I'm sure that this has probably been covered here before, but I could not find anything through the search, so humor me.

I've recently come into possession of an old Fox Sterlingworth with short (2 5/8") chambers according to the measuring tool at the shop I bought it at. It seems to have some of the heavier weight Fox barrels, since it was a good 1-2 pounds heavier, and had noticeably thicker barrels at the muzzle than the other beat up sterly next to it on the rack. From what I've researched, a lot of these older guns were purposely built with slightly shorter chambers, since the attitude at the time was a slightly longer shell would create a better gas seal.

Anyways, I have not been able to find any information concerning shooting modern 2 3/4" shells in these shorter chambers. By "modern" I mean using modern 2 3/4" plastic hulls with my standard low pressure load I use for the rest of my doubles. I just wanted to see if anyone shoots 2 3/4" shells out of 2 5/8" chambers, and if you could weigh in. If it was generally considered "safe" it would make my reloading a lot quicker, since I have thousands of 2 3/4" hulls and if I could shoot them safely, it would sure beat cutting down a few hundred hulls.

I know that firing 2&3/4" in a 2&1/2" chambered gun has been tested to only increase pressure by roughly 10% and that's 1/4" so I would think 1/8" would be even less of a problem especially in the gun you've described

Hi, this should be of some help, about 2 1/2" chambers, but close enough:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=35050&page=1

Interesting read.

Good Luck!

Greg

You're mixing up two different issues. If your Fox is from the Philadelphia era, it was made with 2 5/8" chambers because that was a common chamber length for American 12ga guns at the time, and all kinds of 2 5/8" shells were available. If it's from the later Savage era and is marked 2 3/4" but has 2 5/8" chambers, then it's because Savage intentionally short-chambered the gun to get better patterns from the old paper case shells.

However, there is no advantage in shooting longer PLASTIC hulls in shorter chambers. Modern plastic wads take care of the shot protection/pattern improvement issue. So what you're doing if you're shooting modern American 2 3/4" shells in a 2 5/8" gun from the Philly era is that you're using shells that may generate higher pressure than the service loads for which the gun was designed. (Service pressures increased about 1,000 psi from the old 2 5/8" shells to the new 2 3/4" shells.) And on top of the pressure increase from the shell itself, you've got another pressure increase from the longer shell in a shorter chamber. Combined, that might be as much as 2,000 psi. The gun will probably handle it OK, because as you noted it's pretty stout. But in the long run, you may not be doing it any favors.

Reloading modern 2 3/4" hulls for old guns with short chambers is a different story. Because you control the pressure when you reload, you can work up loads which are well below the maximum service pressure for which an old 2 5/8" gun was built, which was about 10,500 psi. Not hard at all to produce even 1 1/8 oz hunting loads that only run about 7,000 psi. So even if there's a pressure increase of 1,000 psi from the longer hull in the shorter chamber, you still have a comfortable margin for error.

Long answer, but it's not exactly a straightforward issue, especially when you throw in the practice of intentionally short-chambering guns back in the paper case era.

Note this is what the originator of this thread said he desired to shoot.
It is also noted that until fairly recent times, well into the plastic era, that SAAMI specs allowed for a minimum chamber length for the ""2 3/4"" shell of 2.614". 2 5/8" = 2.625" or .011" longer than the minimum specified.
One also wonders what changes Fox made when the new heavier loaded shells came out in the 1920's to their guns. They no doubt would have anticipated their use with these heavier loads.
Anyone have any knowledge as to what modifications were made by Fox, or any other makers, When WCC introduced their new shells which would become known as the SuperX??

Thanks for all the information everyone. I neglected to mention that the gun is a Philadelphia Fox from 1918, so I'm assuming that the shorter chambers were the standard length at the time.

If you're loading low pressure shells don't worry, you won't hurt anything. Paul

AND, if you measure the common plastic emptys, you will find they are about 2 5/8 not 2 3/4. About the only 23/4 that I find are the Federal Papers. However with low pressure loads it will be a negligable increase in pressure. Even shooting 2 3/4 Fed Papers in my short chambered guns , I can not tell any difference

Woops . . . I missed the low pressure part. Sure, if you're already loading low pressure, you're good to go.

I don't know whether Ithaca's switch from the Flues to the NID came as a direct result of the Super X, but the timing is about right. After Savage acquired Fox, they supposedly lengthened the chambers on all guns returned to the factory for work to 2 3/4" as a matter of course. Guess that shows they thought their short-chambered guns were good to go with the new, longer, higher pressure loads.

I load lower pressure loads, about 8500 psi, in 2 3/4 inch hulls for my 2 5/8 inch chambered 20 gauge Sterly completed in 1926. Even if there is a 1000 psi increase in pressure I'm below the loads that the gun was designed to shoot. I do try to keep the shot weight to 7/8 ounce and the velocity to 1200 fps to keep the recoil reasonable in consideration of the old girl's wood. But then again, she's just a spring chicken compared to my Joseph Lang which was completed in 1866.

FOX CHAMBERS --

The only two A.H. Fox Gun Co. catalogues, that I have seen, that state chamber lengths are the 1913 and 1914. From the 1914 A.H. Fox Gun Co. catalogue --



They both state 12-gauge guns are regularly chambered for 2 3/4 - inch shells, 16-gauge 2 9/16 – inch shells and 20-gauge 2 1/2 - inch shells. That being said, virtually every 12-gauge Ansley H. Fox gun made in Philadelphia (other than the HE-Grade Super-Fox) that I've run a chamber gauge in shows about 2 5/8 - inch. The chambers of unmolested 16-gauge guns seem to run about 2 7/16 inch and 20-gauge guns a hair over 2 3/8 inch. A very few graded guns were ordered with longer chambers. Savage began stating chambered for 2 ¾ inch shells in their 1938 Fox catalogues.

All this being said there is a good body of evidence that back in those days chambers were held about 1/8 inch shorter than the shells for which they were intended. In the two-volume set The Parker Story the Remington vintage specification sheets on pages 164 to 169 call for a chamber 1/8-inch shorter than the shell for which it is intended. Also in the 1930's there were a couple of articles in The American Rifleman (July 1936 and March 1938) on the virtue of short chambers. Sherman Bell’s articles in The Double Gun Journal covered his tests showing no significant increase in pressure from shooting shells in slightly short chambers. IMHO I don't much sweat that 1/8-inch in 12-gauge guns. On the other hand when one gets a 20-gauge chambered at 2 3/8-inch likely intended for 2 1/2-inch shells I do worry about folks firing 2 3/4-inch shells in such guns.

I have a Philadelphia Fox Sterlingworth that was built in 1923 . It is chambered for 2 3/4" shells and I believe that's the way it came from the factory. It has digested everything from heavy duck loads to slugs over the years without any problems at all.
Jim

Mr. Researcher has posted that catalogue copy on different web sites and i thank him for doing that and every thing else he does. But he never addes explanation why Savage lengthened chambers to 2 3/4 on older Philadelphia Fox guns sent in for any kind of repair and stamped new length on left barrel? If 12 ga 2 5/8 chambers were OK for 2 3/4 in 1914 , why would Savage be doing that on those same guns in the 1930 s?

Just as a guess, "Probably" because this intentional short chambering was not a universal practise by all companies. Many "Experts" were advising against using the longer shells in short chambered guns. The primary concern here was not truly the length of shell but that the newer heavier loads were only put up in 2 3/4" length. Savage obviously was not one of the companies which adhered to the short chamber policy & also obviously considered the Fox guns suitable for handling the 2 3/4" shells so rechambered them & stamped them as such.
It is noted that 2 3/4" shells were readily available prior to the beefed up loads of the 20's, so the fact an older gun has 2 3/4" chambers is not a guarantee it is suitable for modern loads.

That's a very good point.

Re modern shells in short (or originally short) chambers . . . Bell did record pressure increases of 1,000 psi or more (although most were less than that) when shooting 2 3/4" shells through a pressure gun with a 2 1/2" chamber. By the time you add that potential 1,000 psi increase to the approximately 1,000 psi jump that resulted when we switched from the old shells to the Super-X and its modern counterparts, you're now looking at potentially being 2,000 psi over the service pressure of the shells your gun was designed to handle. The other key issue is that modern shells often have heavier shot charges and higher velocity than what we shot "back in the day". Even the Super-X was only a 1330 fps load. We now have lead "pheasant loads" at 1500 fps. And they're stuffing 1 1/2 oz of shot, or more, into 2 3/4" hulls. In fact, that's probably worse for vintage guns than the pressure difference you get from modern loads in old, short-chambered guns.

Savage started that 2 3/4 inch chambering business right at the same time that those Remington era Parker spec sheets were still calling for the 1/8 inch shorter chamber than the intended shell?!? I kind of suspect that the "Chambered for 2 3/4 inch shells" line in the late Savage era Fox catalogues really had more to do with bringing the 16- and 20-gauge guns up from the old "standard" of 2 9/16 and 2 1/2 inch shells.

Of note, while all four of our big ammo brand names put up their progressive burning powder, high velocity, one ounce 20-gauge load in a 2 3/4 inch shell - Western Cartridge Co.'s Super-X, Remington's Nitro Express, Peters High-Velocity and Winchester's Super-Speed - Winchester also offered that same one ounce high velocity 20-gauge Super-Speed load in a 2 1/2 inch case from at least the early 1930s to WW-II.

Another associated question from a rookie's perspective:

Can you shoot 2 1/2 " shells from a 2 3/4 " chambered gun ?

Absolutely!

Mr. Reseracher do you have answer to question I asked about 12 ga. why did Savage make 12 ga 2 5/8 chambers into full 2 3/4 inch on Phil Fox gun's sent in for repair ? If 2 5/8 was good to go for heavy 2 3/4 inch shells in 1914 how come it wasn't good in the 30 's? Service pressure didnt' go up that much in twenty years and 1550 f.p.s. shells not around around then. Every one quotes that Fox factory chambered short on purpose but that theory falls flat. Savage didnt' stamp barrels 2 3/4 on highgrade Philadelphia guns and deface them just on a whim. no one has answer to that question. Any one ever wonder if 1914 catalogue is in error ?

2 3/4" shells in 1914 do not = 2 3/4" shells 20 years later. The Super-X resulted in an increase of service pressure. I would guess that Savage had determined their old 12's were good to go with the new, hotter shells, but did not want to risk additional pressure increase from a longer shell in a shorter chamber. They apparently felt that lengthening the chamber was a good way to tell Fox owners that their guns could handle the new shells.

Sorry I haven't been around to reply in a while. I'm still in school so the college schedule keeps me on my toes. Anyways, my typical load is one of the lowest pressure loads listed in the Alliant manual. Probably not the best load for these old guns, but it is right around 9000 psi if my memory serves me right. I don't have access to the manual right now, so I can't let y'all know what specific load it is.

FlyChamps, I do have an older gun than my fox, but probably not nearly as nice (or old) as your Lang, it's an Ithaca Lewis from 1903 that I shoot regularly with 7/8 oz. black powder loads. She performs beautifully with the loads that I have been shooting for the last couple months.

You're misremembering on the pressure, k.adair. Not surprising, if you're also busy with college courses. But there are a lot of loads from Alliant that are well under 9,000 psi. I shoot a hunting load in a vintage Brit double, 1 1/8 oz at 1200 fps, that's only 7300 psi. And, particularly with lighter and slower loads, it's possible to go much lower pressure than that.