Just wondering, where is it you're using the old pigeon load for ducks and geese? Lead shot has been banned for waterfowl since 1991 in the US and since 1999 in Canada. That includes coppered lead shot as generally used in pigeon loads.

I load my own Bismuth loads at 1200 fps. Actually, my tests of the +1300 loads vs 1200 was with lead way before lead was banned in Canada. I've never used coppered shot. The "old pigeon load" I refer to is the general pigeon load of years ago of 1 1/4 oz of shot and around 1200 fps. It does not refer to any "pigeon load" of current vintage. Pigeon load as I use the term is an old term I picked up long ago from the old timers in my home town of Pawling, NY. Some of those old boys shot flyers back in the day.

So it would seem reasonable to be proactive and glasbed or reinforce the head of the stock in some way before using boomer loads

Yes, I would agree that that would solve the problem. I have sometimes relieved a sliver of wood from behind the lock plates of L.C. Smith guns and reinforced with acra-glas. It's solves the cracking problem so common on these guns. I like to get to them before they start to crack. Wood can be relieved in the stock head of Parkers and reinforced with acra-glas also but I have never done that with a gun that wasn't already cracked. My solution is to never use boomer loads since, in my opinion, nothing is to be gained but heavy recoil.


Many times a crack such as you have shown in the pictures does not show on the exterior for some time. I have taken Parkers apart that seemed ok until the stock head was exposed. I hate to see this. It's not a hard fix and its a permanent one, but its better to use sensible loads to prevent further cracking or any cracking in the first place.

The first sentence in my post above was written by Drew. I guess I screwed up the quote notification attributing it to him.

Many of the old boys such as Elmer Keith talked of heavy loads and long shots. Elmer used his Ithaca 3 1/2 inch ten bore to take geese to 80 yards. I've read most of their stuff including Askins who was Elmer's mentor. But I never shoot over 50 yards, never ever. And I never let the opinions of others become my opinions, even the likes of Askins and Keith who I truly enjoy reading. My comments are based solely on my personaL experience. I read what they had to say and then find out for myself. I have shot countless patterns and extensively shot all types of game for 55 years. My opinions are my own based on my actual experiences and testing. I am careful to preface my statements with "in my opinion". It's just that, my opinion. Others are free to read my posts and disagree. Thats what it's all about. Nobody would question the experience of Jack O'Connor or Elmer Keith. But both of those gentlemen disagreed on most everything. Jack O'Connor touted the .270 for elk and moose. Elmer Keith said anyone who hunted elk or moose with a .270 was a damn fool. My own experience taking moose with the .270 convinced me that Jack was right and Elmer was wrong. But my opinion is based on my experience, not the words of either gentlemen.

I'm not buying the marketing, or gun writin' guy hyperbole.

Parker Bros. 1929 Catalog
"Magnum, Super, and variously named guns about which so much is now being written are not a new development in the gun makers' art. For the past twenty years Parker Brothers have made guns to handle heavy charges of powder and shot, giving good patterns at long range. Recent improvements in powder and by shell manufacturers have served to make the Parker Long Range gun even more effective, so that today the Parker built and bored to secure the full power of modern loads with which one may confidently expect to bring down game at distances a few years ago considered impossible, is up to date but not new. Parker Long Range guns are built to guard the user against abnormal recoil. The weight of the barrels is so distributed that the gun handles the heaviest loads with comfort. The purchaser of a Parker Long Range can rest assured that he will receive a gun, easy to handle, sufficiently heavy and properly bored to shoot the heaviest loads for the killing of wild fowl at extreme ranges."

Pattern testing by David Williamson with .042" choke 32" LRWF at a measured 80 yards using 3 inch Winchester (plastic) hull with 38.35 grains of Blue Dot, Winchester 209 primer, Winchester AASL wad, and 1 3/8 ounces of #5 nickel plated shot. The average number of pellets was 246 and measured weight 1.353 ounce.
Number of pellets in duck for 3 shots: 5,6 & 6. Pattern % in 30" circle: 5.3 = 13 pellets, 8.1 = 20 pellets & 8.5 = 21 pellets.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL.../411836838.jpg

Any chance this "duck" is dead in the air?

Who needs a .270? I know a grandmother in my town who has taken 3 elk with a .257 bob.

A .257 Roberts in the hands of a cool and experienced shot is likely a better elk killer than a 7mm magnum in the hands of the typical weekend tyro who, because of the excessive recoil, doesn't properly sight in his gun or practice to efficiency.

The .257 Roberts is one of the classic great cartridges of the past, just as effective today as it ever was. They are a pleasure to shoot.

I'm pretty sure the Askins mentioned in the quote is Askins Jr, not the senior Askins who was the noted shotgun expert. Anyone interested in shooting vintage shotguns should get a copy of Modern Shotguns and Loads by Capt Charles Askins (senior) that was originally published in 1929. The book and its reprint are generally available on Ebay etc. You'll be absolutely flabbergasted by the Cap's extensive detail in this book, to include the pellet counts and efficiencies derived from hundreds of objective patterning tests of all gauges, and at ranges up to 60+ yards for ducking loads. He wasn't one to come up with opinions without having extensive data to back them up.


Back to the very first question by the original poster, regarding the Kent 12 ga/2-3/4-inch load with 1-1/4 ounce of its new Bismuth shot. Speed was cited at 1325 which is on par with the our familiar American 12-gauge "high brass" load of lead shot. It might be good for anyone interested to check with Kent or other sources to determine where that velocity was measured, i.e., at 3 ft as typical with American shotshells, or at the muzzle (or back calculated to the muzzle) as often done on foreign made shells? Indeed if the latter, that 1325 would be more like 1250 or so per the American protocol.

So my take away from this thread thus far:

1. My Trojan in good shape should be fine to shoot the Kent Bismuth shells. They might kick a little more than the RST shells (of which I shot the 2 3/4" pheasant variety through this gun and they performed admirably on brant in Mexico earlier this year).

The son who was wanting to use this gun is 5' 10" and 175 pounds, plays football and has shot with 4-H trap and skeet since he was old enough to shoulder a reduced length Beretta 20 gauge autoloader. Recoil probably will not be as bad a those "hypersonic" 3" 1700 fps shells that he was shooting through his Beretta. (Those shells will rattle your fillings!)

2. A steady diet of "boomer" loads might cause damage to stock head if oil soaked or weakened due to age.

(Thank you Mr. Flanigan! The word "Boomer" makes most Texans cringe because down here it is associated with the University of Oklahoma who is a nemesis to both the University of Texas in Austin and my alma mater, Texas A&M.)

I would not want to be caught dead using a "boomer" load.

I fear the cost of a preemptive repair would probably exceed the $800 have in the gun, but it is something for consideration.

3. Handloading Bismuth is probably the best way to provide adequate hunting ammo in the long run.

4. Elmer Keith didn't like either Captain or Colonel Askins because they didn't use enough gun...or maybe that was Ruark?? I am confused but as long as I don't shoot at 80 yards I'll be fine.

Thanks to all!