Paul Harm's ruptured Remington is in Ed's book at p. 119 and is accurately reported as the result of a substitution of smokeless for black. Other authors may not be so constrained and may have reported it only as what happens when you put a smokeless powder load in a damascus gun.

Maybe the point I have been trying to make, maybe somewhat inartfully, is that Parker damascus barrels are stout and if a person wants to know what he can shoot in one, detailed information is available and goes far beyond " you have to use low pressure shells and you get them from RST." You don't have to use low pressure loads, and you can buy shells from local sources that meet the Parker load requirements for the gun, if he wants to find out for himself. But I shoot moderate to low pressure loads at clays because I like to be easy on my shoulder and the gun. If a person hears that he can only use low pressure loads, seems to me that he may think that the gun is somehow weak, or inferior, or not as good as others and maybe I'm trying to put that notion to rest.

I think the "low pressure" caveat is in order for those who don't actually measure the wall thickness of their barrels. Some fluid steel barrels come from the factories with wall thickness that would seem to indicate the use of low pressure ammo.

Drew: Long day on the road to Montana and back. The only issue with the lifter acquired is some pitting in the bores. The rest of the gun looks pretty nice for 1881. The wood is very good. Action is very tight. The first surprise is it sits on a 1 frame, with those 32" barrels Cyl and Imp Cyl. Should be a sweet pheasant gun. The side plates, under the right light, are still holding some irridescent colors. I'm pretty pleased so far.

Back to the GHE BNP. Here are a couple quick shots. If you need better let me know and I will spend some time with it after getting some sleep.

Cheers,
Jack

Calvin: Bill pretty much says it all. I agree for computer purposes anything beyond the 3MP is more than needed and everthing out there is way beyond 3MP now anyway. If you mastered the SLR, all the concepts remain the same for a DSLR but you can do a bit more with the camera that might have been done later in the film processing, like enhanced color saturation. I agree fully with Bill, if you have good lenses with your film camera, try to see what you can find that will accept those lenses or see if there is an adapter that could make them fit. If you want control (f stop/shutter/iso/white balance/dof/manual focus etc), you won't want a point and shoot, although there is plenty you can do with them and they are convenient for their ease of carrying anywhere. Looking forward to seeing some pics.
Cheers,
Jack

Don't see what the big deal is. If you are worried about your barrel shoot rst or roll your own. Most of the time when you miss it aint because you didn't have enough power its because the shot string went by the target. killed phesants with dove loads when thats all i had and missed with them as well. I'm sorry I get off subject at times. good day ch oh i shot a lot of black at doves works dandy but clean up sure gets old.

I don't either "anymore" :)

My main concern in shooting damascus guns is to keep my head down and follow through.

16ga

Hey Federal, still waiting for a reply. :rolleyes:

Any idea as to pressures of any of these old rounds?

https://docs.google.com/View?id=dfg2hmx7_333g89dwqg8

I have quite a few catalogs from WRA Co., Eley and Kynoch. They date from 1881 to 1928. No pressures are given in any of them. I wonder how they came up with velocities. It would be interesting to see what was used as a 'chronograph' 100+ years ago. Testing pressure was probably done with lead or copper slugs in a special chamber. Even so, where did they come up with the standards. In other words, .xxx" squish equates to x,xxx LUP or CUP. Mike and Calvin, I agree with you. I don't handload shotshells (yet), but use Polywads in my non-fluid steel barrels. It does not take but 4 or 5 pounds of energy per pellet for taking a Ruffed Grouse. Cheers!

Mike: Tom Armbrust tried to pressure test some vintage loads a few years ago. The results (probably more primer deterioration than powder) were so inconsistent as to be meaningless. He did find a trend toward increased pressure, felt to be from hardening of the old fiber wads and paper cases.

In a 1927 Western Cartridge Co. flyer "Super-X The Long Range Load" by Capt. Chas. Askins, the 12 gauge duck load is described as 38 1/2 grains or 3 1/2 dram with a muzzle velocity of 1400 fps (modern numbers are measured 3 feet from the muzzle) and a breech pressure of 3 3/4 tons or just below the current SAAMI 12g maximum of 11,500 psi.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL.../384733222.jpg

Ballistic Pendulum
 

Speeds were measured with what is known as a ballistic pendulum. The shot was fired into a bullet trap on the bottom of a pendulum. The speed was deduced from the amount the pendulum rose.
I wish I had my old freshman physics textbook; it had a picture of a ballistic pendulum, and the math outline. It was a really good excercise to convert the potential energy of the pendulum back the the kinetic energy of the projectile, and then the speed of the projectile.

Best, Austin

Thanks Austin,

Very cool info. I learned something today :)

Check this out....guy's

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...p5BgO6SGhyH_mA

Thanks Dave, very interesting :)

This will be my next pressure test load. This will be my tree-rat load if my baby and I survive. :cool:
BTW: I never did hear back from Federal, so much for the "we will reply within two to three days" :whistle:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l3...tshells1LR.jpg

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l3...edBarrels9.jpg

Nice gun Mike!!!!Like the color of the wood. I'm askin santa 4 a GH 16 with trunips and a 1 frame. ch that was interesting Dave I wood of got a good grade in that class same as spelling. :-)

1. Write if you survive.

2. There is no turning back once you start living life on the edge.

3. Join the PGCA.

4. By the way, I've shoot cases of those in Damascus and fluid steel guns for hunting. In 12ga 1 1/8oz, in 6's that is my standard pheasant and prairie grouse load except for 16ga and then I buy the Fed 1oz for that.

“1. Write if you survive.”

I survived Bruce. :)

Still have 10 fingers, no lumps or bumps in the barrels.
No Damascus fragments imbedded in my head.
4 shots, 4 very dead tree-rats this afternoon.
This is my favorite load to date.
Recoil is very tolerable with this load in the #1 frame GH.


http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l3...rGH12ga1LR.jpg

Truly a miracle. Next thing you'll be trying the Fed Game Shoc 1 1/8oz loads.

Don't let anybody know. You'll have the low pressure police after you.

Bruce,

In all honesty, those MagTec BP shells I was loading and using
in the same dram of powder and shot load are much more violent in recoil
than these Federal rounds by a noticeable long shot.
I guess there’s always going to be the seen and unseen reality with
damascus and shotshells like many other things in life.

So glade I danced to dare the tide. :cool:

Mike, speaking from experience, I can say that achieving a given velocity produced much more recoil with black! I have an interesting chart showing actual recoil in foot pounds for various Winchester rifles, compiled by WRA Co themselves. The black powder loads always had more recoil. I loaded for 5 different 45-70s and can attest to WRA Co's study. Cheers!

That's because of the difference between black powder drams and smokeless powder dram equivalents. It takes more BP to achieve a given velocity than smokeless, dre is based upon velocity, and the recoil formula is based upon the ejecta, which is greater for BP.

So bottom line, going BP is not necessarily the best way to go? :corn:
Using black powder indeed keeps the chamber pressures way down.
BUT, at the cost of beating the gun and operator with recoil.

Depending on the year made, most of these damascus Parkers were probably never shot with black powder.
Some people like the smoke and the clean up. They enjoy the nostalgia of it. I've never had the inclination to try it through any of mine, but different strokes......

Dupont bulk smokeless first came in 1885 and at least turn of the century Parker flyers mention recommended loads with Dupont smokeless.

Interesting!! Is that same powder used today?

Not the same powder, but close to it. Austin Hogan did some analysis and I'm thinking that Dupont ( now IMR) PB had much the same slow burning characteristics as bulk smokeless. Note the name similarity PB to the original smokeless from France, Poudre B.

Austin?

Beyond that, I am old enough to remember an expression of old time shooters from when I was a kid " the greatest thing since smokeless powder". Black powder is much more dangerous and requires tedious clean up, but some folks like the nostalgia of it. I think many of our old Parker hammer guns have barrel pitting because of the use of black powder, which is hydroscopic. Smokeless powder was invented in France in 1884 and quickly caught on. It started being used in the US in 1885 and within a few years new rifles and handguns were being designed for it, such as the 1888 Mausers. The Parker hammerless guns came out in 1889 and its likely that many of them never saw the use of black powder , whether they were fluid steel or damascus barreled. Smokeless powder also reduced the market for the big bore shotguns because now you could get the same performance from much smaller cartridge cases.

Bruce most pitting around the chamber area was due to corrosive primers not BP

Eric, correct, and pitting on the standing breech face around the hammer nose hole. Further down the barrel, its due to powder residue attracting moisture, the sulphur compounds in black powder mixing with humidity to create acids, so acid and rusting. Smokeless powder residue also can cause it but not as bad. We get people writing in about loose chambers, e.g., a 12 ga shell fits loosely and they think they have an 11 ga. I suspect its because the chamber got reamed out to clean out pits and chamber pits are a primer issue.

The 'bulk smokeless' was supposed to be the greatest thing for handloading. You could use your blackpowder scoop to throw the same volume of 'bulk' for a given load. When powders like Infallible and Ballistite came onto the scene, charges had to be carefully measured/weighed. I have a few specimens in my collection with topwads citing grains of powder, rather than drams or drams equivalent. If you used the same scoop for Infallible as you did for bulk, a serious overload was made. I believe Infallible is the predecessor to Unique. I have WRA Co. catalogs that include lots of charts for the non-bulk powders. Cheers!

Du Pont Bulk Smokeless
 

We found an old Dupont loading manual and extracted some material from it in Parker Pages earlier this year. DuPont bulk became available around 1895, and is last mentioned in the early 1950's loading pamphlets. Shotgun handloaders were essentially extinct following WW2 until revived by Alcan in the early 1960's.

DuPont Bulk Smokeless was a convenience. It looked like soap bubbles under a magnifying glass. It was loaded by volume rather than weight as was black powder and it occupied the same space in the shell, allowing it to be used with the same wads. It produced about twice the pressure as black to achieve the dram equivalent load. I don't think pressures were noted for bulk in the DuPont manual, but Phil Sharpe's book indicates bulk burned cleanly at about 9000 psi.

This issue of Parker Pages will contain some information contributed by Ken Waite Jr on Parker's changeover from Black to Bulk smokeless for patterning. Parker continued to pattern with bulk smokeless throughout Meriden production.

PB stands for porous base. It was also bulky relative to IMR and SR DuPont powders, and occupied more shell volume. The early DuPont loading manuals specifically note that PB can not be substituted for black.

Best, Austin

Austin, sounds like another great issue coming up. I know we have the Parker-Hawes Rod articles and now this bulk smokeless matter. As always, I am grateful to learn from others.
One matter I have questioned and not had answered is what presently available powder is closest to the original Dupont bulk smokeless that Parker used for patterning. I've heard Dupont ( IMR) PB but never with a clear explanation.
As for PB being named from "porous base", aren't they all? What makes PB different? Just the bulkiness?

And to add, is there a big name shotshell manufacturer out their still loading
a clone or close to a clone loading today as in the late 1890’s ?

Were the first smokeless shotshells in the late 1890’s all paper roll
crimp? Or were they brass shells?

In the 1899 WRA Co. catalog, empty brass shells are specifically for black powder. No loaded brass shells are listed. The different paper empties are labeled for specific powders, black or smokeless. Loaded paper shot shells, black or smokeless, are topped with a single card and roll crimped. The 'Leader' paper shell was their latest and greatest for smokeless. The 'Rival' paper shell was well established as their black powder shell, empty or loaded. The 1899 catalog did not specify smokeless powders actually used in factory loads, as later catalogs did. As nitro loaded shells were not kept in stock, any of the popular smokeless powders were available by customer request. It was not mentioned as to why smokeless shells were not kept on hand.

This could be do to the “New Kid On The Block Syndrome”
I’m sure as today; Joe average hunter was well stocked in shells
and played the wait and see how those new smokeless shells
worked out for other's before purchased.

Winchester Loads
 

I don't have the 1899 catalog, but have the Winchester 1890 and 1910. More varieties of loaded shells and cases were available in 1910, but brass cases were still available. Winchester offered the choice of propellant and shell length in 500 shell orders.
Remington continued to produce loaded black powder shells through the 1930's, but did not resume production after WW 2.

Best, Austin

In 1920, WRA Co. said their 'First Quality' empty brass shells were for black and smokeless powders. The 'New Rival' and 'Nublack' paper shells were specifically for black powder. The 'Leader' in 8 gauge and the 'Repeater' in 24 and 28 gauge were the only other black powder offerings. The 'Leader' and 'Repeater' shells, made predominantly for smokeless, were available with DuPont, Schultze, Dead Shot, E.C, Infallible, and Ballistite smokeless loads.

i sure am learning a lot from this discusion....im lead to believe that most folks went to smokless powder earlier than i thought...relearned that black powder is rougher on gun and shoulder than smokless.. charlie

You and me both Charlie.
I have also learned that there’s some unwarranted fear’s,
misconceptions and "silence".

On the positive side it did create the small low pressure
shot shell industry, as well as the low pressure gun rag
police force over the years.

but black hits harder than smokless and its a hit with the people u r hunting with and bruce i'm impressed with your vast knoweledge of the english language but could you use words this dumb farm boy don't have 2 look up in the dictionary. ch