Thank you for finding this Drew.

This is a British take on things as of April 1897, and how the folks at the Schultze powder factory perceived things. Interesting, but mainly is dealing with 2 1/2 inch British shells and a wad column from 1/2 to 5/8 inch long, nothing near as long as the wad column would be in a North American 3-inch shell. When he discusses the shell actually fitting the chamber, he shows the shell openning into the forcing cone being a bad thing, but the diagram shows the shell protruding the full length of the forcing cone, not the 1/8 inch several American manufacturers came to favor. Also, quite a short forcing cone in all his diagrams.

Would be great if we could find something like this from a North American Company, DuPont, Laflin & Rand, etc. from maybe somewhere in the 1900 to 1910 vintage.

1895 American made shotgun shells are reviewed in the April 13, 1895 Sporting Life, but it's all marketing. I've never seen comparison testing by any U.S. shell maker or sporting publication
http://www.la84foundation.org/Sports.../SL2503014.pdf

It would appear the Top Guns believed the hype, or just used what the manufacturers paid them to use

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL.../408351474.jpg
http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL.../408351472.jpg

my 1905 DHE has 30 in barrels and is marked 3 in. chambers, that's why I purchased it, its the only one I have seen.

Wm. Cashmore Pigeon gun

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL.../403893052.jpg

Parker Bros. generally didn't mark the chamber length on their guns. The later Remington built Parkers were marked as to chamber length. Unless there is information in a PGCA letter to indicate 3 in. chambers, I'd suspect that lengthening the chambers and marking the gun was something done after market.

If Remington was marking them in the later days, could they be Remington replacements?

is there a repair code on the barrels?

It is rather "strange" that the ad from Winchester, gives the loads with DuPont Smokeless, New E.C. Improved and New Schultze in grains. They were all bulk smokeless powders and should have been given in drams. Fanning's load with Infallible, a dense smokeless powder, was correctly given in grains. It was actually a rather light load, as the loading companies offered up to 28-grains of Infallible pushing 1 1/4 ounces of shot from 2 3/4 inch and longer 12-gauge hulls.

This is the best conversion I've come up with, but may not be exact :(

..............'E.C.'......DuPont…....Schultz…..... ..Ballistite....Infallible

3 dram....42...........36.5............42........... ...24.............21 grains
3 1/4…...45.5.........41...............45............. .26.............23
3 1/2…...49............43...............48............ ..28.............25

http://books.google.com/books?id=97d...AJ&pg=PA57&lpg
http://books.google.com/books?id=Wv0...J&pg=PA446&lpg

Note that the Winchester loads include "New E.C. Improved" and "New Schultz"

That Winchester ad looks to be from 1906 by the date code at the bottom, well after Capt. A.W. Money had the blow up at Oakland Park, NJ, and Schultze and E.C. went to become products of Laflin & Rand. By 1905 L & R were advertising "New Schultze" and "New E.C. Improved". By January 1907, Laflin & Rand's "New E.C. Improved" and "New Schultze" were being advertised as a product of E.I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Company. Can we say monopoly??

very interesting stuff here..seems to be the start of shooters useing heavier loads..i like the guns with the early 3 inch chambers.. almost got me a 3 inch 16 ga shell a while back.....charlie