16 Gauge Vulcan, 1 Frame 28 inch barrels choked m,f

[William Davis]

Gun details aside most factory 16g field loads are too strong to shoot comfortably in my Parker’s. I often buy Herters 1 oz field loads shoot them in a Remington pump & save the hulls to load for the SXS guns. Not a good load for my Trojan, way too much recoil for my Parker Hammer 16 .

Thing about 16s do you want them to perform like 12s or 20s. Targets I use RST or load to duplicate RST 3/4 oz. at 1180 FPS. Live birds 7/8 makes a fine 16g load. Either one 20 g dublicate. When I want 1 oz I use a 12g.

On low pressure, it’s a result of the components, primarily the powder. Wad too. Major manufacturers looking to save money can load faster powders with smaller charges resulting in higher pressure and recoil. Note Reserchers post quoting “Progressive “ powders in period shells. Most modern field loads don’t use more expensive progressive powders. Shoot one of RSTs 12 G loads and the same shot weight and velocity Winchester 12 G Walmart pack, you will see significant difference in recoil, and likely much higher pressure. OK in a modern gun recipe for trouble in a fine old SXS . Save money by using appropriate shells at higher cost and avoid expensive stock repairs.

William

[Southpaw]

Man lots of people to thank for their sharing of knowledge and input. Edgar I think you have way more than enough background to adequately address my posed questions. In my opinion all PHD stands for is "Piled Higher and Deeper". The man is very smart though and lives metals. Last time I talked with him on a project involving a manufacturing process it took me two hours after the conversation looking through an old text book to figure out what he was talking about. You probably would have known immediately what he was talking about. My minor in Geology only takes me so far.

I get your points though. I also think you are right on target about the barrels and loads if the metal has been taken care of and was cleaned in its earlier days from any corrosive agents that could have been allowed to sit in the barrels. Reflecting on properties regarding copper coated lead that makes sense and with most modern shells the wad or shell cup I believe encases the load thru the barrels. The mass of load and its physical properties, or hardness probably matter most, plus throwing in velocity, etc. It definitely is not just the mass since steel has less mass than lead. Okay enough of that.

I tend to agree with point that biggest reason you want lighter loads cycling through these old guns, even if the barrels check out, is that the American Walnut used can become brittle with age and weakened if excessive oiling were to penetrate the wood near the wood metal interface, so forth and so forth. Its rare to see an old heavily used Parker 12 gauge that does not have stock issues. So now I understand the light load conundrum that slated for the charge discussion as it relates to pounding of the stock. So what is a light load.

I went to Polywad site and looked up their Vintage and Doublewide shells and they said something strange. Their site lists powder charge as 2 1/4 dram equivalent for 12 gauge. Checked the 16 Ga load, 2 1/4 dram equivalent, and it was the same for a 20 gauge. Boy that is helpful.
http://www.polywad.com/vintager.html

So as Edgar and Osthaus and others have/may eluded, the low pressure shells and loads is not just about the barrels but maybe more about the pounding of the stock, and heck who knows the delta and variables on that regarding the wood. I do know that on my gun the wood has not cracked around the lock. It does have come character dings and scratches but wood is tight and no signs of any stress there. Which brings up another question or thread. If you do not want to refinish the stock or wood, what is best way to care for these guns with aging Walnut other than limiting shooting 3 dram powder charges.

Researcher, love the handle, also appreciate your input and knowledge about the loads. It does go to show you the evolution of how guns and ammo change but essentially really stay about the same. Shot stringing, now that is an interesting topic, and not many folks nowadays even broach it. It clearly says on that old box of shells and loads from pic you provided showing "Super Short Shot Stringing". Bet you can't say that fast 3 times in a row. Time to get out the Physics text book. I think the English have it right. Square loads have a clear advantage for crossing moving targets. 3 dimensional thinking of shot travel and Newtonian Physics would be an interesting topic. I can't remember last time I have ever heard any talking head discuss about shotgun shooting and appropriately wade in on the shot string topic.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by William Davis

Gun details aside most factory 16g field loads are too strong to shoot comfortably in my Parker’s. I often buy Herters 1 oz field loads shoot them in a Remington pump & save the hulls to load for the SXS guns. Not a good load for my Trojan, way too much recoil for my Parker Hammer 16 .

Thing about 16s do you want them to perform like 12s or 20s. Targets I use RST or load to duplicate RST 3/4 oz. at 1180 FPS. Live birds 7/8 makes a fine 16g load. Either one 20 g dublicate. When I want 1 oz I use a 12g.

On low pressure, it’s a result of the components, primarily the powder. Wad too. Major manufacturers looking to save money can load faster powders with smaller charges resulting in higher pressure and recoil. Note Reserchers post quoting “Progressive “ powders in period shells. Most modern field loads don’t use more expensive progressive powders. Shoot one of RSTs 12 G loads and the same shot weight and velocity Winchester 12 G Walmart pack, you will see significant difference in recoil, and likely much higher pressure. OK in a modern gun recipe for trouble in a fine old SXS . Save money by using appropriate shells at higher cost and avoid expensive stock repairs.

William

Thank you William, that is helpful. I want gun shooting more like a 20. So its really the type powder thats the biggest difference maker. Not certain about wads or shot cups. Do the RST's say they use the progressive powders? which I think just means slower burning. BTw did used to reload shells so understand about those slower burning powders we used on reloads. Shooting lefty as kid and having a Remington 1100 made for righties in a dove field with those shells and unburned powder blowing across your face, now that is a teaching moment.

I have an old Browning A5 16 gauge hand me down that came to the arsenal via wifes grandfather and dad. It just sits in back corner of case. I guess we can just burn those shells thru that gun if push comes to shove.

[William Davis]

I think, can’t prove, powder is the primary recoil difference factory promo loads compared to quality shells. No doubt they save money on shot too, less antiomony softer shot. Singling out Winchester’s with some sort of metal rims have seen them cause problems in friends O/U guns due to either inconsistent or soft metal. Money can be saved on Plastics as well.

You can’t imagine how much effort large retailers put into cheapening products.

William

[todd allen]

Recoil is all about payload, vs velocity. Has nothing to do with pressure.

[Bruce Day]

Here is what Parker specified. Use drams equivalent to the black powder dram load and you will be in specifications. TPS includes a table listing recommended service load pressures and proof pressures for persons interested.

I have shot thousands of rounds of 16 ga Federal and Remington 1 oz loads in Parker fluid steel and Damascus barrel guns. My old fluid steel PHE has close to 80,000 rounds of these loads shot through it.

[Bruce Day]

Then for those who know the recoil energy formula, which of these loads do you think will have the least recoil energy? One of the two 1 oz 1200 FPS loads or the Fed 1oz 1165 FPS load?

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by todd allen

Recoil is all about payload, vs velocity. Has nothing to do with pressure.

BTW did not see Bruces replies when working up my stuff below. I guess I need to find the that recoil energy formula.

Interesting point on those variables. It has me thinking even more, rightly or wrongly involving the physics. Instead of focusing on pressure at powder ignition, then maybe we need to focus on the lbs per square inch exerted by the overall event as it relates to recoil and old wooden stocks. I think several have mentioned this point. If that is the case then it really comes down to the amount of powder and the size of the load. Thinking barrel gauge as fixed constant as the control then more powder and load then more recoil. Felt recoil then goes to weight of gun as it relates to size of load, since there is no real recoil reduction in an old side by side other than maybe adding pad at butt of the stock or reducing the size of the the overall load. No way would you mess with back boring the forcing cones. Makes sense. A three inch shell with more powder and shot would definitely kick more or have more recoil. The type of powder may not mean a whole lot though.

As I can remember from reloading days, and please active re-loaders and people more knowledgeable than me please advise, is that when we were experimenting and trying to create heavier loads with #6 shot for grouse we used slower burning powders and more of it. Again I guess the term the shooting industry lingo uses is progressive powder, meaning a longer continuous burn (I am dumbing it down probably calling it slower since we are talking fractions of a second for a full charge burn). These were 20 gauge loads that we were setting up with a little over an ounce of shot. I cannot remember how much more powder. All I know is that gun kicked more and made a little more boom. Was it an effective load, could not tell but it had more shot in the pattern at 40 yards using a modified left barrel Definitely was not a square load. Shot string was probably awful, but we did not care since we just wanted to sling more shot through cover at a bird going away from us that we already had missed with the right barrel. Parting shot with a bang. I did take a few birds with them, but it may not have mattered what I was shooting at them, but it felt like I accomplished something with the suped up load.

Ya know you gotta love Hollywood though. No wonder you can't find many old 12 gauge or 10 gauge shotguns without stock issues. Cracks me up every time I see the shotgun blast scene from movie Open Range. Lets see giving the bad guy both barrels through a 1x8 board wall still has enough power to pick up a grown man and sling him 15 feet in the air off his feet. I like the scene that has Duvall looking through the hole after the shot. Why the hell has Robert Duvall not been thrown through the other wall from the recoil. I have heard it said it was not Samuel Colt that really won the West, it was the shotgun. If you want to skip to the shotgun scene I think it starts at about 3:55

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YKFVGPUskg

Anyway through all this I don't know if there is a right or wrong answer. I think as a hedge I will do more research on the RST loads as to how much powder they use and how much shot for their spreader loads, which is probably what I need to shoot anyway due to chokes. Best I can tell they don't make a 2 3/4, 16 Ga. shell and they are only 2 1/2 inch cartridges. Maybe I need to get back into reloading my own. All I know is that depending on gauge size and loads, length of cartridge should not matter if barrel is designed to take that cartridge, in theory. Which then puts me back at original question posed. What sized charge and load is safe to shoot and at what velocity. I mean in theory and practicality you could reduce powder charge alot and really lower the amount of shot to the point that they just about roll out the barrel.

Putting things in perspective and doing the math, 1 fps is equal to .682 mph at about 1200 fps at the muzzle that means load is traveling at about 818 mph. At 1100 fps means that at muzzle the load is traveling at 750 mph. That represents only an 8.3% reduction in velocity, no matter the size of the load. I don't think anyone recommend shooting a load at less than 1100 fps, not even RTS or Polywad. So they offer different load sizes and different velocities but still offer 1 ounce loads at over 1100 fps meaning they have to have the right powder charge for that sized gauge barrel to produce the velocities no matter how long the cartridge is, meaning they have to shoot about the same sized powder charge as some so called modern loads using smokeless powder. BTW I have some 20 ga AA 7/8 loads that are rated at 1300 fps which is 886 mph. Putting it into perspective 1100 to 1300 does not look like much difference but its about 136 mph different, thats pretty fast in my book and I could see why you would not want 136 mph more speed blowing through an old gun. To achieve these speeds they need more charge.

[Bruce Day]

Then for those who believe in vintage loads for vintage guns here are a two of a case of paper 16’s that I picked up. 2 3/4” 16ga 1 1/8 oz of no. 9 at 2 3/4 Dre. Reds are Win Ranger and the purples are Monark( Fed). Been using for woods grouse and quail.

[Bruce Day]

Parker 16ga guns were intended to shoot and were patterned with a 1oz load driven by 2 1/2 drams to 2 3/4 drams , which generally equates to about 1180fps. Parker patterning hang tags and specs by Parker bear this out and it is true for any PArker barrel. If you believe that your barrels are cracked, pitted or thin to the extent that shooting the design load is dangerous, I would not shoot the gun. If you believe that your stock is cracked or oil soaked weak then I suggest taking the stock off and correcting the damage or restocking so that the gun is safe to shoot with the design loads.

For recoil energy, all that really matters is weight of the shot, speed out the barrel and weight of the gun. Weight of the gas and wad out the barrel is minor in the calculation. You can find many calculators on the internet. Chamber pressure, chamber length, wad shock absorption, case material, crimp, are irrelevant
and relate only to “perceived” recoil, which means that one person may perceive it and another not.