Titanic Steel

[Brent Francis]

In my day you had to squeal the tires to get their attention. Although I have to admit it never worked that well for me but then I didnt have a vette.

[Dean Romig]

Brent, I too, was thinking along the lines of slower burning powder in order to reduce recoil but not sacrificing velocity. Not being a reloader I don't know but it seems logical to me.

[Brent Francis]

yes based on my understanding of physics I think I will hunt with loads that maximize muzzel velocity and minimize pressure. I ve heard thats why the old guns had long barrels because the powders burned so slow they couldnt get adequate velocities with short barrels.

[George Lander]

Not to pirate this thread, but I often wondered about how long after April, 1912, when the RMS TITANIC went to her watery grave, did Parker cease using the name "TITANIC STEEL"

Just Curious, George

[Holeshot]

Buy you a cheap mec reloader and build ya some huntin loads. Fed. paper , 800x powder, 1 1/8 payload 7.5 in the right and 5's in the left. They never knew what hitem.

[Old and Reliable]

Originally Posted by George Lander

Not to pirate this thread, but I often wondered about how long after April, 1912, when the RMS TITANIC went to her watery grave, did Parker cease using the name "TITANIC STEEL"

Just Curious, George

-- George, my good friend, I have often pondered that very same question- from a marketing standpoint, to have a grade of barrel steel with the name associated with probably the greatest Maritime fubar of all time--but I am NOT the "man in the gray flannel suit"

I think, from both a production and marketing point of view, the fine guns from AH Fox had a different and possibly more simplified approach. First Krupp "Flusstahl", comparable in process to the Sir Joseph Whitworth Fluid Compressed Steel from Britian- and Sterlingworth grade steel, after the US declared war on Germany following the Lusitania debacle, Fox developed Chromox steel- most likely a high nickel content with chromium and possibly vanadium alloys--

With a fairly solid background in TIG welding, I have a smattering of knowledge regarding metallurgy, both ferrous and non-ferrous metals. If this were feasible, I'd like to test the barrels on 12 gauge Parkers from Trojan through A-1-Special for analysis- my $ says --very little difference between Trojan and Peerless-- but marketing- "selling the sizzle with the steak" as the saying goes, prevailed!

I have read all the posts herein twice, most from folks I consider friends on our PGCA Forum, and I agree that spirited discussion is great, and much can be learned. What about those folks who may have inherited Uncle Gus's old shotgun- and it turns out to be a nice older GH he bought new in 1924, and shot everything including barnyard varmints and deer, plus scads of ducks and other game- They may not have a computer (my friend Buck Hamlin does not)and know of our group and the high % of very intelligent and serious students of "The Old Reliable"-- so they just buy their shells at Wally-Mart and shoot the Parker-- how do we reach them, and in a polite way, share the accumulated wisdom herein??

I have my ammo lockers set for: Express or 3" Mag Steel loads for water fowling, only used in the Model 12 12 gauges I own- a separate one for 20 gauge shells, and the main one with light 12 field loads- RST 2.5", Rem STS and Win AA- and 2 & 3/4 dram equiv- 1150 fps loads- Why? because I also own and shoot LC Smiths, most of which are pre-1913- and as Brother Lester so wisely pointed out- wood ages, moisture content changes, screws and through bolts can become loose (the last also a major detrimental factor to loss of accuracy in BA one pc. bedded stock rifles)--
So I am, by choice, a light load gunner- except for waterfowl steel loads anyway, as I won't stuff any LC Smith with a Rem Nitro Express 1 & 1/4 oz. load-or my GHE or PH Parkers--

As far as upland bird hunting, choice of loads for pheasants can depend (IMO anyway) of whether you hunt native or preserve birds, and over rock solid points or flushing breeds, and in early season or into the winter. Living in a bird rich area of the Sunflower State, I am sure Col. Day has shot a far greater number of birds than some of us have even seen. Where I live pheasants used to be fair in numbers, but that was 20 some years ago-strip farming, increase predator population or their existence in suburbs where it is unsafe to shoot them, may also be a cause.

Please allow me to close with a compliment, and I only reload for pistol and centerfire rifle varmint loads- not shotgun-- Bruce, if I didn't know that it was you who authored the posts in this fine thread on loads, I would have thought I was reading Tom Roster's books on same- You do know your stuff and do the research, no doubt about it..

[TARNATION !!!]

Originally Posted by James Brown

OK, so assume good road, good tires, just changed oil, checked transmission fluid and rear end grease, 357, four speed, four barrel, how fast can I go without creating too much pressure???

Totally stock, all good - 102-104 mph in the 1/4 mile 140 mph terminal tricked out a bit - 160 mph

source

[Dean Romig]

George, in answer to your question regarding the duration of the use of "Titanic Steel" barrels - Parker Bros. and subsequently, Remington, continued to use that terminology until sometime in the 1930's when Remington chose not to mark the top rib at all... to the best of my knowledge. However, Remington continued to use up any remaining Parker parts stock right to the end and I would imagine if they had ribs marked with a specific barrel steel, if it applied to the grade, they would use it.

[ch]

Or Ginger.

[Big Friend Ten (BFT)]

Dean,

In theory slower burning, progressive powders do lessen felt recoil. The difference is most often not detectable by shooters. The gunstock may however greatly benefit from using a slower burning powder.

Shooters can however very easily detect the difference in recoil between X drams of black powder and X dram equivilent of any smokeless powder. Of course black powder explodes upon ignition and smokeless burns. Any physicists care to comment on this?

Mark