Strength of Guns

[Dennis V. Nix]

Many times I have read on the forum not to use modern shot shells in older Parker guns. Usually it is stated the wood is older or oil soaked and the metal may not be up to the strength of more modern firearms. Obviously using a 2 ¾ or 3 inch 12 gauge magnum shell in a gun with Damascus barrels produced in 1880 is a definite No No. So too, would be using a 3 ½ inch Federal 10 gauge in a Damascus barreled 2 7/8 inch chambered gun. But I am thinking that after the 1920’s and 30’s there were magnum shells being produced in 12 gauge and I can’t but think that the Parker Company would have kept abreast of those developments to allow the stronger shells to be fired in their guns.
I am not suggesting anyone shoot shells in their gun that they don’t want to shoot by any means. My one and only Parker so far is a 12 gauge GH made in 1928. The only shells I have shot through it so far and probably ever will are 1 or 1 1/8th ounce loads. Possibly if I ever get the chance to use it on wild pheasants or turkey I may opt for 1 1/4 ounce loads. However they would be few and far between. I guess my question is has anyone ever really had problems of wood cracking or other stock problems right after using more powerful shells or is the thought to simply err on the side of caution to keep the guns as nice as possible due to their age?
Please accept this as a simple question of curiosity and possibly to generate some discussion. Believe me I am not on either side of this question as I normally hunt upland game using a 20 gauge and 7/8th ounce loads and do well.

Dennis

[Jerry Harlow]

Dennis,

Oil soaked wood is usually obvious and easily identified by being black. It is spongy and removing the oil from it will restore the fiber. You almost always have to pull the wood off the gun to determine this as some stocks are not that oil soaked from outside appearance but are from the inside from 100 years of oil run through the action and into the wood from being stored butt down as most people store them.

But what you will find more times than you would believe is that the wood is cracked inside without any visible signs outside. So to be safe, have the wood removed and inspected, and once the oil is removed and any cracks repaired I shoot anything I want in the fluid steel barrels if I need it, but most of the time shoot light reloaded stuff so nothing will break. At targets it is a 24 gram load (about 7/8 oz) in 12 ga that only have 3500 psi or 1 ounce at 6500 psi. But at turkeys and geese it's 1.25 oz in 12 and 1.5 oz in 10 and 1 oz in 16 and 7/8 oz in 20 at doves, but low pressure.

[Bill Murphy]

Such warnings are meant to cause new owners to err on the side of caution. Many owners of early Parker guns in good condition use them as they would use modern guns. However, after fifty years of shooting early Parker guns, I still prefer to err on the side of caution. Repairs are expensive and hard to access. I shoot light loads in all of my early Parkers.

[charlie cleveland]

i have shot sveral hundred loads in the parker 8 ga lifter i have...most all the loads on the medium to heavy side... smokless loads...the stock is oil soaked pretty good and i need to do something about that...but the old gun has never shone any sign of a crack in the stock or damage to the old stub twist steel barrels she wears...she fired a 2 1/2 ounce turkey load yesterday at a dummy turkey....im not bragging but these old guns are tougher than we think they are...most all of youwould not take a secound look at my old gun buti think as much of that old wore out 8 as i would of a a 1 parker if i had one...shes one tough old gal..... charlie

[Gary Carmichael Sr]

Charlie I have always shot 3-1/2" bismuth in my Parker PH with 32" steel barrels, course this is my duck gun, and geese!

[Chuck Heald]

Just my experience on oil soaked stocks. I found that removing oil by soaking in acetone did nothing, IMO, to strengthen the stocks. In fact, the oil and acetone removal of that oil, together robbed the wood of natural resins that bind the fibers of the wood together. I found that one stock was particularly affected by the oil and removal process. It had obvious signs that the fibers were not bonded as well. I addressed the situation on a couple of them by using a super thin cyanoacrylate glue to soak into the head of the stock and bind the fibers. To me, it seemed that the only area of the stock that had lost resins enough that it was a concern, was in the stock head where the oil had soaked it for decades. So, I attributed the damage mostly to the oil soaking and not the short use of harsh solvents to remove the oil. So, I have no illusions that removing oil restores strength. I think the damage is done to whatever level and only adding a binder like the cyanoacrylate glue after the oil removal will restore a portion of the original strength. Just my 2 cents.

Regards
Chuck

[Pete Lester]

There are guns and there are shoulders. I started shooting light loads a few years ago, 3/4 ounce 20ga, 3/4 - 1 ounce 12ga and 1 1/8 - 1 1/4 ounce 10ga. There is no doubt they are easier on guns but the really big plus is how easy they are on one's shoulder. I am so pleased with 7/8 ounce 12ga on trap singles I wonder now why I thought it necessary to shoot tens of thousands 1 1/8 ounce loads. A 1 ounce 12ga load will clobber any upland game bird with authority. The big 10 shooting 1 1/4 ounce is a magic wand all the way to 60 yards +. I think back in the 1920's when Super X shells came out ammunition and gun manufacturers started marketing more and bigger is better. The american shooting public bought it. Too many generations have past and the market of more is better continues, many of us have had to relearn the effectiveness and benefits of light loads. Light loads are a pleasant surprise for those who haven't tried them, and they are easier on the wallet too if you reload.

[Daryl Corona]

Pete,
I could'nt agree more with your statement. I started shooting 7/8oz., 6200psi. loads 20+ yrs ago in my Parkers not because I was worried about the gun as much as I did not like getting pounded. My scores did not change but my ability to enjoy shooting 100+ rounds in a day went up dramatically. I've now went over to a 3/4oz. 20ga load and have found it to be just effective as the 7/8oz. Now that I'm getting older I worry about my guns that are twice my age and in much better shape.
PS- I've always thought the major ammo companies are missing the Public Relations boat by not introducing these light loads to the general shooting public. You know, less lead in the environment, reduced costs, etc. The NSSA and the ATA along with the Sporting Clays governing body should mandate the use of these reduced loads in their events. I only see it as a win-win situation. Ok- I'm putting my soap box away and heading off to shoot some clays. (With light loads of course).

[King Brown]

The 12 gauge killed considerable interest in our sports because beginners learned, "man, does that thing kick," and word got around. The fact that we bought into the bigger-is-better including the bang doesn't say much for our brains. The evidence of lighter-load efficacy was in our faces every day. Promoting lighter loads, as mentioned above, would bring more to the shooting sports than all the tiresome ranting and raving.

[ed good]

modern epoxy glues and small brass pins are wonderful things...

[Jerry Harlow]

[QUOTE=Chuck Heald;64571]Just my experience on oil soaked stocks. I found that removing oil by soaking in acetone did nothing, IMO, to strengthen the stocks. In fact, the oil and acetone removal of that oil, together robbed the wood of natural resins that bind the fibers of the wood together. I found that one stock was particularly affected by the oil and removal process. It had obvious signs that the fibers were not bonded as well. I addressed the situation on a couple of them by using a super thin cyanoacrylate glue to soak into the head of the stock and bind the fibers. To me, it seemed that the only area of the stock that had lost resins enough that it was a concern, was in the stock head where the oil had soaked it for decades. So, I attributed the damage mostly to the oil soaking and not the short use of harsh solvents to remove the oil. So, I have no illusions that removing oil restores strength. I think the damage is done to whatever level and only adding a binder like the cyanoacrylate glue after the oil removal will restore a portion of the original strength. Just my 2 cents.

Regards
Chuck

Chuck,

Not to dispute your opinion, but oil soaked wood is spongy and black/dark. If one sticks his fingernail into the head of a oil-soaked stock, you can feel this. If I'm going to go through the trouble of a refinish on a stock and forend, all oil possible will need to go. I use a heat gun which will draw an incredible amount of oil out of it by itself. Then comes a brushing and then a soaking in laquer thinner over night, not acetone. It takes a couple of days to fully dry once removed. If the laquer thinner is filthy, it may require soaking in new thinner. Then if I think any oil remains, to know I'm getting as much as possible it's Brownell's "Old Fashioned Whiting" (calcium carbonate). It "wicks the oil out of the pores and fibers of the wood." Keep in mind that no way does any of this penetrate all the way into/through the wood, and the many, many coats of finish restore the wood. A small amount of finish applied/brushed inside the head restores and protects from future oil contamination as well. Finish brushed onto the end of the buttstock and under the grip cap if it has one protects the wood from moisture damage. Just my opinion.

[charlie cleveland]

i agree shooting and reloading light loads are good on the shoulder and good on the gun...and you fellas that shoot clays and trap need them....but when im facing a turkey or have a load for a deer i want it to be loaded to the max...i shoot lite loads on doves and get my fair share but the boys shooting next to me use high brass and 1 1/4 ounce shot and weve been doing this for years...the boys shooting the heavy loads will kill more doves than us shooting the lite loads...but this is my opinon only....i learn a lot from these good threads.... charlie

[David Holes]

My competion loads are heavy loads. The difference between high gun and 2nd is usually settled by 1 or 2 rocks. Heavy loads break more targets for me. My casual SC loads are lighter. I like using Rem sp wads and polywad spredders. Gives you normal shot sizes and room for the spreader. Works great with tight choked parkers. Dave

[Pete Lester]

My competion loads are heavy loads. The difference between high gun and 2nd is usually settled by 1 or 2 rocks. Heavy loads break more targets for me. My casual SC loads are lighter. I like using Rem sp wads and polywad spredders. Gives you normal shot sizes and room for the spreader. Works great with tight choked parkers. Dave

I shot a lot of ATA trap in the 80's and 90's and felt the same way. However it is interesting to note that a more difficult game, Bunker/Olympic/International trap is now shot with 24 gram loads. Int'l shooters have had to steadily decrease the payload from 1 1/4 ounce to 7/8 ounce and overall scores have gone up.

[charlie cleveland]

now thats a interesting note.... charlie

[John Campbell]

Dennis:
Pardon me if I return to the original premise: As others have said, 1 oz. loads are all that is needed in the 12-bore for sporting purposes. Given the assumption that you place your shot well, they will work fine - and save a fine Parker as well as your shoulder.

For targets, I have shot 7/8 oz loads in choked guns for decades with perfect satisfaction. And, even if the bore is cylinder, 1 oz. of #8 is effective on any sporting course if you can lead the shot. If you can't, full choke and 1 1/8 oz. won't help.

Best, Kensal

[Dennis V. Nix]

Thanks to all who offered opinions. The answers are pretty much what I thought they would be. I totally agree with using smaller shot loads for game and targets as well. I always wonder why gun and ammunition companies seem to push for turkey loads that are supposed to kill at long distances when most people call turkeys in to 30-40 yards. I have only shot one turkey and that was with a 1 1/4 ounce load of #6 lead shot. It was about 35 yards and he just fell over. My Winchester 42 probably could have done just as well. Maybe it is us that needs to spread the word that all of these monster kicking guns just aren't needed to make clean shots on game. As for damage to guns I think common sense should be the rule and each gun viewed by itself as to what loads to safely fire both for the gun and the shooter. Thanks for your answers.

[Jerry Harlow]

i agree shooting and reloading light loads are good on the shoulder and good on the gun...and you fellas that shoot clays and trap need them....but when im facing a turkey or have a load for a deer i want it to be loaded to the max...i shoot lite loads on doves and get my fair share but the boys shooting next to me use high brass and 1 1/4 ounce shot and weve been doing this for years...the boys shooting the heavy loads will kill more doves than us shooting the lite loads...but this is my opinon only....i learn a lot from these good threads.... charlie

Charlie,

I hunt with the same kind of fellows. On opening day they shoot at every bird from 5 yards to 100 yards with maximum loads. For every one they kill, they cripple three. Half of what they kill they never pick up, mostly because they fell a half mile away, just keep shooting. And then when the doves are all gone after the first two days they wonder why. I've had some big arguments with them, especially the ones who shoot six boxes on opening day. All I want is my 15 and then be done with it, and the fewer shells the better.

[Bruce Day]

Sometimes its helpful to recall the Parker load tables

[David Lien]

If I am going to shoot a Parker more than twice. The first thing I do is have a good stock person glass bed the stock and install a staple in the head of the stock. At this point I shoot what ever I want. I check and clean the gun often, lube the hinge pin and in 50 or so years the next guy can go right on shooting the old Parker. He can do so with what ever his shot shell religion dictates. :)
David Lien

[Dean Romig]

I always wonder why gun and ammunition companies seem to push for turkey loads that are supposed to kill at long distances when most people call turkeys in to 30-40 yards. Maybe it is us that needs to spread the word that all of these monster kicking guns just aren't needed to make clean shots on game. As for damage to guns I think common sense should be the rule and each gun viewed by itself as to what loads to safely fire both for the gun and the shooter.

For years I have been a proponent of the very same opinions you have expressed here. Heavy loads are not necessary as long as the shooter knows his gun and its limits. Remember, the very center of every target or game animal or gamebird is exactly the same size... make very sure you shoot to that point. Head shots gentlemen - take only head shots.

[John Dallas]

"Only head shots" - hmmm Your grouse must be a lot slower than our Michigan grouse

[Chuck Heald]

[QUOTE=Chuck Heald;64571]
Chuck,

Not to dispute your opinion, but oil soaked wood is spongy and black/dark. If one sticks his fingernail into the head of a oil-soaked stock, you can feel this. If I'm going to go through the trouble of a refinish on a stock and forend, all oil possible will need to go. I use a heat gun which will draw an incredible amount of oil out of it by itself. Then comes a brushing and then a soaking in laquer thinner over night, not acetone. It takes a couple of days to fully dry once removed. If the laquer thinner is filthy, it may require soaking in new thinner. Then if I think any oil remains, to know I'm getting as much as possible it's Brownell's "Old Fashioned Whiting" (calcium carbonate). It "wicks the oil out of the pores and fibers of the wood." Keep in mind that no way does any of this penetrate all the way into/through the wood, and the many, many coats of finish restore the wood. A small amount of finish applied/brushed inside the head restores and protects from future oil contamination as well. Finish brushed onto the end of the buttstock and under the grip cap if it has one protects the wood from moisture damage. Just my opinion.

Jerry,
I think we're saying the same thing. Yes, I agree oil will make a stock weak and spongy. What I'm saying is that taking out the oil doesn't return the strength lost to the resins being desolved by the oil. Some type of binder is needed. I've found that the thin super glues penetrate very well and strenthen the wood again.

On a couple particularly badly soaked stocks, I looked at the wood after removing the oil and you could literally see the fibers without binder around them on the surface.

I've also used lacquer thinner and heat along with whiting as well. Lacquer thinner is a quite a bit more effective than acetone as it is a stronger solvent.

If you get a stock that looks weak after oil removal, try the super glue (a good industrial brand.).

Regards
Chuck

[Chuck Heald]

Regarding light loads, I primarily shoot 3" loads at upland game. No 2", 2 1/2", or light 2 3/4" loads for me. Bigger's better.

...I shoot full 3" magnum .410's:draw:

[Dave Noreen]

Bruce,

Interesting table. I have been collecting old ammunition paper for some years now, seeking information about pressures of the early loads. According to my DuPont Smokeless Shotgun Powders booklets from the 1920s and 30s, those 3 1/2 dram, 1 1/4 ounce 12-gauge loads of bulk smokeless powder were pretty high pressure, 11,700 lbs with DuPont bulk smokeless, 11,800 lbs with Schultze. The equivalent in dense smokeless powders, 28-grains of Ballistite, 12,600 lbs. With the introduction of their DuPont Oval progressive burning smokeless powders, in the early 1920s, 40-grains would move that 1 1/4 ounce out at a velocity of 981 feet per second over 40 yards at 9400 lbs.

Dave

[Mark Ouellette]

Dave,

Thank you for sharing the pressure information!

Mark

[Bruce Day]

Yes that is a stout load. Its from the Small Bore Shot Gun pamphlet. While I usually shoot light loads I've tried to point out that these guns are capable of some pretty heavy stuff.

[Dave Noreen]

I haven't been able to find when American ammunition companies first began providing shotgun shells loaded with smokeless powders. From what I've read, the first smokeless shotgun powder to be introduced was the Wood powder in 1876. Capt. A.W. Money and his family came to the U.S. in 1890 and set up the American E.C. and Schultze Powder Company. According to Stadt, Winchester was providing smokeless powder shotshells to select shooters in 1893 and began offering them to the public in 1894. My collection of old Chas. J. Godfrey, No. 11 Warren Street, NYC, catalogues agree with this in that the first I have, August 1893 only lists UMC smokeless powder shotshells, but the August 1894 has both Winchester and UMC smokeless powder shotshells. These catalogues from the mid- to late 1890s show 3 1/4 drams and 1 1/4 ounce of shot as the heaviest 12-gauge factory-loaded smokeless shells. By 1903, UMC is offering the 3 1/2 dram bulk, or 28 grains Ballistite dense smokeless powder and 1 1/4 ounce loads. Those loads remain in the ammunition company's offerings into at least the early 1930s.

[Pete Lester]

One thing I notice in the table provided by Bruce is the loads are absolutely anemic in their velocity compared to what we are used to shooting. Those loads would be very easy on both gun and shoulder, but I don't think anyone is shooting sub 1000 fps loads these days, not even low pressure loads in composite barrels.

I believe chamber pressure stresses barrels but it is recoil that stresses stocks. If one's stock is even slightly loose the receiver then hammers the stock head at some very small points of contact.

Take the first load, 12ga 1 ounce at 903 fps, shoot that in a 7.5 pound gun and it develops 6 ft lbs of recoil. Step that one ounce up to a more normal speed used today, 1225 fps and the recoil doubles to 12 ft lbs. Step up to a familiar 3 dram 1 1/8 ounce trap load at 1200 fps and recoil increases to 14 lbs. Now step up to the old standard hunting load of 3 3/4 dram 1 1/4 ounce (1330 fps) and recoil jumps by almost four fold to 22 ft lbs.

Most of our guns are 80 to 100+ years old, some are damaged from oil. We all have a choice on how much we want to punish our guns and shoulders but I can tell you the increased payloads and velocity return only small improvements in performance in my experience.

PS. The 1 1/4 ounce load Researcher mentions at 981 fps generates only 14 ft lbs of recoil. Just in terms of velocity used now vs. then we may be stressing our guns more now than they ever were.

[Drew Hause]

This might be of interest
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dfg2hmx7_333g89dwqg8
It appears that the Top Guns were all using smokeless by 1895

[Bruce Day]

Pete, absolutely correct. And the interesting point is that the modern progressive powders produce higher velocity for a given shot load and do it at a lower chamber pressure than the same amount of earlier smokeless powders. So if you want to think about modern powders as being easier on the barrels, I think that would be right. The recoil, as you note, is a different issue.

Some other sporting clays fellows and I were sitting out the rain one day and started looking at the difference in lead that you would have to pull if you dropped from say 1200 fps to 1150. On a 1 oz load, it made a big difference in recoil and about a 4 in difference in lead at a usual crossing range of 30-35 yards. Thats what I remember, it would be interesting to work through the lead tables again.

[George Blair]

Take another look at the tables...the table that Bruce posted was over 100ft, Dave referred to over 40 yds, My take is that was the average velocity for that distance. Measuring muzzle velocity in those days may have been a problem.

[Bill Murphy]

Pete Lester, George Blair brought up a good point. The Parker tables with velocities in the nines are average velocities over 33 1/3 yards. Muzzle velocities are probably more like what we are used to, in the elevens or twelves.

[Pete Lester]

Bill Murphy, how were velocities actually measured back then over 100'? The ballistic chronograph as we know it was not invented until the 1950's. Number 7 is no longer a popular size but a 7.5 fired at 1298 fps is going 1030 at 10 yards, 836 fps at 20 yards and 704 fps at 30 yds. The average velocity would be 967 fps from muzzle to 90'. Do you think all the loads listed were around 1300 fps muzzle velocity to be so consistent over 100' per the chart?

[Mike Shepherd]

They shot a plate that lifted a weight. In effect converting kinetic energy into mechanical energy. They knew how much the weight weighed and they measured how far it was liffted. Then, using 1/2 x mass x velocity-squared equation they could back into the velocity of the shot.

Clear as mud I am sure. I have seen pictures of a machine and it looked something like a saw horse with a plate hanging down and a tape measure attached to it. When the shot hit the plate it would raise it and the tape measure would record how much.

Best,

Mike

[John Mazza]

AKA: Ballistic pendulum.

[Bill Murphy]

Pete, before reading the reply so kindly provided by Mike, my answer would have been "I don't have a clue." My post was intended only to clue you into the fact that the loads listed in the Parker Small Bore Booklet are not neccesarily "anemic" as you suggested. I have no idea of the exact muzzle velocities of those loads. I think my estimate was "in the elevens or twelves".

[Pete Lester]

Bill that would make sense. Perhaps we need to refer to the Dram Equivalent as an indicator of what muzzle velocities were back in the day. Black Powder was capable of near 1300 fps m/v 1 1/4 ounce loads per Sherman Bell so 1100 to 1300 m/v was possible and likely.

I still believe in the benefits (to guns and shoulders) of light loads for their lower recoil and great performance due to less crushing and scrubbing of pellets in the shorter shot columns. I think they are smart choice for vintage guns.

[Bill Murphy]

Looking back at the Small Bore Booklet chart, the first two items are common loads that we are familiar with. The "average" velocities listed are 903 and 921 FPS. We know these loads to be 1175 to 1200 FPS loads at the muzzle.