RST

[Mike of the Mountain]

Originally Posted by Rick Roemer

To Mr Murphy’s point, I purchased several boxes of 2 1/2” Shenk brand shells only to find they are way beyond safe in our vintage side by sides.

What exactly would cause them to be "way beyond safe"?

[Mike of the Mountain]

Let's just use 12g 2 3/4" as an example. If your barrels are good, whether they are Damascus, twist or fluid steel, there is no reason why you can't shoot 1 oz at 1200 FPS out of the gun. No reason at all except for possibly the shooter being "recoil sensitive". Most problems arise when shot charges get bumped to 1 1/8-1 1/4 and your velocity increases above that 1220 mark. Then you may cause damage to the old wood long before you see any problems with your barrels or action. In my 40 years of shooting and 20 years in the industry, I have only seen two shotguns blow up. One was due to a flaw in the steel, the other was contributed to a bore obstruction while using known low-pressure shells. I have seen many handguns blow up though. Most from high pressure from low powder charges.

[6pt-Sika]

Originally Posted by Mike Koneski

Let's just use 12g 2 3/4" as an example. If your barrels are good, whether they are Damascus, twist or fluid steel, there is no reason why you can't shoot 1 oz at 1200 FPS out of the gun. No reason at all except for possibly the shooter being "recoil sensitive". Most problems arise when shot charges get bumped to 1 1/8-1 1/4 and your velocity increases above that 1220 mark. Then you may cause damage to the old wood long before you see any problems with your barrels or action. In my 40 years of shooting and 20 years in the industry, I have only seen two shotguns blow up. One was due to a flaw in the steel, the other was contributed to a bore obstruction while using known low-pressure shells. I have seen many handguns blow up though. Most from high pressure from low powder charges.

If my memory serves P.O.Ackley did an article in The American Rifleman back in the 50’s about Damascus vs Fluid Steel . He took four Parker’s two fluid steel and two Damascus . Started loading for them at what I assume would be RST level loads and worked his way up in velocity . All four made it past what would be considered a stout . And as he increased he split the fluid steel barrels and went further with the Damascus barrels I think if memory serves he stopped with the Damascus barrels because the frames had sprung or something like that . Now granted all four of the guns he used had mirror bores and a good many Damascus you run across now look rather rough in the bore . But it seems to me on an even playing field Damascus or twist oughtta hold their own against fluid steel . And by no means am I telling anyone to go out and shoot factory in their Damascus/twist barreled guns , but with a modicum of common sense you can most likely figure something out .

[Mike of the Mountain]

Originally Posted by CraigThompson

If my memory serves P.O.Ackley did an article in The American Rifleman back in the 50’s about Damascus vs Fluid Steel . He took four Parker’s two fluid steel and two Damascus . Started loading for them at what I assume would be RST level loads and worked his way up in velocity . All four made it past what would be considered a stout . And as he increased he split the fluid steel barrels and went further with the Damascus barrels I think if memory serves he stopped with the Damascus barrels because the frames had sprung or something like that . Now granted all four of the guns he used had mirror bores and a good many Damascus you run across now look rather rough in the bore . But it seems to me on an even playing field Damascus or twist oughtta hold their own against fluid steel . And by no means am I telling anyone to go out and shoot factory in their Damascus/twist barreled guns , but with a modicum of common sense you can most likely figure something out .

Double Gun Journal published a whole series of tests done on Damascus, twist and fluid steel on vintage guns. The test results showed that the old Damascus and twist barreled guns were very strong and held up to proof loads. The plus was those guns were not closet queens and were definitely used over the years. Sherman Bell did a whole series and I think a few other guys did some of their own tests.

[Steve Parker]

A few of us had purchased the Shenk Shells. The perceived recoil on both the target and hunting loads were significantly more than what we recalled from RST loads. I had the loads tested independently and the shenk shells measured at beyond 12,500 psi.

[Stan Hoover]

Originally Posted by Steve Parker

A few of us had purchased the Shenk Shells. The perceived recoil on both the target and hunting loads were significantly more than what we recalled from RST loads. I had the loads tested independently and the shenk shells measured at beyond 12,500 psi.

That’s worrisome, in shells that were advertised as being low pressure?

[Rick Roemer]

Originally Posted by Mike Koneski

What exactly would cause them to be "way beyond safe"?

Please refer to Steven's post. These shells are way above the advertised numbers. The felt recoil was the first indicator for many of us. They were tested independently and produced very high numbers. In my opinion, too high for any vintage gun. Especially the stocks. Just my two cents of course.

[Mike of the Mountain]

Originally Posted by Rick Roemer

Please refer to Steven's post. These shells are way above the advertised numbers. The felt recoil was the first indicator for many of us. They were tested independently and produced very high numbers. In my opinion, too high for any vintage gun. Especially the stocks. Just my two cents of course.

Steve replied to me after I asked about the pressures. 12,500 is definitely way to high. I wouldn't want to shoot them out of a modern gun let alone a vintage gun.

[Rick Roemer]

Originally Posted by Mike Koneski

Steve replied to me after I asked about the pressures. 12,500 is definitely way to high. I wouldn't want to shoot them out of a modern gun let alone a vintage gun.

Exactly my thoughts.