Shotshell Pressure Question?

[Mike Stahle]

Originally Posted by Bruce Day

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?

[Bruce Day]

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.

[Opening Day]

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

[Bruce Day]

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.

[Roundsworth]

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!

[Austin W Hogan]

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

[Roundsworth]

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.

[Mike Stahle]

Originally Posted by Mark Landskov

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.

[Bruce Day]

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?

[Mike Stahle]

Originally Posted by Bruce Day

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?