Stock breakage
 

After reading many threads about appropriate ammo for vintage guns i have asked myself if in 10 years as a member and 5 as an associate if i have ever seen a first hand example of stock damage directly attributable to these so called magnum loads and can't say that i have.
Do not get me wrong, i am an advocate of light loads. Have promoted 3/4 and 7/8 12 ga. loads in many threads here. At the clubs i shoot at i am known as a PIA about it.
Does anyone have first hand experience with a load that damaged wood that can be directly linked to heavy loads? The stock makers on here probably have the most to do with this and would see it in repairs and replacement work.
Again i do not believe there is any need for the heavy fast loads ammo companies promote.

Usually a stock breaking from recoil is due to the wood shrinking over time and screws loosening up causing the action to be somewhat loose on the stock. This causes uneven stress upon recoil on the stock head. That is how you can loose the top of the side of a stock. But this can also happen just from opening and closing the gun if the action is loose enough in the wood.

I have a few times seen stock heads blow apart from ruptured primers on hot loads that send pressure back into the action and the wood cheek ends up being the weak link.

Thank you Brian, i appreciate your answer and can see how a reciever given even the smallest amount of movement will batter a stock no matter what ammo is used.

I have been the owner of a 32" barreled 16 ga. L C Smith for some 15+ years. When I got it the wood was perfect, in all respects, not oil soaked in the least. I used it only for doves with 1 oz. loads and never had an issue. I used it on a crow shoot one time with 1 1/8 oz. loads where I shot maybe one and one-half boxes of shells. After that I noticed tiny hairline cracks developing behind the lock plates, both sides. I had it addressed by Jim Kelly of Darlington Gun Works and stopped the damage.

I do understand that L C Smiths are more prone to this cracking than boxlocks but I really believe it might have never occurred had I stayed with 1 oz. or lighter loads. IMHO if you want to use 1 1/8 oz. or heavier payloads in vintage doubles go up a gauge to the 12.

https://www.jpgbox.com/jpg/73909_800x600.jpg

Stan, do you have any good recipes for those babies?

Yes, Bill, I do. 3 1/4- 1 1/8 - high antimony 4s or 6s, out of a full choke.

What you do with the corn and peanut crop robbers after that is up to you.

Dan,
the analogy I make is splitting wood. What works better, a 2# axe or a 8# splitting maul. F=MxA. The heavier the load the greater the rearward force. In my experience it isn't unusual to find a stock that has split internally before it even shows on the outside. I have repaired a number of them found that way. Wood stocks shrink/swell, and absorb oil around the screws and actions, sometimes for many decades or over a century.

Also, the root cause of a lot of damage can be forces other than recoil. If a gun is banged around or dropped an internal crack can start which is then worked on more by recoil. I feel that this is what causes split heads on parkers and foxes. And LC Smith featherweights have so little wood in their heads that they can crack with even the slightest forces applied in the wrong direction.

We have seen a few Parker 10 and 12 gauge guns that were obviously ordered for heavy waterfowl shooting where they were originally ordered with reinforced or pinned stock heads… most likely for this very reason.





.

I have had two guns have the cheeks break off. A Browning BSS 12g that wound up having a cracked and repaired cheek before I bought it. The whole cheek on the left side came off. I wound up having the stock replaced and it's my go to waterfowl and crow double. Not that I hunt waterfowl and crows often, but I can shoot anything out of that gun. The second gun was a 16g Fox Sterly. Same deal. The 16g shells were a bit snotty and the 5th shot with those shells had the stock around the auto-safety rod break off. Had that repaired and reinforced then sold it.

Back in the 50s and 60s, old doubles were worth little, but LC Smiths couldn't be given away due to cracking behind the lock plate. Many of the ones listed today still have them.

I own a lot of English guns and they too have stocks which you must be careful with. Most 12 ga English box lock game guns weigh 6 to 6-1/2 pounds, about the same as an American small bore. The small bores are less. They were built to a different concept and also require much more care in handling. I was waiting at Fieldsports table at a gun show once with the intention of buying a 20 ga Hollis. I had looked at it previously earlier in the day and come back. Someone else was examining the gun and while I waited, they for some reason set it butt down on the floor too hard and the stock snapped completely though behind the tang.

Do these count ;)

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...20Parker-M.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...82048%29-M.png

All different guns but I don't know the loads
A 20g

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...20Parker-S.jpg

This may be Destry's 12g that Dr. Bill worked on

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...0%282%29-M.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...0%282%29-M.jpg

IMHO short chamber 16g and 20g when treated to Western Super-X boomers are at risk

This is the Smith design defect; inadquate wood at the head of the stock. IMHO cracks at the apex of the lockplate start at the head of the stock

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...20marked-M.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...DSCF2869-M.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...h%202072-M.jpg

Fox Sterlingworth cracked down the middle

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...37Sterly-M.jpg

David Trevallion sent me this pic of a Fox ready for a staple repair

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...ck%20002-M.jpg

Lefever

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...20stock-XL.jpg

Thank you Drew. The photos show shiny places indicating to me bearing surfaces. The Smith has the least, The Parker quite a bit. Any play between stock and receiver would set up a hammering effect that would be amplified by heavy shells.
This shows the mechanics of how it occurs and confirms my use of light shot charges at 1200 or less velocity.
I appreciate all of your responses, thank you

We know the loads specified on the hang tags that came with the guns. It would seem reasonable to use them :)

https://photos.smugmug.com/Shotshell...rHangTag-L.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Shotshell...%20ounce-M.jpg

I think age gets lost in the discussion as well. When you are talking about a firearm that is 100+ years old, that wood is going to be dry. It may look great on the surface, but it is most likely dry as a bone underneath.

The same with the steel. I don't understand why some feel the need to lengthen chambers or open chokes on steel that is already weakened/stressed from age and use.

Conservation should be the mission, not accelerating their demise.

Just my opinion, many have others.

The OP's question was about the use of heavy loads and recoil effect on Parker stocks.

Those crude cross bolts and cracks pictured by Drew in the middle of the boxlock stock heads (Parker, Fox) may well be attributed to lateral pressure on the side of the stock, as in falling while hunting. Cracks in LC Smith sidelock stock heads are irrelevant to this discussion. Why post them?

On the other hand chipped-out areas on the sides of boxlock stock heads can be an indication of recoil effect from shooting. Can we see any pics of those on Parkers in particular?

Alfred: shotgun barrels have no moving parts, though there is some flexion with the shot and expansion with the ejecta.
Properly designed and fabricated barrels, using metal appropriate for the application, subjected to pressures for which they were designed, do not weaken over time...well, maybe in a few thousand years ;)
The problem of course is corrosion, pitting, obstruction, and using shells for which the barrels were not designed. None of us can know the abuse our barrels may have experienced before we acquired the gun; but a bore gauge, bore scope and wall thickness gauge and help.

Frank: how can you know that a boxlock stock head split down the middle wasn't caused by excessive recoil?

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...75092555-M.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...75092555-M.jpg

THIS certainly looks to be from trauma

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...-%20Copy-M.jpg

Sophmoric question. If the stocks are "dry" would they benefit from a drink of oil?

Nothing is for certain when it comes to recoil, wood grain structure, fineness of the heading, etc. but methinks the most common cause of stock head/middle splits on boxlocks is lateral leverage caused by a fall or some other sideways pressure.

I use the term "dry" all the time but it is really a misnomer, I believe. All stocks stored in a climate controlled environment are dry unless oil soaked.

I use a moisture meter to check wood I intend to use as a stock. Stored in a dry cool basement with room for circulation, it will be at about 8% when it is ready to use. Once it gets there it pretty much stays at that level. I have tested under the butt plate of guns over the course of years they stay at that level even after exposure to wet or humid conditions.

I really have never heard an explanation of the mechanism of the change but many old guns, due to some reason in their history, develop a "punky" , for lack of a better term, consistency. The stock wood is soft and very weak and brittle. This is very different than oil soaked wood. As a general rule, most stocks remain oil soaked after it occurs because it is hard to treat and often not noticeable without removing the stock.

As shown in many examples, I have found and repaired many internal head splits. After many years of fooling with doubles, one of the first things I do when receiving any new gun is do at least a partial teardown. Most people try to avoid turning a screw for any reason, but after buying to many old guns that developed an external crack after the first shot or two, I simply to it as a matter of maintenance. I find an internal crack of some size in well over half the guns I acquire. I always repair if found. There are too many good adhesives on the market and too many simple ways to use a reinforcement pin to take a chance. The pictures above show how bad it can be and not be visible on the outside. If an ad talks about a "small stable crack" I am out of there or will only bid at a level that assumes a repair.

''
I had never seen the method shown in the second picture but it adds reinforcement in two directions and holds the cheek piece in alignment. I assume the head of the staple is inset flush with the front of the web. It would only work with no center inlet.

When I find a stock like that, I generally slice a piece out of the center and insert a shim of hardwood with epoxy, followed by some sort cross pin. A gap of that size should not be simply filled with adhesive or epoxy. They have little strength without some sort of matrix filler, which is the source of strength in that kind of composite. Sometimes, a layup of epoxy saturated Kevlar biaxial woven tape is the best. Bonding the wood and with immense shear strength. Filling the crack that way and then bedding the center of the stock with the same material should give a reinforcement that would never let go.

We had a saying at the SOM that 'WNL' didn't mean 'Within Normal Limits' but 'We Never Looked' :nono: Never looking means all those cracks are only going to worsen.

These are all David's images and unfortunately small size

Drilling the holes for the staple in the Fox stock

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...%20stock-S.jpg

Holes

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...ck%20001-S.jpg

Staple in place and (I think) acragel

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...ck%20003-M.jpg

This is a Parker post-staple with a wood cover glued in place

https://photos.smugmug.com/Repairs-R...taple%27-S.jpg

This is the exact method that Brian Board used to permanently fix one of my Parkers.





.

I could not find my image of the hardwood 'dumbbell' insert in the head of some 20g stocks. Was this a factory reinforcement? When did they first appear; maybe after the Super-X boomers? Does anyone have a pic?

Stock repair thread by Jim Williams. The Photobucket images are obscured but can be seen
https://parkerguns.org/forums/showthread.php?t=517

Purchased a few high grade.with stock flaws never had one developed a crack.when hunting. Hunt most of the time with doubles use light loads even Waterfowl.

Maybe its just me, but I cringe when someone who learned it from his father slams the action shut as if they are trying to break it in half. Holding the wood in the right hand and wanting to hear that car door slam can't be good on anything, and I imagine many L.C. Smiths had cracks started from ham-handed hunters.

Jerry you are not alone, I have seen Turkish o/u rattled apart in 3 months. Not that i care about them at all but when it is a vintage double i feel the need to council the owner.

Drew, I knew I had some pics of the dumbbell repair insert and I found them.
Feel free to copy these to your files and use them however you like.

I wish I could remember the details but all I know is the pics were taken with my kitchen floor in the background.

In looking more closely it is a Remington era DHE 0-frame stock I sold a few years ago.
The last picture clearly shows the Remington "lance-point" drop point rather than the Meriden style of "willow leaf" drop point.


.

Dean

What is across the center? It looks like the "bells" are two dowels in each cheek. Is the cross piece another dowel across the web? Is it just inlet or is it smaller and drilled into the side dowels?

I saw Michael McIntosh in several videos making a big deal about lifting the butt to the action on reloading rather than snapping the gun shut by the barrels. Generally it was when in the company of a British instructor. I suspect this was something commonly taught by the British back in the day for the reason stated.

That's them Dean and thanks! :)
There was likely a reason for the reinforcement.

It’s all one piece - that’s why it’s called a “dumbbell”





.