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.