found an interesting discussion on this topic. take a look at:

shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=259371

Can't believe I'm not dead.

go away ed

Your link doesn't work Ed.

Harry

You are. You just thought no one was watching. Now, it's time to pay the piper.

Here's the correct link:

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=259371&hilit=259371

Quote

"Based just on these results I’d opt for Nitro powders: they have lower pressures which places less strain on the barrels, less recoil to break stocks and loosen actions, they burn cleaner, cause less rusting and have no smoke to interfere with the second shot"

Sounds reasonable to me.

joe: i tend to agree with this exception...case size limits the amount of black powder wadding and shot one can cram into a hull. whereas, an ammo manufacturer can create much higher pressure loads using smokeless powder and plastic wads, than he can with black powder and fiber/cardboard wads. i have seen to many nice old guns with cracked stocks, often caused by shooting with modern magnum loads.

I've never agreed with the heavy load crack a stock theory.

well ok joe, lets just say we have a 12 bore gun that is 100 years old or so. would you agree that during that time, the stock wood could have dried somewhat and become weaken and brittle? plus, perhaps some oil leaked down into the stock head and soaked the wood, which also tends to weaken it?...then along comes some idiot who believes in the more is better theory of shooting...so he takes 1 1/2 ounce magnum loads and shoves them into our short chambered gun and heads off to his favorite goose field. has a wonderful time, burns up a few boxes of shells, bags a few birds, only to discover that when packing up, there is now a big crack in the stock of his old gun and the stock is now kinda loose...joe, i submit to you, that if the user of this once nice gun would have only shot the same pressure ammo that this gun was designed for, then perhaps it would not have cracked quite so soon and quite so severely?

Here's another "if"....

If the gun was of good original design, stocked with good quality wood to start with and well cared for over the years then the stock shouldn't be crack'n from shooting it.

Why are you guys answering and encouraging this poster?

Didn't you know....Ed's an ol'flame

Exactamundo.

You're on a roll jOe.

joe: so are you saying that so long as a 100 year old gun was well designed to start with, stocked with good wood and well cared for thru the years then it should be able to handle 1 1/2 ounce, high pressure magnum loads without danger of cracking the stock?

If that's what it was designed for.

joe: typical 100 year old 12 ga guns were never designed to handle 1 1/2 ounce loads and certainly not at the pressures generated by today's magnum shells. and you seem to be ignoring the brittle, aged wood issue. are you really not getting this or are you just trying my patience?

I think ol' jOe is just trying to be patient

Ed,
I have to agree with j0e. If the guns were originally meant/proved for heavy loads I would have no qualms in firing that load thru a sound gun as long as the load matched original pressures. You might want to get and read Tom Armbrust's book on 4 and 8 bore shotgun loads.

Joe "nailed it"- unless the gun in ? was abused or altered, if it was made for heavy loads years ago- it was made for heavy loads until the end of time- but NOT steel shot loads-- And having once shot a 16 lb. Greener side-by-side 8 gauge, I'd be tempted to respell Tom A's surname to "Armbust"-- they will!!

guys: it is as simple as this: typical 100 year old 12 ga guns were not designed to handle the typical 1 1/2 ounce high pressure magnum smokeless loads of today. plus, wood does dry out and become brittle over time. if you shoot ammo in an old gun that generates pressures much higher than what the gun was designed to shoot, plus when you consider that the wood is now weaker, due to age, common sense and experience indicate that at some point, you will probably cause the stock to crack at the wrist/tang area...

one of the advantages of shooting black powder in old guns, is that due to case limitations, it is impossible to load a 12 shell with enough black powder to generate pressures similar to today's magnum smokeless loads...course you still gotta clean it the same day as you shoot it, or you will have a rusty gun in the morning...

It still may be smarter to measure BP loads in some way or another rather than rely on guessing if pressures are safe. After coming up with a safe BP load, what can be done if it's possible to chamber a 3 1/2" load in that old shotgun.

craig: common sense says aways measure your powder and shot when loading any shell black or smokeless... no 100 year old 12 ga gun that i know of was ever chambered for 3 1/2" shells. 3" is about the heaviest i have heard of...it makes no sense to me to try to use a gun or any other tool in a way that it was not designed to be used...

Ahhh, I guess the other folks were right. What changed your mind. I've never heard of a hundred year old shotgun chambered originally for 3 1/2" either.

The longest 12-gauge shells offered 100 plus years ago by North American ammunition manufacturers were 3 1/4 inch for bulk smokeless powders or 3-inch for dense smokeless powders. The heaviest 12-gauge smokeless loads were 3 1/2 drams bulk smokeless powder and 1 1/4 ounces of shot or 28 grains of dense smokeless such as Ballistite or Infallible. The kicker is that these heaviest loads were available in a 2 3/4 inch case. The longer 2 7/8, 3, and 3 1/4 inch shells just got more and better wadding which many of the serious pigeon shooters of the day thought an advantage. The only two Fox Gun Co., Balto., Md., U.S.A. guns I've run a chamber gauge in show they were chambered for 3 1/4 inch shells.

Smokeless powders for shotguns first appeared with the Wood Smokeless powder in 1876. My feeling is that most U.S. Damascus and Twist barrel shotguns made from 1895 on were used with smokeless powders from the get go and have never seen a black powder shell. Capt. A.W. Money and his family came to the U.S. in 1890 and set up the American E.C. & Schultze Powder Company to make smokeless shotgun powders. In 1893 Winchester began loading smokeless powder shotgun shells and distributing them to selected shooters. In 1894 they became available to the general public. The October 1894 Remington Arms Co. catalogue, that introduced the Remington Hammerless Double Barrel Shotgun (aka Model 1894) state that all their double barrels are guaranteed for nitro powders. I don't collect the Remington hammerguns, so don't have any of their earlier catalogues. Anyone know what they say about or if they mention nitro powders?

least we forget, do not ignore the fragile wood issue when shooting old guns...most folks seem to worry if the barrels will take the stress of firing. few seem to care about the wood! the wood us usually the weakest part of any gun, old or new...

I have around 10 old Parker and Remington 12ga doubles made before 1900 - all damascus barrels and shoot nitro loads in them 3 times a week [ one or the other ] . The pressures are kept below 7000psi. Because of the cost of lead, and because I like a low recoil, the shot charge is between 3/4 to 7/8 oz. They break clay birds as good as the boys shooting 1 to 1 1/8 at 1250fps. No problems with barrels or wood. Paul

Also remember its not the pressure that has much at all to do with the stress on the stock, but the charge weight & velocity.
3½ drams bulk smokeless or 28grs of Ballistite or Infalible was not a pipsqueak load in anyones stretch of imagination, either pressure or ballistics wise. These are the loads given in Lefever Arms Co catalogs with no caveats as to barrel mat'l.

bladesmith: i also shoot 3/4 and 7/8 ounce 12 gauge loads in old guns. they are just delightful and break clay birds very well, when i my part well...