Parker Gun Collectors Association Forums  

Go Back   Parker Gun Collectors Association Forums Non-Parker Specific & General Discussions General Discussions about Other Fine Doubles

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 12-17-2013, 08:55 AM   #1
Member
Drew Hause
Forum Associate
 
Drew Hause's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,288
Thanks: 378
Thanked 4,322 Times in 1,401 Posts

Default

Took some lookin' Pete. This is interesting "Mr Griffith on Shot-gun Patterns"

The Field March 7, 1891 Vol 77:325
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA234

You can enter 'wadding' in the search box and find more hits
Drew Hause is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Drew Hause For Your Post:
Visit Drew Hause's homepage!
Unread 12-17-2013, 11:09 AM   #2
Member
J.B. Books
PGCA Member
 
Pete Lester's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,087
Thanks: 1,886
Thanked 5,500 Times in 1,533 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Hause View Post
Took some lookin' Pete. This is interesting "Mr Griffith on Shot-gun Patterns"

The Field March 7, 1891 Vol 77:325
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA234

You can enter 'wadding' in the search box and find more hits
Not easy to read. Looking at page 239 it would seem a thin field card vs. a thick field wad produced a slightly better pattern. All things being equal I would expect the longer shells with equal payload had "thicker" wadding. Could the longer shells with thicker wadding have reduced pattern effectiveness? However there is more information to take in here. what's your take?
Pete Lester is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-17-2013, 01:30 PM   #3
Member
Researcher
PGCA Lifetime
Member
 
Dave Noreen's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,922
Thanks: 1,884
Thanked 8,983 Times in 2,625 Posts

Default

Thank you for finding this Drew.

This is a British take on things as of April 1897, and how the folks at the Schultze powder factory perceived things. Interesting, but mainly is dealing with 2 1/2 inch British shells and a wad column from 1/2 to 5/8 inch long, nothing near as long as the wad column would be in a North American 3-inch shell. When he discusses the shell actually fitting the chamber, he shows the shell openning into the forcing cone being a bad thing, but the diagram shows the shell protruding the full length of the forcing cone, not the 1/8 inch several American manufacturers came to favor. Also, quite a short forcing cone in all his diagrams.

Would be great if we could find something like this from a North American Company, DuPont, Laflin & Rand, etc. from maybe somewhere in the 1900 to 1910 vintage.
Dave Noreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-17-2013, 04:31 PM   #4
Member
Drew Hause
Forum Associate
 
Drew Hause's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,288
Thanks: 378
Thanked 4,322 Times in 1,401 Posts

Default

1895 American made shotgun shells are reviewed in the April 13, 1895 Sporting Life, but it's all marketing. I've never seen comparison testing by any U.S. shell maker or sporting publication
http://www.la84foundation.org/Sports.../SL2503014.pdf

It would appear the Top Guns believed the hype, or just used what the manufacturers paid them to use


Drew Hause is online now   Reply With Quote
Visit Drew Hause's homepage!
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - 2025, Parkerguns.org
Copyright © 2004 Design par Megatekno
- 2008 style update 3.7 avec l'autorisation de son auteur par Stradfred.