So now I’m confused…

[Cory Rams]

Well, better late than never, I guess. I’ve made some post here on hand loading for my 1873 Charles Daly for turkey loads. Got a pretty darn good pattern using cut down and roll crimped once fired RST (cheddite) hulls. I started my reloading adventure for shotguns in this 10 gauge shortly after I tried some 2 7/8” rst ammo that didnt pattern worth a darn in my gun. After cutting down once fired halls and roll crimping them they are probably a half inch shorter. So I would say they’re 2 1/2 inches give or take with the roll crimp. Well color, me stupid because I didn’t know the number 65 on the bottom of my barrels was the millimeter measurement for the chamber. Just found this out two days ago after owning the gun since the 90s but to be fair I’ve never shot this gun up until a few years ago and probably have only shot 30 RST factory 2 7/8” loaded hulls through it. Chambered fine and ejected fine. I watched the YouTuber the day before yesterday. Talk about the number 70 on his gun, which was in millimeters which made me look at mine underneath and I saw a number 65 which is the only stamp on my barrel. I measured inside both chambers today and they are 2.775” to the forcing cones. I never gave it much thought because back in the 90s. I took it to a local gunsmith here in town and he measured the chambers and told me it was chambered for a 2 7/8” 10 gauge ammo. Well, lesson learned and thank God nothing bad happened. I just luckily ended up cutting the fold crimps off of the RST hulls and roll crimping them. In the process my loaded hulls are around the 2.5” mark by fate. It’s what I’ve been shooting in it since I basically was trying to burn up the RST ammo that didn’t shoot worth the darn. I’ll have almost 2 full boxes of it which if I can’t trade it to somebody, I’ll end up, dismantling it and cutting the hulls short and reloading it.

So with all that said don’t see any information on reloading 65mm/2.5” 10 gauge ammo. Call since day one of reloading for 10 gauge. I’ve been cutting my hulls short instead of stacking them and just using the data on here. I’m sure that’s what everybody else does. I was just curious if 65 mm chambers have the same max pressure ratings vs longer 2 7/8” chamberings which is what 73 or 74 mm chsmbers?

[Cory Rams]

Well, I’m not confused anymore after I read through the load data sticky and saw the replies asking for load data for 2 5/8” hulls. I just have to adjust my stacking height. I’ve already done that anyways the last couple of years and been loading in shorter hulls so nothing new. Was just looking for verification, but I found it after reading. The distance from the front of my chamber to my forcing cones are 2.775” . I’ve been trimming my hulls shorter than this and roll crimping so I have plenty of clearance with my hand loads…good deal.

[Cold Spring]

Something doesn't make sense here. 65 mm = 2.56" and if that's the original chamber length and your gun measures 2.775" to the forcing cones (using an accurate chamber length gauge) I'd say the factory chambers had been lengthened for 2-7/8" shells to include a slight overlap into the forcing cone which was standard practice with paper shells. And based on what that gunsmith told you in the 90's I'd say he was right. The question is, does your 1873 gun presumably with composite barrels and chambers lengthened by ~ 1/4" have sufficient remaining wall thickness in that critical pressure run over the forcing cones and some inches forward into the bores? Also, were the original cones made longer and less abrupt which would further reduce wall thickness? I suggest you have the walls measured by a gunsmith with expertise and equipment to do that.

[Cory Rams]

I figured it was probably lengthened at one point as well. I figured a paper roll trip back in the day unfolded only added about a I figured a paper roll trip back in the day unfolded only added about an 8th inch, or so, of lengthened hull material just like my modern roll crimped reloads do. That makes more sense. I don’t plan on shooting any more factory modern fold crimp ammo in again. We’re trying the 2 7/8 inch RST ammo and having horrible patterns. So even if I have enough pressure to run over the forcing cones my pattern and suffer, regardless. So I’m not gonna make it a practice of doing so. My plan is from here on out to cut my hulls shorter than 2.775” so they don’t overlap the forcing cones. I started reloading about five years ago. I’ve cut down all the fired hulls to the point where they are probably 2 1/2 inches, or a hair longer, rolled crimped. Explains why I’ve gotten alot better patterns than with the RST ammo. I have two boxes left of RST’s in lead 5 and 6’s. I know they’re impossible to come by, but if I can’t find somebody to trade them for shorter ammo or reloading supplies, I’ll probably pull them apart and cut the hulls down so I can use them.

I’m probably gonna call RST next week when they’re open and ask them the hill length of their 2.58” hulls are…unfolded from their fold crimp…just for curiosity interest. I know the 2 7/8” ammo is 2.7” to the fold crimp. I loaded a few to 2.7” the other day that I roll crimped. They were 2.770” to begin with. Just enough hull left to crimp. Did it out of Curiosity sake as well. Otherwise I end up cutting them to below where the fold crimp starts.


I wonder how many shooters here have shot 2 7/8” Fold crimped RST ammo in their “ marked” 2 7/8” chambers and have been overlapping the fold crimp over their forcing cones? I would think a “marked” 2 7/8 inch chamber would have to be bored around 3 inches to shoot a modern plastic roll crimped RST hull. I’m guessing even 2 5/8” RST hull unfolded is probably just s a little too long once unfolded.

[Cory Rams]

Now I’m curious what the actual 2 7/8” chamber lengths measure in the 1800’s era Parker and other Damascus barreled shotguns. I’m not talking about sticking a “pre marked” gunsmiths gauge in there. I’m talking about actual measurements from the forcing cone to the “barrel face” like I did. “More Modern” guns I would assume have longer chambers to compensate for the fold crimps. I did a quick Google and I think Remington came up with what they referred to as the star crimp(fold crimp) in 1939. I would assume guns from the 1939 and newer have longer chamber lengths( probably closer to 3” or more) to compensate for the extra half inch or so of the longer fold crimped hulls?

It does make sense to me that someone bored out my gun at one time because I forgot I had some all brass hulls. They didn’t fit at first because someone fired them in a 10 gauge canon but after getting them cut down and finally sized after hours of screwing around with two of them, they are just under 2 7/8” inches long. And that’s because I cut them short by accident. So I would assume the 1800s guns chambered for 2 7/8” ammo back from the same era are cut to 2 7/8” lengths and not longer because fold crimps weren’t invented back then yet.

[J.B. Books]

Are you sure the 65 stamping indicates original chamber length? Was the gun ever proofed and stamped as such? Pictures of any all stampings might help people here give you some advice.

2 7/8" chambers are just that, designed to shoot hulls that are 2 7/8" long (after firing) whether they are roll crimp, fold crimp or brass.

I am 100% confident RST will tell you the fired length of their hulls is what they are advertised to be, 2 5/8" or 2 7/8".

Were the chambers of your gun lengthened at some point, maybe. As Frank said all you can do now is have the barrel walls measured to determine how thick they are in the thinnest part of the chamber and go from there.

You will gain nothing by dismantling your 2 7/8" reloads and shortening them, 2 1/2" shells fired in longer chambers (yours are now 2 7/8") won't reduce chamber pressure.

Go have your barrels measured if this is causing you great concern because nobody here can tell you much more that is going to help.

[Cory Rams]

That was the information I was looking for, and nobody was giving me, but finally figured it out for myself….

Quote…

“2 7/8" chambers are just that, designed to shoot hulls that are 2 7/8" long (after firing) whether they are roll crimp, fold crimp or brass.”

That’s basically why I said and post number two. I’m not confused anymore because the lightbulb went off and thought it’s an old gun that was invented before fold crimps and smokeless powders(nitro it was called back in the day).




Here is a close up under my barrels. These are basically the only stampings I can find same with on the water table. I’m good to go now I realize it has to have been bored out. What was it registering in my head at the time was compensating for the fold crimp. If somebody has a fire 2 7/8” fired RST hull around please measure it and post the size that’ll save me unfolding one. Otherwise, when I get back over to where I have my ammo stored, I’ll just try and do an approximate measure, adding in the length of the fold. Don’t know if my pictures will do any good or not but I’ll post them up here of my barrel and water table. Seems like nothing but initials stamped here and there the serial number and then the number 65.
























Everything is original except for the hammers. One was missing and the other one was braised so had them replaced with the closest ones at Dixie got work said that were the same measurements. I have a friend who is a gunsmith…a real gunsmith. I let them hunt my property so he does favors for me all the time. He cut the square holes for the hammers and installed them. Did all the rest of the work myself. She was pretty rusty when I got it at the garage sale back in the 90s needless to say. The action and firing pins were frozen solid with rust. I redid the wood on it and the bluing. It has deeley style fore end release that wax patented in 1873. Posters the at double gun shop forum years ago figured it was built around 1873 because of the latch. That’s about as far as I got for history or information of it since there really isn’t much to go by.




The barrels on top I have no stamping other than it says Charles daily Damascus. So really nothing to go by other than the number underneath the barrel… and that obviously wasn’t accurate since I figured it out with my measurement. But I appreciate the comment above maybe there is only 3/4 inch fold in. The total high length is under 2 7/8 on the RST ammo? It just looks a lot longer to me. Like I said of someone doesn’t have any spent casings laying around to measure for me. I’ll just measure the hull, then the fold, and add the two together.


So I guess the 2 7/8” RST ammo without measuring them unfolded was just speculation on my part. I’ve never measured a 2 7/8” RST hull unfolded. I did measure one of the factory loaded RST hulls the other day which are exactly 2.7” I also have two hand load sitting next to them that I trimmed the hulls down shorter, just a hair above “the folds” , and then rolled crimped. They are also 2.7” loaded.





I don’t plan on shooting any factory loaded ammo ever through it again and all my hand loaded hulls I’ve always been cut shorter than what I measured in my chamber length. I just didn’t wanna fire any more of this RST ammo through my gun if it’s longer than my chamber. I’ll do some measurements later when I get to RST ammo and the measurement.

[J.B. Books]

In all likelihood the gunsmith who measured the chambers probably used Brownells 10 gauge chamber gauge. It has two lines, one for 3 1/2" and the other for 2 7/8". I will guess that your chambers are 2 7/8" using that tool. I don't know what the 65 stamping means and I don't see any proof marks.

Since this seems to be creating doubt and maybe some anxiety. Instead of wondering what RST shells measure I would focus on the gun. Send the barrels out and have them properly measured, chamber length, bore diameter, chamber length, choke taper length and constriction. I believe it's the only way you will find what you want to know. There was a guy at Hausmann's shoot with those bore gauges, he fixed a dented muzzle on a friends gun while he watched. Maybe somebody else here knows who it was and his contact info. Another idea would be to call the Hosford company who makes those gauges and see what they would charge to measure up the barrels if you send them to them.

[Cory Rams]

Thanks for the info. I’m with you of the same thought if that 65 is for the chamber length or not. I forgot the barrel had a little dent in front of the muzzle on the right side when I got it. I tapped it out myself and had it inspected by a gunsmith that said it was as good as it’s gonna get. So I felt pretty good with my job on the repair. I pretty much between you and I using some common knowledge the last couple days after starting this post I’m just gonna make sure to cut all my plastic holes down and shorter than the forcing cones and move on. Also unfold an RST load to measure the hull length.

[Cory Rams]

I never got back over to where my calipers were, but just remembered I had a box of ammo with me. I grabbed the tape measure and found out that my calipers apparently are not reading correctly! I specifically remember the other day a loaded factory RST hull was 2.7” and my chambers were 2.775”. Well…. I just put a factory loaded hull up against the actual tape measure and it’s a hair under 2 1/2 inches. So the extra .075”” I measured in my chambers would basically be 2 1/2 inches. Needless to say that made my head spin when I just measured one a few minutes ago with a tape measure. I’ll remeasure the chambers tomorrow to verify. So my cheap digital calipers were reading incorrectly…my fault for not verifying measuring with a second source other than those calipers. I will post back what I found after I measure my chambers again with something else besides the faulty calipers. Looks like the RST hulls that I thought were too long look like they are right on the money are going to be 2 7/8 inch total length unfolded… or pretty darn close to it. So…It was the calipers not reading correctly that was throwing me off. I’ll be curious to find out if something weird happened and I didn’t zero them at some point in both measurements of ammo and calipers were off or something happened after I measured the chambers and didn’t raise zero for the ammo. Either way, it sounds like I have a 2 1/2 chambered 10 gauge and the 65 number is correct for millimeters after all.