that belongs in the advertizing hall of fame (or is it shame) :rotf:

Drew,

Another question. How are you dating that G.E. Lewis ad to 1914? The testimonial letter in it is dated 14-12-22. I'd take that to mean 14 December 1922?!?

Dave

Thanks Dave. You are correct.

i just put some of those 3 inch 12 ga loads thru the old 10 ga ph grade with damascus barrels useing gage-mates...it really patterns well at the 70 step mark it put 3 no 5 shot in the dr pepper can next shot it put 2 shot in can and the 3 rd shot put only one...woulda baged even a teal at this range.. this was the 1 7/8 ounce lead load used on the can... i stated the barrel steel wrong it is twist steel... charlie

Drew,

That "Woolwich" that kills at 150 yards may have been the origin of the saying "pulling the wool over your eyes!":rotf:

I commented on the little Fox memo over on Fox forum, but never got a reply. My question was, "How does Fox clear that memo with the hundreds of HE owners who own 2 3/4" he guns?". The memo reads like all HE guns have 3" chambers.

Good question. Pretty sure no one left alive knows the answer.

Just curious if there is any actual evidence the "more/better" wadding measureably improved patterns in the longer shells?

Took some lookin' Pete. This is interesting "Mr Griffith on Shot-gun Patterns"

The Field March 7, 1891 Vol 77:325
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA234

You can enter 'wadding' in the search box and find more hits

Not easy to read. Looking at page 239 it would seem a thin field card vs. a thick field wad produced a slightly better pattern. All things being equal I would expect the longer shells with equal payload had "thicker" wadding. Could the longer shells with thicker wadding have reduced pattern effectiveness? However there is more information to take in here. what's your take?