Steel Shot in Parkers

[Bruce Day]

A person who is open minded might want to look at the Tom Roster article about using steel shot that is in the latest issue of Shooting Sportsman.

Some time ago, I had cited Roster's determinations about steel shot being fully encapsulated by modern shot cups and prevented from barrel contact. To put it mildly, my statements about the Roster findings were not well received and were met with comments about mental competance and whether I should be institutionalized , but now we have Roster making the comments himself in public print rather than me saying what he had said privately.

My earlier comments were limited to the barrel wear/erosion issue, and not whether a person could or should shove the extreme heavy high speed sky buster anti aircraft cartridges in his precious Parker.

Food for thought.

[Dean Romig]

I haven't read the article yet but does he address the issue, not of barrel scrubbing that most people seem to worry about, but of the fact that steel and other hard shot will not compress where it contacts other shot (as lead will) as well as the constriction of the choke and is only cushioned by the (maybe too thin) shot cup as the shot ball is forced into that constriction? It seems to me that this would be (over the short term) the matter for greatest concern and is the premise upon which the fear of bulging at the chokes (ring bulges) is founded upon? (was that a question?)

[Destry L. Hoffard]

And here we go again......

Bruce you just don't know when to shut up.

[John Dunkle]

To quote Mr. Tom Roster in context, one must understand there was much more to his statements. To quote the passage (and emphasis added where applicable to Parker and other vintage, fixed choked shotguns). Reference: Nienke Beintema, UNEP/AEWA Secretariat (2002)

"There is no longer any issue concerning bore erosion as long as any pellet type harder than lead is contained in a properly designed shotcup system," explains Tom Roster of CONSEP, the internationally active Cooperative North American Shotgunning Education Program. "As far as slight bulging 'damage' to chokes or choke tubes is concerned," Roster says, "only steel shot, cheap steel, tungsten-iron shot, and Hevi-Shot are issues. Even here the so-called damage is either cosmetic or avoidable by proper use of the gun." The risk of this barrel expansion, or ring bulge, is larger with increased tightness of the choke, increased shot size, use of very old or light-barreled guns, and use of High Performance Shot (which increases shot velocity).

Hope this helps...

John

[Dean Romig]

Thanks John. My thoughts are that in an older gun such as our Parkers, Foxes, Smiths, Lefevers, etc., we would be wise to heed that highlighted caption. Some of the barrel wall thicknesses we've read of on the forum here might not fare very well under such steel shot loads in the conditions mentioned there. Just my take anyhow...

[Destry L. Hoffard]

What all this really means is that anybody with good sense won't shoot steel in a vintage shotgun unless it's just some old beater piece of crap they don't care about. Notice I said, anybody with good sense......

Destry

[Dave Suponski]

Yup, We can move on now.

[John Dunkle]

As quoted in an article authored by George Trulock and Jerrod Trulock (Trulock Choke)

"...However, the fact that steel shot exerts much more stress on choke tubes has not changed. The problem is that steel shot is much harder than lead. It will transmit much more energy to the choke when it strikes the conical portion and if the tube is not of sufficient strength it will cause it to deform... And - he was referring to MODERN CHOKES IN MODERN GUNS - not vintage shotguns...

I'm guessing the Trulocks should know...

[Bruce Day]

No, you need to read the whole article. I think Roster addresses many issues. As I said, my initial statements about steel were limited in scope to the barrel erosion and scratching issue. My point is to view the issue with an open and inquiring mind. Obviously, as indicated above, some people are not able to do that and they bring up issues beyond the narrow issue. Each of those can be addressed in my opinion if a person has an open mind.

The problem is discussing matters when people launch personal attacks. I've found that when people are unable intellectually to consider other views or matters outside their thinking, they react by personal attacks.

[John Dallas]

I have never met anyone who has witnessed the bulging of any gun barrel (old or new) with current steel shot size 5 or smaller, shot through a modified or looser choke. I continue to believe that the warnings put out by the gun companies were by the same lawyers who now insist on 10 pound trigger pulls on rifles

[John Dunkle]

What Browning says about using Steel Shot in any of their older (Belgian) A5s, Superposed, Leige, and other Belgian Over/Under models, Double Automatic, American-made A-5 regardless of fixed choke:

DO NO USE ANY STEEL SHOT LOADS

[John Dunkle]

....I continue to believe that the warnings put out by the gun companies were by the same lawyers who now insist on 10 pound trigger pulls on rifles I don't believe Tom Roster was a lawyer or a "gun company". I'm pretty certain Nienke Beintema is not either, either. I am fully certain that neither Mr. George Trulock and Mr. Jerrod Trulock are neither lawyers, either - but do manufacture chokes for multiple manufacturers firearms, so probably might know a "wee bit more"?

Hope this helps,

John

[Destry L. Hoffard]

But the point is why run the risk? You might shoot 1000 rounds and not have any trouble, then one day....

I still think of the family LC Smith that a friend bulged behind the choke shooting #4 shot. And all the other old guns I saw absolutely ruined by shooting steel. Sure it was years ago, but if you'd seen some of them you still wouldn't do it even today.

There are too many other options, maybe a lot more expensive, but still workable. I probably shoot more shells at ducks in a season than any other regular on the BBS and I'm just a poor working stiff. Yet I still never have had to resort to shooting steel shot through any of my vintage guns and I've been shooting ONLY vintage guns at waterfowl for over 15 years now.

When I think of sliding my big #3 frame, 34 inch, DHE with those tight long range chokes out of the case and dumping a couple steel shells in it I just cringe. Not going to happen, at least while I'm still breathing and own the gun.

What really cracks me up is that this has become this huge bandwagon for Bruce to ride on. He's not even really a duck hunter, he's said on here that he probably doesn't shoot maybe a couple boxes of shells at ducks in a season. Last year I shot three cases at least, maybe more! And Bruce is a lawyer of some kind, so I'm sure he makes a lot more money than I do. Why is he so worried about spending a few more bucks on a couple boxes of shells anyway? It's not about getting information out there, it's about Bruce feeling like he was beaten in a conversation and wanting to continue to spread bad information out of spite.

All that being said, I don't care if anybody wants to shoot steel out of a vintage gun. If you want to do it, more power to you. But don't say it's perfectly fine on a public vintage gun forum where any novice might read it and think you actually knew what you were talking about.


Destry

[Bruce Day]

It might be helpful for people to actually read the current Shooting Sportsman Roster article before saying what it says and doesn't say. I may be wrong , but it just seems to me that is a way to have a more enlightened discussion.

[John Dunkle]

Folks can read what they want - and shoot whatever they want in their own Parkers... From my end - and I'm no lawyer nor gun manufacturer.. To John Dallas - I've seen a lot of barrel bulges in vintage firearms where they thought shooting steel was "OK"..

So - sure - shoot whatever you want, read whatever you want, believe whatever you want - it's fine by me and you sure don't need my permission to do so...

If you want enlightened discussion about the effect of steel on barrel erosion - well, then that's another thing.. I could add to that, but frankly - when folks brought in their wreaked vintage shotgun with a bulged barrel where the choke started constriction - I really didn't take the time to notice if steel had eroded that tube in addition to wreaking the gun...

Or - I could tell you about the time someone else walked in - who had a FULL choke in a MODERN gun - and shot a steel load out of it? Stripped the choke right out of the barrel - and bulged what was left of the barrel 1/2" from the muzzle... BUT - what the heck do I know..

Shoot what you want - they are your guns!

John

[Eric Eis]

Bruce this is what I have said before: :banghead:

"All that being said, I don't care if anybody wants to shoot steel out of a vintage gun. If you want to do it, more power to you. But don't say it's perfectly fine on a public vintage gun forum where any novice might read it and think you actually knew what you were talking about."


Destry is right, saying this on a public forum where some novice goes to Walmart and buys the cheapest steel shot available (I know you wouldn't) who don't any know better and shoots it and possibly ruins a fine vintage gun. You want to shoot steel fine but don't go out and say it on a public forum

John D I do know of a very nice light framed Lefever 16 ga that got ring bulged shooting number 6's in a light Mod. barrel, it can happen, and yes they were cheap loads but he was told it would be ok .....

[calvin humburg]

I just bought some nice shot its harder than I expected. I couldn't dent it with my teeth. How do the gamewardens check realoades for lead or no tox?

[Destry L. Hoffard]

Calvin,

Really premium magnum lead shot is hard to dent with your teeth too. NiceShot is fine in old guns, been lots of testing on that account.

Wardens use an electronic tool that tests the density of the shot in the shells. They drop the shell in there and it tells them what type of shot it contains. NiceShot is almost exactly the same density as lead and will sometimes read lead with the device. I had a fairly tense discussion with a warden in Canada when I had some of the experimental NiceShot loads from RST out to test them. He was a reasonable man and everything ended up fine, I later ran into him again and he'd actually gone to the trouble to do a little online research. He'd read up on it in case he ran onto the problem again.


Destry

[Bruce Day]

I understand that the possibility of ring bulges exists in any barrels , particularly thinner barrels, if large diameter hard shot is used with tight chokes , regardless of the composition of the shot. I've seen ring bulges from lead and I'm sure they can occur with steel also.

I would not be surprised to learn that many Parker ring bulges resulted from lead buckshot loads.

Bursts and bulges can occur for all sorts of reasons not attributable to the composition of the shot material. I witnessed a barrel burst from a light lead RST load and I have also witnessed barrels not burst or ring bulge even when grossly overpressure loads were used. The issue to look into the issues in a careful and rational manner. I thought the Roster article was interesting, but each to his own.

[Christopher Lien]

The problem is discussing matters when people launch personal attacks. I've found that when people are unable intellectually to consider other views or matters outside their thinking, they react by personal attacks.

---------------------------------------------

This is about the time when Bruce indirectly starts referring to people who don't agree with his opinions as Pigs & Skunks and then he exits.... How that recent Bruce comment and personal insult/attack to several people on another thread was allowed to stand when others were removed is still a mystery to me...

CSL
______________________
.

[John Dunkle]

...How that recent Bruce comment and personal insult/attack to several people on another thread was allowed to stand when others were removed is still a mystery to me... That would be a mystery to me as well - as only two people on the forum can "remove" posts.

I would be "one of them".

Jeff would be the "other one".

Best to you,

John

[Destry L. Hoffard]

Bruce is quick with the edit these days, particularly since Dunkle changed the edit function on here. *chuckles*

I've wished Bruce would actually exit for years now, but he seems to keep coming back. I remember the forum in it's pre-Day days when we actually had fun. Now everything is all Bruce all the time, every post every thread. Guess when you have hunting buddies in high places you get more latitude than others.


Destry

[Eric Eis]

I understand that the possibility of ring bulges exists in any barrels , particularly thinner barrels, if large diameter hard shot is used with tight chokes , regardless of the composition of the shot. I've seen ring bulges from lead and I'm sure they can occur with steel also.

I would not be surprised to learn that many Parker ring bulges resulted from lead buckshot loads.

Did you read my post ?............ I did not refer to large diameter shot or buckshot, it was number 6 shot through a light Mod barrel, yes he was new to vintage guns but was told by a friend that he could shoot steel maybe it was a one in hundred chance, but why take the chance...? And to put it on a public forum....:crying: do what you want to your guns but don't be telling people it's ok and "no problem" and then they go out and buy some cheap steel shot loads the may damage thier gun.... what will you say to them then ? :cuss:

Man I am tired of this discussion !

[Bruce Day]

Barrels ring bulge or burst from all sorts of reasons not connected with shot material . I found the Roster article interesting and thought provoking. If people don't want to be thought provoked, don't even look at it.

My own personal experience with shooting steel shot from vintage guns is limited, but it is intriging. I've shot some small shot steel, 7 shot , and about a box of No. 6 from an IC bored 12ga Parker with thick barrels and many boxes of all sizes from my old Mod 1912 12ga with Mod choke and nickle steel barrel. I never noticed any problem, no erosion, no streaking, nothing different. When I heard what Roster was saying about he developed the sturdy shot cups for Remington that fully protected the barrel bore, it became more interesting. That's my experience, others may have different experiences and people will make their own decisions.

If a person is tired of the discussion and their headbone is hurting, well, you know, maybe they don't need to read it? Just saying that there are alternatives.

[Christopher Lien]

That would be a mystery to me as well - as only two people on the forum can "remove" posts.

I would be "one of them".

Jeff would be the "other one".

Best to you,

John
=======================

Well John, You edited someone else's post calling it a personal attack, and then left Bruce's insulting Pigs & Skunks post to everyone reading the (Parker by Peter Johnson) thread to stand without edit... I guess you had your reasons....

Best To You, CSL
________________________
.

[Destry L. Hoffard]

Roster also just said in an article that you couldn't shoot crows with lead shot anymore. Yeah, that's wrong too.....

Destry

[Eric Eis]

Barrels ring bulge or burst from all sorts of reasons not connected with shot material . I found the Roster article interesting and thought provoking. If people don't want to be thought provoked, don't even look at it.

Very true Bruce but if you had read my post, you may have read that it was #6 steel shot out of a light mod. choke, guess I can't spell it out any better then that.... Was it cheap shells probably with poor shot cup probably, but you come on here and state it is ok to shoot steel through any gun if the chokes are less then full choke and the gun is sound. Bad advice...!

[John Dunkle]

=======================

Well John, You edited someone elses post calling it a personal attack, and then left Bruce's insulting post to everyone reading the thread to stand without edit... I guess you had your reasons....

Best To You, CSL
________________________
.

Well, Chris,

Can you show me the post where Bruce mounted a personal attack on Destry? If I missed it - I'll fix it...

Best to you,

John

[John Dunkle]

=======================

Well John, You edited someone else's post calling it a personal attack, and then left Bruce's insulting Pigs & Skunks post to everyone reading the (Parker by Peter Johnson) thread to stand without edit... I guess you had your reasons....

Best To You, CSL
________________________
.

And oh...

Make no mistake, Chris...

You said I "removed" posts? If I "remove posts" - I tell people why...

If I "edit" posts - I do so in public - and state "why" for all to see...

Careful of your stating how this forum is "Administered", fair enough?

Best to you,

John

[Bruce Day]

I've always enjoyed Destry's hunting posts. I think he has a real touch for waterfowling and its history and I appreciate his love for traditional waterfowling and fowling guns.

And Chris, I have always admired your historic photo collection and believe that you two provide positive contributions to the PGCA.

Let me know if there is any way I can help either of you. I don't do much waterfowling, but I get some interesting fowling opportunities. Chris, I'm not a collector of old photos, but if I run across something significant, I'll connect you.

[Christopher Lien]

Well, Chris,
Can you show me the post where Bruce mounted a personal attack on Destry? If I missed it - I'll fix it...

Best to you,

John
----------------------------------------

No, --- I've already pointed out to you the personal attack/insult Bruce mounted on others with his parting shot when people did not agree with him... It's been obvious to most folks here for quite sometime how this works, it is what it is... Many folks still remember the John Browning thread...

Best, CSL
______________________

[Christopher Lien]

And oh...

Make no mistake, Chris...

You said I "removed" posts? If I "remove posts" - I tell people why...

If I "edit" posts - I do so in public - and state "why" for all to see...

Careful of your stating how this forum is "Administered", fair enough?

Best to you,

John

----------------------------

John, You have miss quoted me, I said you edited a post, and I said that you removed comments from a post... I never said you "removed posts"... Go back and read it...

It's your world John, Do as you like...

Best, CSL
____________________________________

[John Dunkle]

Have a great night, Chris! If I took your last two posts in this thread with any credence, then there would be two of us.

Best to you,

John

[Bill Murphy]

As Chris knows, I am inclined to hit the print button when things get hot on the PGCA forum. I just compared my printed copy of the Peter Johnson thread to the computer version. In John's defense, I don't find any difference. If there was such an unacceptable post, Bruce probably edited or deleted it within the time period allowed. I am still apalled, as is Chris and Destry, that any of our members would send emails to Bruce comparing him to a pig or whatever. Bruce's work with Boy Scouts and the "March" is to be commended.

[Destry L. Hoffard]

This thread is a perfect example of why Bruce ruins so much of what goes on here. As I said, I remember the old days and the fun we used to have. There's half a dozen former regulars, people who were actually interesting, that won't post anymore strictly because of what he says and does. Friends in high places.....

DLH

[John Dunkle]

Thank you, Bill... I have to admit - I am not perfect - and yep - sometimes I miss something. But when I get "hot under the collar", I'm usually pretty sure I'm on "good footing" - or try to be. And by the way - folks really - really have no idea what it is like to try to Admin a Forum like this.... Someday, you can ask Bruce, Destry - and many more - what it is like to be on the receiving end of a PM, phone call or e-mail if I believe they have stepped "over the line" on this forum..

It's not pretty - but - it is to the point....

Bill - thank you...

John

[Christopher Lien]

Have a great night, Chris! If I took your last two posts in this thread with any credence, then there would be two of us.

Best to you,

John
------------------------------------

Same to you John, concerning your posts as well... Have a great night...

Best, CSL
________________________________
.

[Bruce Day]

HOLY COW!!!:shock::shock:


Want to start over?

Hey guys! Tom Roster has an interesting article about steel shot in the latest Shooting Sportsman that may have some relevance to use in vintage guns and may warrant thoughtful discussions. How's that?

[Christopher Lien]

As Chris knows, I am inclined to hit the print button when things get hot on the PGCA forum. I just compared my printed copy of the Peter Johnson thread to the computer version. In John's defense, I don't find any difference. If there was such an unacceptable post, Bruce probably edited or deleted it within the time period allowed. I am still apalled, as is Chris and Destry, that any of our members would send emails to Bruce comparing him to a pig or whatever. Bruce's work with Boy Scouts and the "March" is to be commended.
------------------------------------------------

As Bill knows, I am also an astute observer of what goes on here from time to time... Murph, you may have missed some things between your log-in's on that thread that were long gone by the time you printed a page and then used it for your comparison today... The only point I was trying to make with John today was to keep it a level playing field, and when someone like Bruce makes backhanded insults comparing the folks he's sparring with to Pigs and Skunks, then he's crossed the line as much as Destry talking about Bruce carrying Charlie Herzog's water, which was quickly edited/deleted... I know John Dunkle will do his best in the future to keep things here fair and on the up and up. As I've said to him many times in the past, both public and in private, Many thanks John for All your efforts here on the PGCA site...

Best, CSL
______________________

[Bruce Day]

Chris , may I invite you to come to Louisville and we can get together in person. I've never met you, never talked to you, don't think I have ever corresponded with you but I sense you harbor some ill will and maybe we can resolve that.

If you come to Louisville, that might be a perfect opportunity for you to share your photography collection with PGCA members. I'd be interested in seeing it.

[John Dunkle]

...Murph, you may have missed some things between your log-in's on that thread that were long gone by the time you printed a page and then used it for your comparison today... ...
Actually - that is not the case. My servers archive each post and each edit. I can read all of them - including your edits to your own posts in this thread.

My thanks for your kind words in this same post,

Have a great evening,

John

[Christopher Lien]

Actually - that is not the case. My servers archive each post and each edit. I can read all of them - including your edits to your own posts in this thread.

My thanks for your kind words in this same post,

Have a great evening,

John
--------------------------------------------------------

Again John, I think you missed my point, I was referring to Murphy not being able to read Destry's full post before you deleted most of it, therefore he missed the majority of it's context... I do still have that full Herzog related post... If you find anything objectionable with the edits to my posts in this thread, or any other thread, then feel free to let me know anytime...

Oh, And just my 2-cents on the steel shot issue, leave it out of the old double guns, no good can come from it's use, I've seen the damage many times over...

Best, CSL
_________________________
.

[John Dunkle]

...Again John, I think you missed my point, I was referring to Murphy not being able to read Destry's full post...
_________________________
.

Again, Chris, that is not what Bill posted - nor did you originally? You told me I had "removed posts", which in fact, as you know now - I did not... What Bill posted was:

As Chris knows, I am inclined to hit the print button when things get hot on the PGCA forum. I just compared my printed copy of the Peter Johnson thread to the computer version. In John's defense, I don't find any difference. If there was such an unacceptable post, Bruce probably edited or deleted it ...

It would appear, Chris - you might have both Destry and Bruce confused as to who posted what in that thread - and by who.

I EDITED DESTRY'S post - not Bruce's post. I could post Destry's original post that I did, indeed, edit - but that would be silly.

You have a fine evening.

Best to you,

John

[Bruce Day]

Come on, life is too short to have hard feelings. John does a great job and I would not have the patience to be accused the way he is.

I thought the new Roster article was interesting and thought it might generate some thoughtful discussion, but clearly not. If I could delete it, I would, but I suspect its been there too long. John, can you just delete this whole sordid thread? I'd hate to have an outsider read it and think this was how we treated each other.

[Christopher Lien]

Again, Chris, that is not what Bill posted - nor did you originally? You told me I had "removed posts", which in fact, as you know now - I did not... What Bill posted was:



It would appear, Chris - you might have both Destry and Bruce confused as to who posted what in that thread - and by who.

I EDITED DESTRY'S post - not Bruce's post. I could post Destry's original post that I did, indeed, edit - but that would be silly.

You have a fine evening.

Best to you,

John

--------------------------------------------

John, by removed posts, I meant the majority of what someone had said, their words, and in this case Destry's post concerning Bruce and Herzog... I don't have Destry and Bruce confused as to who posted what in that thread, as I said before I could not understand why you would find Destry's content objectionable enough to edit/delete, and then let Bruce's content remain on the thread when it was equally if not more objectionable... That's it, period... I'm done....

Best, CSL
___________________________________________

[John Dunkle]

..That's it, period... I'm done....


Me too...

Best to you, Chris,

John

[chris dawe]

I have'nt been on the forum all that long,but I have to say ,all this is a real suprise ....I think everyone here are most helpful and informed Iv'e yet come across.

I hope it all work's out.

[tom leshinsky]

Aw come on kids play nice!!!!! THE END

[Bill Murphy]

I'm sure Chris will email me the post that was deleted. No big deal when "to the point" posts are deleted if they are objectionable, but I like to know where everyone is coming from. Chris, I'm waiting for the news.

[John Dunkle]

I'm sure Chris will email me the post that was deleted. No big deal when "to the point" posts are deleted if they are objectionable, but I like to know where everyone is coming from. Chris, I'm waiting for the news.
If Chris has a post that was "deleted" or "removed" - I'd like to see it as well? I DID edit Destry's post (which I made public and posted) - and still have an original copy - as, again - I stated previously.

Best to you,

John

[Ed Blake]

Over on the Trapshooters.com website there have been several discussions about steel shot only trap clubs. Posters from the Napierville, IL (I think) club have been using steel for a number of years in all types of hi-dollar trap guns with tight chokes. They report no scarring of bores, bulges, etc. They use the appropriate wads and load about 1,200 fps. Shot size is #7. I have not read the Roster article, but these guys seem to know their stuff. They evidently worked up about 30 loads and had them tested for use by the members. Deadly from the 16, but they give up a little on handicap. Granted they are not using vintage guns, but it's food for thought.

[Robert Rzepiela]

Yes,Naperville club is steel shot only. Also our fall controlled hunting program requires non toxic shot only at few locations which pretty much means steel as most of folks will use whatever is the cheapest. Still, my modern guns user manuals state explicitly not to shoot steel thru full choke. Why would anyone want to risk ?

[Dean Romig]

I think if we could put a Cheerio in the middle of the shot charge it would be compressed by the shot surrounding it as it passes through the choke thereby eliminating the possibility of ring bulges or other such damage.... whaddaya think??? :smiley7:






:duck:

[Bruce Day]

.... explicitly not to shoot steel thru full choke. Why would anyone want to risk ?......



The Roster article on p.40 says that improved modified and full or tighter and shot size 4 or larger exacerbates choke problems with any hard shot. So if I read the article correctly, he advises against shooting steel or any hard shot through full chokes.

I think that directly affects Parker shooters now, because I have often seen advise in this forum to use high antimony hard shot in full chokes for maximum pattern effectiveness. Roster also cautions about using buffered shot loads as they can cause gun damage, and i know people here have talked about using buffered loads.

Also, interestingly , p. 38 " steel and other hard, nontoxic shot types are fully contained in plastic wads specifically designed to protect against the shot coming in contact with the barrel throughout its length. "

All very interesting , to me at least, and I like learning about it. I'm not an expert in designing shotguns shells or a consultant to the shotshell industry, like Roster is. I always wish I knew more and could do extensive testing and development like Roster. I read some of the things he is writing about in a private shotshell industry letter a couple years ago, and I am very glad to see this finally in public print. He doesn't specifically address vintage guns in this SS article and I hope he will at some time deal with these issues like he has privately partially mentioned in the past. I think its fair to say that this issue is mixed and provokes strong feelings from some. Roster talks about "rumor and misinformed hearsay" p.38, and maybe investigation can continue. I recommend the article to those who are curious about these details.

[Christopher Lien]

I'm sure Chris will email me the post that was deleted. No big deal when "to the point" posts are deleted if they are objectionable, but I like to know where everyone is coming from. Chris, I'm waiting for the news.

If Chris has a post that was "deleted" or "removed" - I'd like to see it as well? I DID edit
Destry's post (which I made public and posted) - and still have an original copy - as, again - I stated previously.

Best to you,

John
-----------------------------------------------

Just to be clear, John miss quoted me with the words "remove posts".... At NO time did I ever say John "removed posts", or "deleted posts" and anyone that thinks I did needs to go back and read the thread again... What I actually did say was "comment" was removed, meaning comment from within a post, NOT posts removed or deleted from a thread... Here is the quote:

---------------------------------------------

This is about the time when Bruce indirectly starts referring to people who don't agree with his opinions as Pigs & Skunks and then he exits.... How that recent Bruce comment and personal insult/attack to several people on another thread was allowed to stand when others were removed is still a mystery to me...

CSL
______________________

Again, No where do I see where I said a "post" was removed or deleted from a thread, but I do see the word "comment" was allowed to stand and others were removed, meaning removed from within an existing post... And Yes, I did copy those "comments" from Destry's post before they were edited/deleted, and I do have a copy of the entire "post" before the majority of it's internal "comments" were "removed"... Hope that clears things up...:rolleyes:

Keep up the great work here John, you're the best, and what the PGCA is all about.....

Best, CSL
_______________________________

[John Dunkle]

.....Keep up the great work here John, you're the best, and what the PGCA is all about.....

As are you. My best to you Chris and my thanks for all you do as well for the PGCA. Sometimes, I think, maybe, there are misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations - maybe, sometimes both or either. But, at the end of the day - we'd both laugh, shrug it off and well just "call it "one of those days"".

My sincerest thanks.

I mean that.

John

[Christopher Lien]

Sometimes, I think, maybe, there are misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations - maybe, sometimes both or either. But, at the end of the day - we'd both laugh, shrug it off and well just "call it "one of those days"".
---------------------------------------------------------

No worries here John, water under the bridge...:cheers:

Have a nice evening...:bigbye:

Best, Chris
_________________________
.

[Bruce Day]

Ed, I agree the issue is food for thought. And who knows how long we will be able to shoot lead in these old Parkers"? Even now, some public lands you have to use non toxic and non toxic is costly, not that bad for hunting but how about clays shooting? We may find that we have no economical choice but to use steel if we want to shoot Parkers. I'm glad to see that the issue is being discussed by those who approach the matter on a technical basis.

Robert, the Roster article agrees with you about not using full choke.

[Pete Lester]

Ed, I agree the issue is food for thought. And who knows how long we will be able to shoot lead in these old Parkers"? Even now, some public lands you have to use non toxic and non toxic is costly, not that bad for hunting but how about clays shooting? We may find that we have no economical choice but to use steel if we want to shoot Parkers. I'm glad to see that the issue is being discussed by those who approach the matter on a technical basis.

Robert, the Roster article agrees with you about not using full choke.

What do we think is going to happen to the value of classic doubles if/when lead is banned for target shooting and hunting?

Small bores have pretty much been eliminated from waterfowling by their inablility to handle large steel shoot sizes due primarily to lack of room in the hull for a shot charge with enough enough pellets for adequate density.

Such a ban would reduce my interest in classic doubles that I would keep a couple of guns suitable for waterfowling with bismuth and that would be about it.

Dean, are you making fun of my cheerio reloads? For what it's worth they are working perfectly in 3/4 ounce 12ga reloads and allow me to shoot a very nice light loading with whatever wad I have handy.

[Bill Murphy]

The value of vintage guns unsuitable for regular use (pre Sherman Bell) had gotten pretty high. Of course, the value has become even higher now that we are shooting them. A steel or no tox mandate will not affect the value of a good collector gun. For many years before Damascus became "safe", I was shooting my composite guns with Briley tubes and continue to do so with guns so equipped.

[Ed Blake]

The response to using steel in classic doubles may be as simple as opening up chokes, which many do anyhow. Personally, I think we have a long way to go before it gets to that (keeping fingers crossed).

[Bruce Day]

That's the message I also draw from the Roster article. I've heard that some gun clubs are going to steel shot, and some have for years. If we are to believe some of the gun poster messages, which may be overexcited and overheated, there are many so called environmental organizations pushing for lead bans. People may be forced to deal with the steel shot issue sooner or later despite being almost violently opposed to even thinking about it.

[Dean Romig]

Dean, are you making fun of my cheerio reloads? For what it's worth they are working perfectly in 3/4 ounce 12ga reloads and allow me to shoot a very nice light loading with whatever wad I have handy.

Actually Pete, No. I think a core of compressible material might mitigate the possibility of ring bulges, etc.

[Pete Lester]

Actually Pete, No. I think a core of compressible material might mitigate the possibility of ring bulges, etc.


Dean I beleive the cheerio is reduced to dust in a nano second as the load initially accelerates long before it reaches the choke.

In fact I have tried using multiple cheerios as the sole filler in short 10ga loads with disappointing results. Using 6 cheerios with 1 1/8 ounce loadings seems to produce a large number of functioning squib loads per 25. They break the targets, all wads clear the barrel, but the majority of shells just don't quite sound right. I suspect the cheerios filler is not providing the resistance at the time of ignition that is needed for proper ignition of the load. The star crimps were tight and right with no rattle of shot.

I have come to the conclusion through my own use 1 cheerio in a 12ga wad to shoot 3/4 ounce is fine. 1 cheerio added to fiber filler wad to get shot column where it needs to be in 10ga is fine. Multiple cheerios used in lieu of standard filler wad not so good.

[Dean Romig]

That's the message I also draw from the Roster article. I've heard that some gun clubs are going to steel shot, and some have for years. If we are to believe some of the gun poster messages, which may be overexcited and overheated, there are many so called environmental organizations pushing for lead bans. People may be forced to deal with the steel shot issue sooner or later despite being almost violently opposed to even thinking about it.

Those who are attempting such bans on lead are doing so based on emotion - not science.
After we had the lead shot reclaimed from our trap fileds two years ago, for which my club was paid $65,000- we had the soil beneath the trap fields tested for lead contamination... and there was none. There is no clay in the ground beneath the trap fields which would support the arguement that any contamination would have run off of the surface. Samples were taken 1 foot and three feet beneath the surface and the trap fields have been there for nearly forty years.. One would expect that in the Northeast where there is generally more acid rainfall that there would be lots of lead contamination in places like shooting ranges but that seems not to be the case.

[Pete Lester]

Those who are attempting such bans on lead are doing so based on emotion - not science.


Based on emotion not science, the foundation of liberal political policies.

[Bruce Day]

...and many other policies and actions, not confined to liberal politics.

We had a similar experience at out local gun club, but the movement toward lead ban continues, if we are to believe the sometimes reactionary gun rags and blogs. Hard to know the truth of what is happening.

[Ed Blake]

Where we live in Virginia there is an abundance of relics from both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. After a heavy rain a few years back a number of mini balls came to the surface of my vegetable garden. They have a heavy coating of white oxidation which I have been told prevents the leaching of the lead into the soil. To me this supports other observations that trap ranges mined of spent shot have no evidence of lead contamination in the soil. The determining factor in the use of lead is its general toxicity, notwithstanding the evidence that lead shot is not a soil contaminant. IMO

[John Davis]

I certainly don't know the answer to the steel shot in vintage guns question, but it does seem to be very much like the Damascus barrel query. For many years it was taken as gospel that modern shells should never pass through a Damascus barreled gun. (Just read the warning label on a box of shells.) And consequently Damascus guns were relegated to the status of "wall hanger." Then along comes Sherman Bell and the world changed. Although there are those who still shrink from shooting their "wall hangers", many now believe that using a little common sense and being mindful of your PSI means you can once again enjoy these oldest of Parkers in the field and on the course. Is it possible that the same may hold true for steel shot? Again, I don't know the answer but I do know that everything changes and I'm willing to keep an open mind.

[calvin humburg]

How do they get rid of the lead? Scoop up the top inch of dirt and hall it off?

[Bruce Day]

Hello Calvin. I've seen them do that. They do in fact use a scraper and take off the top 2-3 " , then run everything through a series of screen shaker tables. An active gun club can have maybe $100,000 or more of recovered lead and make a share of $50,000.

[Dean Romig]

Frankly, after just reading Tom's article and once again reading through a lot of stuff we've read before or surmised to be true, the only tangible thing I found was in his last paragraph...
"The difinitive answer must come from the gun or choke-tube manufacturer...

...and if the manufacturer doesn't exist any more, good luck."

[Dave Suponski]

I read Rosters article yesterday. It was good information but in the back of my head I kept hearing "good info for the over/under and autoloader guy's". I really think Tom was relating this info for modern guns and he qualifies this with his last paragraph that Dean mentions. Also Mr. Roster makes it very obvious that he is very proud of the steel shotcup wads that"he designed".

As we all know sporting writers of years gone by and also current ones are "Infuenced" by the sporting industry. I'm by no means saying bad info would be put out there by these people but let's face it"it's all about money".

[Bruce Day]

The gun community is rather small and all these guys know each other . I'm sure the gun manufacturers would rather that we all buy their latest carbon fiber space age wonder gun and not even try to shoot the vintage guns. Our issue is how to deal with using the old guns in a modern environment and where we have no lead shooting ranges becoming more prevalent. A buddy in Mass called me yesterday and was talking about many of the trap and sporting clay ranges there were going to no lead. 100 rounds of costly bismuth on a weekly basis if you want to shoot an old Parker isn't a very good alternative, at least for me. At $2 per shot, shells alone are $200, so then a round of clays costs $230. If there is a way we can shoot cheaper steel through an old Parker then I think we ought to investigate and figure out how it can be done it instead of dismissing it out of hand, I know I personally will look into it Our local ranges are all OK for lead but I like to travel and some of the places I like to go are no lead. I personally do not own a single modern gun, my newest one is a 1968 Superposed 20.

Maybe Roster should be proud of the steel shotcup. Why not? Early steel shotshells had a barrel bore erosion problem and the latest generation shotcups designed by Roster for Rem and others are supposed to have solved that problem. I have an old chopped Browning auto barrel , known for being soft, and another couple PGCA readers and I were talking about some sort of verification test.....shoot a thousand rounds of steel shot through it and see what happens. The trouble is all I have is a bore gauge, I have no means to measure shinyness before and after, and I don't really want to spend the money on a thousand rounds of steel. I don't know what testing protocol would be acceptable to people. The manufacturers don't want to look into it, they just want to sell you a new gun.

[Eric Eis]

Bruce again, I say what you do is fine, what I do is fine, But to come on a public forum and state it's ok to shoot "Steel Shot" when you have newbe's out there reading that's it's ok and they go to Wally World or find some cheap steel shot at a gunshow that's not ok...! Please state what can happen, and yes I have seen that (may not happen but... like shooting a gun with 15 thousandth's probably safe but......) and also look at the PGCA and what harm you may cause us... Just a thought.

[Bruce Day]

OK Eric, I respect your opinions and you know your guns.

In the broad sense, anybody should be thinking about what they shoot. Know the chamber pressures your gun was designed for, know your barrels, know the chokes and shot size that is appropriate for them, know the shot cups and shot hardness relation. I would not go so far that some do and say to never shoot steel in a vintage gun. I kind of like learning about this and I realize that for some, they have no interest or its too complicated for them.

And you do have a point. I should not suggest shooting any kind of controversial load unless a person thinks about it and deals with the issues, which are more complicated than a quick answer.

Best you,
Bruce

[Robin Lewis]

Bruce, you keep taking shots at FAQ's because we don't address steel shot or other issues that you find dear to your heart. I don't know what an FAQ on this topic will do for you? We have pages upon pages on this forum discussing the topic and a simple FAQ isn't going to resolve anything any better that here; and in my opinion, NOTHING has been resolved here. What would you have me add to the FAQ's?

I went to the Winchester site to see what they had to say and their advice is:
"Winchester steel loads can be fired in shotguns of modern manufacture. It is recommended that steel be fired only in shotguns with no more restriction than an improved modified choke."
So, even they are soft on the issue.... "modern manufacture", whatever that decodes to in a court of law? My opinion is that Parker shotguns are not modern manufacture except in the eyes of the ATF.

I have added all the FAQ's found on this site and have been careful not to post one that could get someone hurt. This topic falls into that realm and "I" will not be posting a FAQ on the use of steel shot in a Parker unless it states something along the line of "never shoot steel shot in a Parker".

If anyone sees an FAQ that is wrong, let me know and I will fix it; if anyone sees a FAQ that could cause someone, anyone, to be harmed, let me know and it is gone, deleted, removed,...; if you think these standards for FAQ's are wrong, let me know and I will have my access to FAQ's removed and someone else can do it. I will always error on the side of safety.

I agree with Eric that to post opinions to a public forum where the uninformed reader takes an opinion as fact can be a big mistake. And the FAQ page may have more authority to the novice than this thread, so care must be taken when adding one to insure it can't lead to an accident of any kind.

:dh:

[Francis Morin]

As Chris knows, I am inclined to hit the print button when things get hot on the PGCA forum. I just compared my printed copy of the Peter Johnson thread to the computer version. In John's defense, I don't find any difference. If there was such an unacceptable post, Bruce probably edited or deleted it within the time period allowed. I am still apalled, as is Chris and Destry, that any of our members would send emails to Bruce comparing him to a pig or whatever. Bruce's work with Boy Scouts and the "March" is to be commended.-- I always make extra slack for any Veteran who put his life on the line for Our Country- while we were on LRRP's in 1 Corp-- Col. Day and his USAF brothers were covering our &^^%$ with the "Shock and Awe" that helped keep "Charlie" subdued-- I always thought we PGCA brothers followed the "Guy Code" but Boy Howdy, was I wrong, at least in regard to this "Hot Button Issue"--

I am way longer in the teeth than others who have responded to Bruce;s remarks re: The Roster Research--I have shot steel loads since they were required in my Dad's old field grade M12- a 12 gauge 30" full he bought new in 1937 and gave me in 1980-- The barrel and choke are just like they were when that gun was shipped from New Haven-- I have also used my 2E Smith rebarreled with 32" Nitro steel Ventilated rib in 1927 at Fulton- Full in both tubes- but I used Cabelas' classic non-tox loads ONLY in it for waterfowl- it has 3" chambers, but is not a true Elsie "Longrange" but I only shoot 2 & 3/4" shells in it- For the rest of my waterfowling, I use the Mossberg 835 Utility-Mag 12 gauge I won at a DU Sponsor evenmt 6 years ago- I have shoot just about every steel load in 2 & 3/4" and 3" through that "working gun"--=love the top tang safety, and no gas ports to foul (fowl) up-- I hunt probably 75 days in MI- we have the early Bonus Goose season, the regular 60 day season, and the 30 day late winter season- I live on a major river area loaded with Geese and mallards, and if it doesn't freeze, they are here all winter long- fly out to feed on area fields- I haven't hunted in Canada in years- used to hunt Walpole Island a great deal back in the 1970's, also Harsen's Island-:bigbye:

[Drew Hause]

We didn't make any definitive statement on the LCSCA FAQ
http://www.lcsmith.org/faq/steelshot.html

Should I shoot steel shot in my L.C. Smith shotgun?

Steel shotshells have come a long way since they were first introduced in the 1980s. Now, they have thick plastic shot cups to help protect the bores. There continues to be concern about scoring (erosion) of the softer barrel steel from the hard shot, and this also applies to Remington's Hevi-Shot. Steel shot does not compress like lead, and can bulge tight chokes. Steel shells are also routinely loaded to 1400 fps producing increased pressure and recoil.



Pulleeeze don't start on the "increased pressure" part - we're trying to keep things simple for us small brained Smith fellas :p

[Bruce Day]

Francis, yes I also shoot steel in the old Mod 1912 and have noticed NO barrel streaking . But I am not a fervent duck hunter and only go out a few times a season . I let out the full choke to mod when steel came in.

Robin, the FAQ s are yours, have at them , and I deleted the post. Not my business at all and I will say no more about them. Frankly, this whole thread should be deleted and I would if I could. John, can you delete this whole damn thing. This whole thing is just a mess and there are too many opinions to discuss it.

This thing was rotating and trying to drop all the way down yesterday, and I got by it. So let us let the whole damn thread blow over like this one did.

[John Dunkle]

.....John, can you delete this whole damn thing. This whole thing is just a mess and there are too many opinions to discuss it. ....There certainly ARE a lot of opinions - mine included - included a "sidetrack" with Chris and myself - but... But...

BUT - there are a few who have contributed some good opinions and analysis. Drew, Bill, Eric, John Davis, yourself - just to name a few of the several...

If this thread gets "out if hand" I can and will delete it. Between now and then, though..??

Let's let it stand and see what folks have to say - as was the original intent of the original post.

Just from my end of the telescope,

John

[Pete Lester]

I think what we need is some practical testing. Surely there must be a sound Trojan or VH 2 frame 12ga someone has that could in a worst case scenario be sacraficed. Spend the year shooting the hell out of it with steel shot at clays and see what happens. I rather much doubt there is any danger to eyes or limbs. Barrel scoring not likely, maybe bulging in the choke area but how many shots would it take, thousands would be my guess and probably more than most will ever shoot. I suspect the high velocity of off the shelf steel loads combined with the higher pressures will stress old wood but handloaders might be able to tame them down a bit. Back in the early 90's I shot a Miruko Daly o/u 20ga F/M 3" steel 3's and 4's. Guess what, dead ducks, gun is fine. Sherman Bell proved his hunch by testing, the same thing will need to be done here, but the kind of testing we need will mean shooting thousands of rounds, it won't be quick. Nobody should think shooting steel shot in a Parker is OK, but then again maybe with the right loads and chokes it is no big deal. Again nobody should do it without understanding they are putting their gun at risk, but until there has been some extensive testing we would do well to keep a skeptical but open mind.

[Christopher Lien]

I think Robin's recent post (attached-below) pretty much encapsulated the whole damn thing, and any further rehashing beyond this point is just cycling in circles... When intelligent people read this thread for reference they can draw their own conclusions and ultimately make their own informed decisions... My vote remains the same, No steel shot in any of my vintage doubles, why push the envelope?... Ya wanna shoot steel, go by a modern day shotgun equipped to do so...

Best, CSL
_____________________________

.

Bruce, you keep taking shots at FAQ's because we don't address steel shot or other issues that you find dear to your heart. I don't know what an FAQ on this topic will do for you? We have pages upon pages on this forum discussing the topic and a simple FAQ isn't going to resolve anything any better that here; and in my opinion, NOTHING has been resolved here. What would you have me add to the FAQ's?

I went to the Winchester site to see what they had to say and their advice is:
"Winchester steel loads can be fired in shotguns of modern manufacture. It is recommended that steel be fired only in shotguns with no more restriction than an improved modified choke."
So, even they are soft on the issue.... "modern manufacture", whatever that decodes to in a court of law? My opinion is that Parker shotguns are not modern manufacture except in the eyes of the ATF.

I have added all the FAQ's found on this site and have been careful not to post one that could get someone hurt. This topic falls into that realm and "I" will not be posting a FAQ on the use of steel shot in a Parker unless it states something along the line of "never shoot steel shot in a Parker".

If anyone sees an FAQ that is wrong, let me know and I will fix it; if anyone sees a FAQ that could cause someone, anyone, to be harmed, let me know and it is gone, deleted, removed,...; if you think these standards for FAQ's are wrong, let me know and I will have my access to FAQ's removed and someone else can do it. I will always error on the side of safety.

I agree with Eric that to post opinions to a public forum where the uninformed reader takes an opinion as fact can be a big mistake. And the FAQ page may have more authority to the novice than this thread, so care must be taken when adding one to insure it can't lead to an accident of any kind.

:dh:

.

[Fred Preston]

I have a go to GH 12ga #2 frame with sawed off 26" bbls. Didn't cost much (relatively) but has turned into a money pit. I blew out the left bbl. a few years ago with a 1&1/2 oz mag load just at the end of the forend (I still have five on my left hand). I sent the gun to Kirk Merrington to sleeve in a pair the same length as the old and choke them "skeet in/skeet out". Thinking back, I wish I had asked him if he could sleeve in a pair of short chambered 10s. Anyway, I asked Kirk if steel would be ok and said "no problem". It has 2&3/4" chambers and I use 1oz #3 Black Clouds for jump shooting waterfowl from my canoe. It's advertised at 1500 fps and I would prefer about 1250, but I don't shoot more than a couple of boxes a year.

[Pete Lester]

why push the envelope?... Ya wanna shoot steel, go by a modern day shotgun equipped to do so...


I don't want to shoot steel through a Parker, I hope never to do so. However I enjoy using them in high volume activities such as crow hunting and thousands of rounds a year on clay pigeons. Non-Toxic shot has been mandated for waterfowling for 20 years, no economical non-tox shot for doubles has come along suggesting it never will. I believe a total lead ban will happen in my lifetime. It will not come all at once, it will be incremental and it has already started. Just this year the non-toxic mandate was extended to shooting various species on a federal depredation permit. A local skeet range just went non-tox. I am keeping an open mind because some sad day I believe I will have no alternative other than steel shot if I want to use a Parker they way I have come to enjoy them. I hope a couple of people take a sturdy "beater" and shoot the hell out of it with steel shot and report what happens.

[Mark Ouellette]

Gentlemen,

Mandates requiring non-toxic shot are coming. Those requirements may take decades to enact but they are coming. Will our Parkers then be only personal museum pieces?

As wisely stated, if you do not want to risk your barrels do not shoot steel in a Parker. What if a Parker has no barrel constrictions (chokes) or a small constriction such as IC/.010"? Would there be a risk? Let's consider risk... If I really wanted to drive fast my car would reach 130MPH, or so I have read. This would be safe on a race track providing I would wear a helmet and could handle the car at that speed. I would not however drive at 130 MPH on the highway because I do not want to risk my life or endanger others not to mention going to jail… Now, did your wife or girlfriend ever tell you to “Slow Down!”? If so, she did not accept the risk that you had. Undertaking risks is a personal decision which everyone has to make. There is risk in shooting steel shot in a Parker because we have few data points to indicate that it may be a very low risk.

A significant fact from Tom Roster's Shooting Sportsman article stated that he patented a new wad design making steel shot safe for modern guns in 1987. When the market demands someone will develop a wad making it safe to shoot steel shot in vintage guns. Or, do wads capable or protecting old, tightly choked barrels from damage from steel shot presently exist?

After witnessing a full choke (later measured at .030” and 035”) Damascus Parker shoot factory steel shot #4's, and in hearing from well known member of the LC Smith association that he regularly shoots #4 Hevi Shot in his LC Long Range choked at .040", I became very curious. Their barrels did not split but would mine? I know from recovering 12 gauge Hevi Shot wads that each petal is about 1/10" or .100" thick. Hmmm, .100" is more than twice the constriction of the tightest of vintage SxS chokes! NOTE: At the time the subject Parker was firing steel shot the shooter mistakenly thought the gun has less than modified (<.020") chokes.

To date there has been NO statistically significant research conducted concerning shooting steel shot in vintage SxS’s. Why would there be? We all need buy a NEW $1500 autoloader with a camo coating to be able to bag a few Mallards! Allowing for marketing hype let's consider the evidence. What evidence, all we have is hearsay from most, and a few members who witnessed split or bulged barrels from early steel shot loads. Was the cause mud in the muzzles, or could it have been first generation steel shot, perhaps with pellets rusted together, trying to enter into tight chokes with far too thin wad petals? Do you remember when if we even picked up a Damascus barreled gun our fingers would fall off? Maybe the hype wasn't that bad but I believed it and passed up some great Damascus guns 10-20 years ago... Were Grandpa’s blown barrels caused by smokeless power or was it the spider nest in them? Did great-grandpa mistakenly load second generation smokeless power by the black powder volume method rather than by weight in grains? First generation smokeless power was “bulk” and a one for one volume replacement for black powder.


Now is the time to get the facts rather than continue to believe what we have been hearing for years!

Young's Modulus is the engineering principal stating that everything is a spring. Materials strain, i.e. stretch and regain their shape, all the time. Tall bridges move in the wind. So does my wooden house as it endures near tornado winds. Guess what, so do barrels as a shot/wad column moved down it. Slow motion video shows barrel expanding for the shot as does a snake swallowing an animal. ALL barrels strain, be they old composite such as Damascus or fluid steel barrels of low or high carbon content. What we do not have is empirical evidence for at what point they stress, i.e. are permanently deformed! Only research will provide us this data.

For an upcoming research project to be undertaken by a professional gunsmith and myself as time, test subjects, and funding permits, one hypothesis is that Damascus (or low carbon (old, all Parker barrels) fluid steel) barrels can be strained to pass steel shot using “X” thickness of wad which has the hardness of “Y”. Significant factors in this research will be wad thickness and hardness, shot size, barrel thickness and constriction (choke), pressure at the barrel constriction, amount of strain immediately before deformation, velocity, barrel thickness at every half-inch (and point of failure if any) and of course barrel materials. For Damascus barrels that last factor will be tough but we will be able to determine the type of Damascus. Another hypothesis shall be that good quality Damascus is strong as fluid steel, as demonstrated with one test article each, Damascus and fluid steel, by Sherman Bell in his FINDING OUT FOR MYSELF series printed in the Double Gun Journal.

Please note that this research will NOT consider that modern high velocity steel shot ammunition kicks the heck out of shooters and may very probably crack the a 100 year old stock! There are times even I will shoot an autoloader… I do however want to know what I can and cannot shoot in my Parkers. Note: Pressure and recoil are not the same nor are they mutually exclusive. Recoil is determined by the "ejecta" or total weight and velocity of everything to include the weight of the powder traveling down the barrel!

Will these tests be statistically significant? No. The reason is that a sample set of 50 identical test subjects and factors would be required. We would also have to test to the point of deformation/failure for each load/wad/shot size/pressure...

These tests will however provide empirical evidence toward this debate.

For now, please do not shoot steel in a gun you do not want to risk. As for me I’ll shoot Nice Shot and ITX in my Parkers and Elsie’s. I also will not take my best Parkers in my duck boat. Bad things happen to nice guns in duck boats.

Let your common sense and bank account guide you.

Respectfully,
Mark

[Bill Murphy]

I think that shooting 12 gauge shells in ten gauge bores would relieve a lot if not all of the distress at the choke. I have been using chamber inserts for years in many different combinations with good results. A full coverage, thick walled 12 gauge wad shot through a .775 to .800 bore should be harmless to any choke. This system should also lower PSI beyond the chamber.

[Fred Preston]

I have a #3 frame 10ga NH of pre 1900 vintage that had been rebuilt several years ago by the DelGrego shop. Along with restocking and refinishing, 32" fluid steel barrells were sleeved in and choked "full & full" with 3&1/2" chambers. I sprung for a 10 round box of 3&1/2" bismuth and decided there had to be a better way and bought a set of 3&1/2" 12ga Guagemates. I had collected a couple of 12ga Black Cloud wads I had shot out of my 12 and found that they would fit smoothly/closely through the chokes of the NH. I tested/patterned some 3" and 3&1/2" steel 12s through it and they were tight and on center at 40 yards. I have not used it enough yet to prove anything.

[Mark Ouellette]

Bill and Fred,

I had feared that shooting 12 gauge steel in a 10 bore might result in shot slipping through the wad petals and scoring the bores. The nominal bore difference from 12 to 10 is .046". I measured a 10 and 12 gauge wads and found them to be .750" and .705". The shot cup will clearly expand to fill the bore in their respective gauges but an expansion of .070" will require something like a liner... "Lightbulb turns on!" How about one or two layers of Mylar liners? The scoring problem should be mitigated.

I also measured wad petal thickness:

Rem SP-10: .025"
BPI VP-100 10ga: .035"
BPI Multi Metal 10ga: .035" which have a much harder wad petal.

[Bill Murphy]

Fred, who sleeved your barrels to fluid steel for you? Are you satisfied with the total amount of money you have in this gun? Can you post some pictures? I have a Lefever sleeved 3 1/2" chamber ten gauge that I would fire 12 gauge steel in.

[Mark Ouellette]

Although a small sample, when caught off guard and ammo-less (What didn't I remember from Marine Corps training, "I can never have too much ammo!") by an approaching flight of Buffies my Steel Shooting Parker friend handed me a half dozen of his steel shot shells. I used them with Gauge Mates in my Parker EH 10 with the only bad results being suffered by the ducks. Parker chokes and bores are still A'okay!

PS: A 10 gauge has 9% more area than does a 12 gauge. The pressure drop should correspond. Accurate pressure testing of course should be done before trying this at home... :)

[Fred Preston]

Bill, The NH is cosmeticly Remington/DelGrego and the dimensions are up to date. I asked Lawrence if he thought the gun came out of their shop, and he was certain that it did. I didn't ask specifically about the barrel work, but I believe that at the time this work was done that the DelGregos had the sleeving done by Lefever. Pic to follow, can't get one on here.

[Fred Preston]

Bill, Here's a pic from the file. I'll have to take some more for a better presentation.

Heck, I always pay too much.

[Theodore LeDurt]

Sorry for getting to the "dance" late.

First off, I have shot well over a 1000 rounds of 3" steel (2#,3#,4#) shot out of an Auto 5 Belgium gun with modified choke with no problems. Also I have fired 100's of steel rounds from a 10ga Berreta Siverhawk. 12ga Grulla, and a 12ga James.

After hours of conversation with Tom Armbrust and Worth Mathewson, all my chokes were opened to .017 left and .009 right barrel. Twelve gauge loads were kept under 1400fps, only 1 1/8oz, #2 shot or larger, in 2 3/4", except the 1oz load of #3 Black Cloud, which I believe to be 1500 fps. I realize this is antidotal, but there was no barrel damage from any of my guns. This conversation is only referencing steel barrels, not damascus.

I have never shot steel from my Parker as I want to retain the full and full in the 32" barrels (Buckingham wannabe) and am now loading ITX for this gun, but would not hesitate to shoot steel if the chokes were opened.

[Mark Ouellette]

Theodore,

Welcome aboard! Your information shall serve as a data point in the overall assessment. Since your experiance was not from a "controlled test" we shall enter it as Shooter Experiance.

Could you measure your Browning's modified choke?
Also, what brand/model steel shot did you predominately shoot?

[Bruce Day]

xxxx

What all this really means is that anybody with good sense won't shoot steel in a vintage shotgun unless it's just some old beater piece of crap they don't care about. Notice I said, anybody with good sense......

Destry

[Bruce Day]

xxxx

Yup, We can move on now.

[Bruce Day]

Fellows, thanks for considering these important issues.

I got several emails from forum members about their gun clubs moving to non tox ammo and how that seemed to be a disturbing and coming trend. If we don't look at these issues, vintage gun collectors are going to find their use of these guns increasingly restricted.

Generally , we are the most well thought out vintage gun collectors organization, in my opinion. If we don't investigate or push for investigation of shooting steel in vintage guns, who will? Not the gun makers , they want to sell you a new gun, just like they did when fluid steel barrels surpassed damascus barrels. We have some good members, maybe the best in the gun collecting community, and maybe we lead the way in serious investigation for the Browning, Winchester, Fox, Smith, etc folks.

The chamber pressure and recoil issues can be addressed in steel loads just like in lead loads.....don't shoot the heavy stuff that whacks you and the gun.

The unresolved and important issues are constriction and barrel streaking. The Roster shot cup is supposed to prevent streaking and bore erosion, so tests demonstrating that in mild steel vintage barrels are needed. The constriction issue may be resolved now, and there may be research already done that we could retrieve. Maybe what we need is a new series in the DGJ dealing with steel in vintage guns. Remember when the shooting damascus article series came out? Before that there were those who had all sorts of misinformation and rumors about black powder, smokeless powder and damascus.

So all we have so far is anecdotal information, some people have courageously admitted good experiences, maybe there is something there, but certainly more investigation needs to be done. I'm thankful that Mark is interested and wants to look more into it. If we can develop an acceptable and doable testing protocol, that would be best.

We have a person with sleeved barrels and his barrel man told him that steel was acceptable in those barrels. Let's think about that. What makes the sleeved barrels more resistant to steel shot than original Parker fluid steel barrels ? Both are mild steel tubes. Parker then later Rem used the best steel available. Was the best steel available then inferior to the steel tubes used for sleeving today?

So, fellows, thanks for keeping an open mind, as we set out to do in post #1.

[Bill Murphy]

Fred, if your gun came through Del Grego's shop a while back, the sleeving was probably done at Lefever. My sleeved Magnum ten DH actually has Lefever markings on the rib, but it is the only one I have ever seen marked like that. My gun has no other marking that would indicate where the sleeving was done. The rib inscription was changed to "Lefever Steel" from Damascus Steel. The new inscription looks like it was done at the Parker factory, very professional.

[Mark Ouellette]

Gentlemen,

As Bill commeted, research is needed. It is our intention to conduct controlled tests to investigate how much pressure and strain older barrels can endure without deformation or failure. The test protocols will be very important.

What is most important in conducting research in this emotionally charged subject is to leave those emotions behind and gather data for analysis. These tests will however take time. If we have agreed upon protocols we could establish multiple test teams are different locations. This would provide more data and potentially faster results.

We very seriously intend to publish our results.

If anyone desires to contribute their time, knowledge, or resources please contact me via PM.

Respectfully,
Mark

[Fred Preston]

Bill, Like yours, mine has had "DAMASCUS" replaced, mine being with "PARKER" and it can't be distinguished from the other rib lettering.