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
_________________________
.

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

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.

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

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
___________________________________________

Me too...

Best to you, Chris,

John

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.

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

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

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.

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 ?

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:

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.

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

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:

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
_______________________________

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

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

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

Have a nice evening...:bigbye:

Best, Chris
_________________________
.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

...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.

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

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.

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

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.

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."

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".

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.

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.

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

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:

And becoming an O-6 USAF- not all that shabby either
 

-- 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:

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

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.