Those of us with old wood do not believe there are any diminished capabilities.:)

[Pete Lester]

Those of us with old wood do not believe there are any diminished capabilities.:)

Ah yes, better living through chemistry :rotf:

[Linn Matthews]

You can go fast until something breaks--and that is what the other guys are saying.

[Brent Francis]

I would have thought that what breaks your stock is the Force of the explosion which a function of mass time acceleration.
The velocity of the projectile is important but the time it takes to reach that velocity (acceleration) is More important. A slow burn that gets the shot to its max veloctiy near the muzzel will put much less force at the stock head than a fast burn that gets it there 6 inches in front of the shell. I am not sure but I think pressure may be more proportional to Force than inertia which is mass times velocity which I think you have been talking about.

[Brent Francis]

Just to clear up what I said: I think that pressure may be the important factor for both barrel and stock head (if i am right that it is proportional to Force. the ultimate muzzel velocity of the load is more important to the pheasant than the parker.

[Dean Romig]

With that 'vette I think you should worry more about not going so fast the chics can't hop right in :cool:

[Brent Francis]

In my day you had to squeal the tires to get their attention. Although I have to admit it never worked that well for me but then I didnt have a vette.

[Dean Romig]

Brent, I too, was thinking along the lines of slower burning powder in order to reduce recoil but not sacrificing velocity. Not being a reloader I don't know but it seems logical to me.

[Brent Francis]

yes based on my understanding of physics I think I will hunt with loads that maximize muzzel velocity and minimize pressure. I ve heard thats why the old guns had long barrels because the powders burned so slow they couldnt get adequate velocities with short barrels.

[George Lander]

Not to pirate this thread, but I often wondered about how long after April, 1912, when the RMS TITANIC went to her watery grave, did Parker cease using the name "TITANIC STEEL"

Just Curious, George

[David Holes]

Buy you a cheap mec reloader and build ya some huntin loads. Fed. paper , 800x powder, 1 1/8 payload 7.5 in the right and 5's in the left. They never knew what hitem.

[Francis Morin]

Not to pirate this thread, but I often wondered about how long after April, 1912, when the RMS TITANIC went to her watery grave, did Parker cease using the name "TITANIC STEEL"

Just Curious, George-- George, my good friend, I have often pondered that very same question- from a marketing standpoint, to have a grade of barrel steel with the name associated with probably the greatest Maritime fubar of all time--but I am NOT the "man in the gray flannel suit"

I think, from both a production and marketing point of view, the fine guns from AH Fox had a different and possibly more simplified approach. First Krupp "Flusstahl", comparable in process to the Sir Joseph Whitworth Fluid Compressed Steel from Britian- and Sterlingworth grade steel, after the US declared war on Germany following the Lusitania debacle, Fox developed Chromox steel- most likely a high nickel content with chromium and possibly vanadium alloys--

With a fairly solid background in TIG welding, I have a smattering of knowledge regarding metallurgy, both ferrous and non-ferrous metals. If this were feasible, I'd like to test the barrels on 12 gauge Parkers from Trojan through A-1-Special for analysis- my $ says --very little difference between Trojan and Peerless-- but marketing- "selling the sizzle with the steak" as the saying goes, prevailed!

I have read all the posts herein twice, most from folks I consider friends on our PGCA Forum, and I agree that spirited discussion is great, and much can be learned. What about those folks who may have inherited Uncle Gus's old shotgun- and it turns out to be a nice older GH he bought new in 1924, and shot everything including barnyard varmints and deer, plus scads of ducks and other game- They may not have a computer (my friend Buck Hamlin does not)and know of our group and the high % of very intelligent and serious students of "The Old Reliable"-- so they just buy their shells at Wally-Mart and shoot the Parker-- how do we reach them, and in a polite way, share the accumulated wisdom herein??

I have my ammo lockers set for: Express or 3" Mag Steel loads for water fowling, only used in the Model 12 12 gauges I own- a separate one for 20 gauge shells, and the main one with light 12 field loads- RST 2.5", Rem STS and Win AA- and 2 & 3/4 dram equiv- 1150 fps loads- Why? because I also own and shoot LC Smiths, most of which are pre-1913- and as Brother Lester so wisely pointed out- wood ages, moisture content changes, screws and through bolts can become loose (the last also a major detrimental factor to loss of accuracy in BA one pc. bedded stock rifles)--
So I am, by choice, a light load gunner- except for waterfowl steel loads anyway, as I won't stuff any LC Smith with a Rem Nitro Express 1 & 1/4 oz. load-or my GHE or PH Parkers--

As far as upland bird hunting, choice of loads for pheasants can depend (IMO anyway) of whether you hunt native or preserve birds, and over rock solid points or flushing breeds, and in early season or into the winter. Living in a bird rich area of the Sunflower State, I am sure Col. Day has shot a far greater number of birds than some of us have even seen. Where I live pheasants used to be fair in numbers, but that was 20 some years ago-strip farming, increase predator population or their existence in suburbs where it is unsafe to shoot them, may also be a cause.

Please allow me to close with a compliment, and I only reload for pistol and centerfire rifle varmint loads- not shotgun-- Bruce, if I didn't know that it was you who authored the posts in this fine thread on loads, I would have thought I was reading Tom Roster's books on same- You do know your stuff and do the research, no doubt about it..:bigbye::bigbye:

[Jack Cronkhite]

OK, so assume good road, good tires, just changed oil, checked transmission fluid and rear end grease, 357, four speed, four barrel, how fast can I go without creating too much pressure???

Totally stock, all good - 102-104 mph in the 1/4 mile 140 mph terminal tricked out a bit - 160 mph

source (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1965-corvette.htm)

[Dean Romig]

George, in answer to your question regarding the duration of the use of "Titanic Steel" barrels - Parker Bros. and subsequently, Remington, continued to use that terminology until sometime in the 1930's when Remington chose not to mark the top rib at all... to the best of my knowledge. However, Remington continued to use up any remaining Parker parts stock right to the end and I would imagine if they had ribs marked with a specific barrel steel, if it applied to the grade, they would use it.

[calvin humburg]

Or Ginger.

[Mark Ouellette]

Dean,

In theory slower burning, progressive powders do lessen felt recoil. The difference is most often not detectable by shooters. The gunstock may however greatly benefit from using a slower burning powder.

Shooters can however very easily detect the difference in recoil between X drams of black powder and X dram equivilent of any smokeless powder. Of course black powder explodes upon ignition and smokeless burns. Any physicists care to comment on this?

Mark

[calvin humburg]

Physicists well I don't if i'm one. But I do know that 4 drams of black and a oz. 1/4 of shot has a little recoil, may crack a stock that does not have proper grain through the wrist. One thing nice abought plain ol stright grain walnut it's tough. I use a load I got from Craig nice shootin load not heavy recoil. oz. 1/8 out of my ten. I haven't shot as many phesants as some but I have shot dove loads at phesants when I didn't have any thing else at the farm and killed birds seams to me people blaming shells on losing birds is kind of like blaming your horse win you miss a steer. Excuses are like -------- everybody got one. ch

[Bruce Day]

I think folks here often say low pressure ( which relates to barrel hoop stress) when they mean low recoil ( which relates to the pounding the gun and your shoulder take). A low pressure load slows the powder burn and ignition rate so the hoop stress is spread over more distance of the barrel. TPS has the barrel pressure service and proof load pressures.

Low recoil means less whack on the gun and you. The recoil formula considers only the weight and velocity of what comes out the barrel end. You want less recoil, you select less shot or less speed. Perceived recoil takes the weight and configuration of the gun into effect. Heavy gun, straighter stock, recoil pad, make the gun kick less. The Parker catalog tables show what Parker recommended for loads and gun weight.

I'm no shotgun ballistics expert but I've read a bit and shot a bit and if I can grasp the essentials anyone can. It ain't rocket science.

Now Calvin, this isn't my first rodeo, and I know the horse has to get you there and keep you there for you to have a chance at the steer. I guess if maybe one shotshell load would do everything there would be no need for all the various loads the ammunition companies make. Maybe they have been mistaken for the last 100 years?

A curious observation: lots of gun guys are adamant about their personal freedoms, freedom of speech, gun rights, etc. They don't want anybody telling them what to do. Yet when somebody asks what they CAN shoot, they answer with what they SHOULD shoot. They seem to want to tell folks their personal preferences rather than what the manufacturer said, as if the manufacturer was wrong and they know better. And woe be to the fellow who disagrees with their personal preferences, because they are wrong , wrong, wrong, or stupid and should be banned from owning a Parker. Or they seem to want to assume the guy has a beat up cracked up thinned barrel gun when they don't even ask. Just seems to me, and I'm no expert at all, that maybe the guy deserves a complete answer?

Bruce (usually shoots low recoil loads but sometimes full loads) Day

[Eric Eis]

Hey JD how about closing this thread... It's getting real old. Eric

[Bruce Day]

Hey Eric, I know when I don't want to look at something any more, I don't look at it anymore. I do that instead of asking somebody else to prevent me or anybody else from looking at it anymore. But maybe that is a personal freedom matter that folks are not capable of handling.

[Eric Eis]

There you go Bruce "flame me " if you want, I am just getting real tired of you trying to prove you are the only person that is "right". :bowdown: So now I will bow out of this thread.. Eric

[Dean Romig]

This thread may or may not have 'run its course' but I think we are gathering some good information that will help us expand FAQ #32 which I'm sure even Ribin will agree is lacking a lot of very accurate and useful information that probably everybody can benefit from. But a lot of the information in the is there for the "newbies" especially so when useful information is added to FAQ #32 is will be fact and not opinion. A lot of very useful facts have been posted on this thread and more is likely to surface here so I don't think this thread should be closed.

[Eric Eis]

If usefull facts are being found in this thread then I will take back my "close this thread". I'll just stay out of the fray. Eric

[Pete Lester]

In a nutshell the way I see things it's a question; should the brand new owner of a Parker shotgun, one who is unfamiliar with classic doubles, treat it like an off the shelf Remington 870, Ruger O&U and the like WRT ammunition or should they recognize it is an antiquity and in some regards MAY be more fragile. I think the majority opinion here is to treat it more gently. One could say or reference that many members of this group have and do shoot modern heavy loads through many solid Parker's and have for many years without incident. In turn it can also be stated that many members here have enjoyed a great performance on clays and game using light loads. In all cases prior to shooting their new to them Parker it should be evaluated by a knowledgable and competent gunsmith. The advice to keep one's loads light remains good advice on the side of caution but the choice of ammunition for a sound gun is personal.

[Francis Morin]

Just one final thought, as I consider most all of the gents who have posted herein to be Parker friends--we don't want to see our PGCA Forum turn into the aparent nastiness if not downright rudeness we can see on other double gun oriented (but not paid membership) forums. No good can come of that.

I read with great interest Calvin's post and his comment about 'excuses" being a lot like noses, we all seem to have one. This can surface just as well in a bowling alley on league night, on a 18 hole golf course, as well as on a SC, skeet or trap field.

It's human nature to want to make every shot count, and especially on the game birds we hunt in season, we all want clean kills and no cripples to escape and feed the "Airborne Prize Patrols" either.

So if we miss clean or pull feathers from a hauling-bass Rooster in a heavy wind, and we are using a shotgun with which we are quite familiar, we wonder "Howcome"--and think perhaps about choke or shotload changes. No man hits 100% of what he shoots at with any shotgun, just as you don't sit all night at the poker table and hit full houses and four of a kind hands one after the other-

The other day I was out on a river after late season Geese- M12 3" and Federal steel BB's- four came banking around the bend, and flared, I shot about three neck lengths ahead of the lead bird (est 25 yard overhead shot, he never slowed down a hair- but the third bird in the formation shuddered in mid-flight and I hit him dead center with the second shot- a lesson to be learned every time we venture afield. My waterfowling mentor as a lad, besides my Grandfather, father and uncles- shot a 30" Full M1897 Pigeon Grade for everything, including box pigeons for dinero (but not Capt. Harold Money, alas) one told me that if you get one dead in hand duck for every three shells, you are way above average (including finishing crips) and one mallard for two shells- you are in the expert ranks.

[Bruce Day]

In a nutshell the way I see things it's a question; should the brand new owner of a Parker shotgun, one who is unfamiliar with classic doubles, treat it like an off the shelf Remington 870, Ruger O&U and the like WRT ammunition or should they recognize it is an antiquity and in some regards MAY be more fragile. I think the majority opinion here is to treat it more gently. One could say or reference that many members of this group have and do shoot modern heavy loads through many solid Parker's and have for many years without incident. In turn it can also be stated that many members here have enjoyed a great performance on clays and game using light loads. In all cases prior to shooting their new to them Parker it should be evaluated by a knowledgable and competent gunsmith. The advice to keep one's loads light remains good advice on the side of caution but the choice of ammunition for a sound gun is personal.



If a FAQ answer could be put together along those lines, I'd be happy. And if the answer could reference Parker load tables, even happier.

[Mark Ouellette]

Why not copy (with permission) the Parker Load Tables from The Parker Story and put on the facts page?

[Robin Lewis]

:dh:Ok, I'll chime in and ask what specifically is incorrect with FAQ 32?

When I wrote it, I wrote it speaking to a novice Parker owner who asks the question because he wants to be safe and not damage the gun. I also wrote it without endorsing any ammunition product because I do not think the FAQ area is a place for endorsements of one product over another.

And most importantly, I tried to write it in a manor that doesn't open the PGCA up to litigation. This forum is full of personal discussion and opinion but in my thinking the FAQ area is more of an official PGCA area and we need to be careful on what we recommend there.

Sure, I have pumped heavy loads through my Parker when hunting and I shot nothing else when I was younger; I didn't know I had other selections, I just went to the store and grabbed a box of shells and headed off to hunt. I still may push "factory express" loads while shooting at a bird or two but not when I shoot a hundred rounds on the clays field.

If we want to bring history into this FAQ and post old statistics, I would ask, does this possibly open the liability door? And if so, to what purpose do we strive that we accept the added risk that some novice makes a mistake based on that information?

Any changes to the FAQ will take these areas into consideration. As you focus in on what you want to add, please keep this in mind.

I welcome any changes that will improve the web site and will make them as needed.

Thanks for all your help!

[Mark Ouellette]

Robin,

It seems as people want to know specifics such as maximum pressure that a Parker can withstand. As Bruce has often advised, Page 515 of The Parker Story provides a guide for working pressures. It is understandable why the PGCA would not want to advise shooters without first inspecting each and every gun! Obviously that would be impossible. I included this in a new thread since this one has wandered from it's initial point.

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p307/Chesador/Parker%20Paper/1899ParkerLoads.jpg

--

If you want to read the words I retyped them in the new thread.

Mark

PS: Below is Fact #32:

Your Parker isn't new, it may look new but it isn't. It was made at best, decades ago, if not a century ago. Many advancements in metallurgy and gun powder have been made over all those years. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect a fine old Parker to withstand the same punishing standards that current manufactures expect from today's finest doubles.
Parker shotguns were made with several chamber lengths; have your Parker checked and shoot only the correct length, or shorter length, shot shells. In its day, articles were written that Parker shotguns actually patterned better shooting shot shells longer than the chamber size. The logic was that the "role crimp" would open into the barrel increasing pressure and improve shot patterns. That may or may not have been true but today's star crimp shells will certainly open further into the barrel and in conjunction with today's powders create much higher pressures.

Metal may fatigue as a result of age and oil soaked wood will be weakened. Shooting modern, heavy commercial hunting loads in these old guns have been the cause of many cracked or broken stock wrists.

There are several manufactures that have recognized a market for shooters of older shotguns; who's owners want to "take it easy" on the older gun but also want it to perform well both on the range and in the field. Search these manufacturers out; buy and shoot the correct length shells in your Parker.

Keep the pressures low and your Parker will last another century.

[Dean Romig]

Robin, There is nothing "incorrect" in FAQ 32. I think what you have written there is very good but appears not to satisfy some readers.
And I can't speak to liability issues but there seems to be a general opinion that information such as that in Mark's post and original hang tag information without endorsement by the PGCA while we continue to caution the reader to have his gun inspected by a qualified Parker gunsmith or expert as to its condition and shootability... should satisfy most interested parties.

Dean

[Robin Lewis]

OK, how about FAQ #33?

Mark, does the table match what you could read. The fractions are very hard to read!

[Mark Ouellette]

Robin,

Pete was able to double the size and repost the add with the table. I still can't tell if the fractions are 1/2 or 1/4 oz but it gets us in the ballpark.

http://parkerguns.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3266

Mark

[Christopher Lien]

http://www.webpak.net/~dslcslien/1BADH3.gif . http://www.webpak.net/~dslcslien/1BADH3.gif

They are shotgun shells, educate yourself, know your gun, and make the best choice for you.

A "357" under the hood of a mid-60's Vette?... That's a new one on me...:corn:

Best, CSL
_________________________________

[James Brown]

CSL You are correct. I hit wrong number. It should be 327/250. Thanks
James

[Dean Romig]

A 357? What's so odd about that? Keeping one under the hood however, isn't easily accessible.... why not keep it under the seat??

[James Brown]

Probably should be on passenger seat, help keep the "Chicks" at bay. Cause if one got in, "she who must be obeyed" would have me OUT. My post was not in any way meant to misdirect this thread, just a sorta feeble attempt at a humorous response to the "vette" analogy.
James

[Christopher Lien]

My post was not in any way meant to misdirect this thread, just a sorta feeble attempt at a humorous response to the "vette" analogy.
James
______________________________

James,

Your response to the "vette" analogy was the Best part of this thread...http://www.webpak.net/~dslcslien/Zthumbsup.gif

Best, CSL
_________________________

[John Dunkle]

...Your response to the "vette" analogy was the best part of this thread......You can say that again...

;)

John

[Dean Romig]

My post was not in any way meant to misdirect this thread, just a sorta feeble attempt at a humorous response to the "vette" analogy.
James

Yup, me too James :)

[Rich Anderson]

Here's my 2 cents worth:whistle: More people are getting into not only Parkers but vintage doubles as a whole. Most of these folks I would imagine are used to shooting a more modern gun and with the accessability of the internet find themselves here on our forum. Obviously the question is asked "what is approiate to shoot in Grampas Parker"? We know the different schools of thought regarding the anser. My problem with the ansers is that they are given freely with no knowledge of the condition of the gun, it might be a wall hanger and an RST low pressure shell blows it up. IMHO the only anser is "I/we can't advise you on that as the condition of your gun isn't known". "You need to have it inspected by a competant gunsmith with knowledge about this type of firearm". In todays society where the victim get sued for being a victim we are opening ourselves up to liability.

I'm more of a Grouse hunter and a low pressure shell works fine. I can freely use them between fluid steel and damascuss barreled guns without worry. Some day I would love to hunt Pheasant, Huns ect on the Great Plains. If that would occur I'd match the gun to the game,I bought a DHE 12 just in case;). I would no more shoot 1 1/8 oz out of an 0 frame 16 than I'd hunt an Elk with a 270. Can it be done sure but to me late season Pheasants are a 12ga bird with suitable shot in #4,5,6 and I prefer my 338 for the Elk:bigbye:

[Mike McKinney]

Possibly, provided our goal is to educate the undeducated, either in an additional FAQ or added verbiage approriately in an existing FAQ, a definitive mention of the difference between low power and low pressure loads could be mentioned and described. Not being a student, or a reloader, I had no idea there was a difference until my interest went to the antique guns. Maybe this is too elementary but I can tell you for sure I would have thought they were one and the same.
Mike

[John Dunkle]

Here's my 2 cents worth:whistle: More people are getting into not only Parkers but vintage doubles as a whole. Most of these folks I would imagine are used to shooting a more modern gun...

Your thinking and mine are much aligned... Here is my reply in a different thread:

http://parkerguns.org/forums/showpost.php?p=32548&postcount=11

It's in this thread:
http://parkerguns.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3266 - which was spawned from this thread...?

But - what do I know? I enjoy my Parkers without hurting them - or even hurting me. I'll always defer to folks who profess to know more than everyone else - or at least "me" - and post as much.

Is what it is, I guess?

John

[Austin W Hogan]

Shooters generally rank loads on a shotgun by chamber pressures found in catalogs and loading guides. Pressure induces stress on barrel and breech, but the weight of shot produces the stress on other componenents. It is possible to compare stress from gauge to gauge by comparing the length of the shot column; an equal length shot column produces the same force on a gun of any gauge.
Some people talk about a "square" load, which is a shot column as long as the diameter of the bore. The attached table is based on sparse data from order books, hang tags and ammunition catalogs but it appears consistent. It appears that King preferred loads of less than .8 bore diameter length for Parkers. There are some exceptions but they are small; for example the 1 1/4 ounce 12 ga live bird competition load.
The loads of length less than .8 bore diameter are shown in red on the table.

Best, Austin

[John Dunkle]

Shooters generally rank loads on a shotgun by chamber pressures found in catalogs and loading guides. Pressure induces stress on barrel and breech, but the weight of shot produces the stress on other components. ...
Thank you Sir.. I added emphasis to exactly my point - and apparently yours..

Thank you,

John

[Dean Romig]

Austin, from what we've read and heard the "square load" and those of column length of .8 of the bore diameter produce the best patterns as well as less stress on the gun and the shooter's shoulder too. Thanks for the chart.

[calvin humburg]

Bruce, If your horse don't give you a good shot whos fault is it? If your shotgun don't kill the bird is it the shells fault? Was my only point. And if you believe everything manufactures tell you you got a house full of stuff you don't need! Fransis thanks you got my point! everybody got a nose:) The other day I was down to one shell so I thought I needed to pratice left barrel first shooting so a fez gets up and right barrel goes click and I flinched so bad my pup was laughing and ol BoJack wouldn't make eye contact because he was embarresed for me. I'm far from perfect and I know it. I have fun hunting, birds or no birds and if we lose one one of my companions on the great plains will eat him they need an easy one once and a while. we don't have a preadetor problem out here plenty for everybody. and Eric I will bow out as well. best ch and somebody tells me they can tell the diff between 5 and 6 shot I'll wonder wonder wonder who, who wrote the........ and i thank you all because win I need something i can ask on of you guys what to do and i don't have to have to try to figure out thoes tables and mathmatical figures.

[calvin humburg]

Bruce, If your horse don't give you a good shot whos fault is it? If your shotgun don't kill the bird is it the shells fault? Was my only point. And if you believe everything manufactures tell you you got a house full of stuff you don't need! Fransis thanks you got my point! everybody got a nose:) The other day I was down to one shell so I thought I needed to pratice left barrel first shooting so a fez gets up and right barrel goes click and I flinched so bad my pup was laughing and ol BoJack wouldn't make eye contact because he was embarresed for me. I'm far from perfect and I know it. I have fun hunting, birds or no birds and if we lose one one of my companions on the great plains will eat him they need an easy one once and a while. we don't have a preadetor problem out here plenty for everybody. and Eric I will bow out as well. best ch and somebody tells me they can tell the diff between 5 and 6 shot I'll wonder wonder wonder who, who wrot the........ and i think all of u because win i have a qustion i can ask you fellows and i don't have to try figure out thoes tables and mathmatical figures.

[Francis Morin]

I sure do enjoy your posts and answers- they can brighten up a man's day like a home-made pie from Aunt Bea herself--and I'm glad you caught my drift on the "nose' business--we need to remember that when we invent excuses for missing an easy shot- usually it is a mechanical problem- a loose nut behind the stock group- so to speak--

And I wonder, wonder-wonder- let me guess here- the rest is "Who wrote the book of love" maybe? No big deal, I just love trivia and history quizzes is all.

The difference between No 5 shot and No 6 (lead shot) is one thousands of an inch bigger for the No. 5- old easy formulae (and not Pi R squared)-- take 17 and subtract the number of the shot size- if you are shooting No. 2 shot- your pellets are (in theory) 15 thousands of an inch in dia. We all know that shot when it leaves the muzzle and the shot cup falls away, not all fly true, not all stay round- ballistics for smoothbore weapons, is NOT an exact science- but folks like Tom Roster and others have sure worked hard to make it close to that--

As I mentioned the old Pi R Squ. theorm- here's a Jeff Foxworthy spin on that puppy--I kinda liked it-- Little Tommy comes home from grade school and at the dinner table, his Pappy asks him: "Well, Son, what did they learn you today in school?" "Math-e-matics, Pa" was the lad's reply--- Huum, says the father-"Math-E-matics, what sorta learnin' is that?" "Well, Pa, we learned that Pi R Square today!"-- "Horsefeathers, said the father, any danged fool knows that Pie are Round, it's johnny cake and cornbread are Square!"" Bon Appetit!!:bigbye::bigbye::cool:

[calvin humburg]

you darn tootin Francis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats me in the last paragraph and darn proud of it.

[Eric Eis]

Yeah I know I said I would leave this thread but (Ok I lied)... But I think this thread on the Doublegun is pretty much what we have all been talking about.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=213193#Post213193

Eric

[Jack Cronkhite]

any danged fool knows that Pie are Round, it's johnny cake and cornbread are Square!

Sometimes, pie are squared

http://www.unf.edu/~mmeyers/images/other/Piday2010.jpg