Strength of Guns

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Dennis V. Nix

I always wonder why gun and ammunition companies seem to push for turkey loads that are supposed to kill at long distances when most people call turkeys in to 30-40 yards. Maybe it is us that needs to spread the word that all of these monster kicking guns just aren't needed to make clean shots on game. As for damage to guns I think common sense should be the rule and each gun viewed by itself as to what loads to safely fire both for the gun and the shooter.

For years I have been a proponent of the very same opinions you have expressed here. Heavy loads are not necessary as long as the shooter knows his gun and its limits. Remember, the very center of every target or game animal or gamebird is exactly the same size... make very sure you shoot to that point. Head shots gentlemen - take only head shots.

[Big D]

"Only head shots" - hmmm Your grouse must be a lot slower than our Michigan grouse

[Chuck Heald]

[QUOTE=Jerry Harlow;64611]

Originally Posted by Chuck Heald

Chuck,

Not to dispute your opinion, but oil soaked wood is spongy and black/dark. If one sticks his fingernail into the head of a oil-soaked stock, you can feel this. If I'm going to go through the trouble of a refinish on a stock and forend, all oil possible will need to go. I use a heat gun which will draw an incredible amount of oil out of it by itself. Then comes a brushing and then a soaking in laquer thinner over night, not acetone. It takes a couple of days to fully dry once removed. If the laquer thinner is filthy, it may require soaking in new thinner. Then if I think any oil remains, to know I'm getting as much as possible it's Brownell's "Old Fashioned Whiting" (calcium carbonate). It "wicks the oil out of the pores and fibers of the wood." Keep in mind that no way does any of this penetrate all the way into/through the wood, and the many, many coats of finish restore the wood. A small amount of finish applied/brushed inside the head restores and protects from future oil contamination as well. Finish brushed onto the end of the buttstock and under the grip cap if it has one protects the wood from moisture damage. Just my opinion.

Jerry,
I think we're saying the same thing. Yes, I agree oil will make a stock weak and spongy. What I'm saying is that taking out the oil doesn't return the strength lost to the resins being desolved by the oil. Some type of binder is needed. I've found that the thin super glues penetrate very well and strenthen the wood again.

On a couple particularly badly soaked stocks, I looked at the wood after removing the oil and you could literally see the fibers without binder around them on the surface.

I've also used lacquer thinner and heat along with whiting as well. Lacquer thinner is a quite a bit more effective than acetone as it is a stronger solvent.

If you get a stock that looks weak after oil removal, try the super glue (a good industrial brand.).

Regards
Chuck

[Chuck Heald]

Regarding light loads, I primarily shoot 3" loads at upland game. No 2", 2 1/2", or light 2 3/4" loads for me. Bigger's better.

...I shoot full 3" magnum .410's

[Researcher]

Bruce,

Interesting table. I have been collecting old ammunition paper for some years now, seeking information about pressures of the early loads. According to my DuPont Smokeless Shotgun Powders booklets from the 1920s and 30s, those 3 1/2 dram, 1 1/4 ounce 12-gauge loads of bulk smokeless powder were pretty high pressure, 11,700 lbs with DuPont bulk smokeless, 11,800 lbs with Schultze. The equivalent in dense smokeless powders, 28-grains of Ballistite, 12,600 lbs. With the introduction of their DuPont Oval progressive burning smokeless powders, in the early 1920s, 40-grains would move that 1 1/4 ounce out at a velocity of 981 feet per second over 40 yards at 9400 lbs.

Dave

[Big Friend Ten (BFT)]

Dave,

Thank you for sharing the pressure information!

Mark

[Bruce Day]

Yes that is a stout load. Its from the Small Bore Shot Gun pamphlet. While I usually shoot light loads I've tried to point out that these guns are capable of some pretty heavy stuff.

[Researcher]

I haven't been able to find when American ammunition companies first began providing shotgun shells loaded with smokeless powders. From what I've read, the first smokeless shotgun powder to be introduced was the Wood powder in 1876. Capt. A.W. Money and his family came to the U.S. in 1890 and set up the American E.C. and Schultze Powder Company. According to Stadt, Winchester was providing smokeless powder shotshells to select shooters in 1893 and began offering them to the public in 1894. My collection of old Chas. J. Godfrey, No. 11 Warren Street, NYC, catalogues agree with this in that the first I have, August 1893 only lists UMC smokeless powder shotshells, but the August 1894 has both Winchester and UMC smokeless powder shotshells. These catalogues from the mid- to late 1890s show 3 1/4 drams and 1 1/4 ounce of shot as the heaviest 12-gauge factory-loaded smokeless shells. By 1903, UMC is offering the 3 1/2 dram bulk, or 28 grains Ballistite dense smokeless powder and 1 1/4 ounce loads. Those loads remain in the ammunition company's offerings into at least the early 1930s.

[J.B. Books]

One thing I notice in the table provided by Bruce is the loads are absolutely anemic in their velocity compared to what we are used to shooting. Those loads would be very easy on both gun and shoulder, but I don't think anyone is shooting sub 1000 fps loads these days, not even low pressure loads in composite barrels.

I believe chamber pressure stresses barrels but it is recoil that stresses stocks. If one's stock is even slightly loose the receiver then hammers the stock head at some very small points of contact.

Take the first load, 12ga 1 ounce at 903 fps, shoot that in a 7.5 pound gun and it develops 6 ft lbs of recoil. Step that one ounce up to a more normal speed used today, 1225 fps and the recoil doubles to 12 ft lbs. Step up to a familiar 3 dram 1 1/8 ounce trap load at 1200 fps and recoil increases to 14 lbs. Now step up to the old standard hunting load of 3 3/4 dram 1 1/4 ounce (1330 fps) and recoil jumps by almost four fold to 22 ft lbs.

Most of our guns are 80 to 100+ years old, some are damaged from oil. We all have a choice on how much we want to punish our guns and shoulders but I can tell you the increased payloads and velocity return only small improvements in performance in my experience.

PS. The 1 1/4 ounce load Researcher mentions at 981 fps generates only 14 ft lbs of recoil. Just in terms of velocity used now vs. then we may be stressing our guns more now than they ever were.

[Drew Hause]

This might be of interest
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dfg2hmx7_333g89dwqg8
It appears that the Top Guns were all using smokeless by 1895