doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com So, how strong are NID's?

My post on pressure vs payload prompted me to ask this. One of the gus I use fairly regularly is a late model (1937) NID 16ga.

I've read that the NID was one of the strongest guns ever made, used to test Winchester's magnum loads, etc.

Will it stand up to Rem., Win. & Fed.'s 16ga 1oz game loads?

What about late production Nitro Special's, Steven's 311's?

In the famous Winchester Model 21 Proof Test, the NID failed after 56 proof loads, the Fox-Sterlingworth after 80. Of course the point was the overdesigned Model 21 digested 2000 proof loads and was just fine.

Rob....I bought an Ithaca NID 12 gauge a few months ago. Gun was in excellent condition. Barrels rang like a bell. Lot's of case. Bluing about 90%. Earlier one with cocking indicators. My oldest son fell in love with it, and used it for trap shooting at the local club........Probably shot 36 rounds of trap with it, using new Federal Gold Medal Papers. (2 3/4 dram 1 1/8 ounce shot)Cleaning it one evening, we noticed the right barrel separating from the top and bottom rib for a distance of 16 inches. (By the way, hanging the barrels from a string around my finger, they still rang like a bell, so they might have been coming apart before I bought it.)
Anyway, they are on the way to Kirk Merrington for relaying the ribs, at 500 bucks...... And that does not include the reblueing, which I am going to do myself.
How strong?? I don't know........But I'd watch the barrel-rib joint......And maybe check the stock head for cracks....Grant.

RR, if the gun came from the factory with 2 3/4" chambers--and I believe, from previous discussions, Ithaca had gone to 2 3/4" in the 16 by 1937--the ammo available then was essentially the same as the ammo available now. SAAMI standards for the old, 2 9/16" 16ga loads, on the other hand, were about 1,000 psi lower than for 2 3/4".

I have never trusted a "Test" carried out soley by an organization selling a product. I really can see no "Over-Design" in the 21. It simply breaks on a hinge pin & has a single underbolt. The NID with it's rotary bolt, if properly fitted, is a "Stronger Design". The 21 was made of stronger "Alloy" steel, Period. Wonder how many NID rotary bolts Win smoked to "INSURE" they tested one which didn't fit up good?? Also note when they tested the Parkers, they picked the "Only Grade" which didn't have the sq shouldered doll's head. "UnBiased" I doubt it.

Miller,
I agree with you about someone with a vested interest carrying out testing. Hard to be objective even if they want to be.

My take on the 21 being "over designed" is that; given the materials used, it has features like the barrel wallthickness, reciever bar, reciever breach face (and supporting structure), and locking system, etc., that exceed what is necessary for the ammunition it was designed to shoot. I think most guns have "over design" to some degree or another. The 21 seems to have more margin than most other guns.

My take on rotary bolt designs is that they are placed with a mechanical advantage over underlug designs. However, they rely on typically less substantial structure on the barrels to hold on to (rib extentions). The rotary bolts tend to have small cross sections in shear compared to underlugs.

So, sizing of the parts and materials used would seem to be what makes a particular one stronger than another.

Ad hype, is at best interesting, at worst misleading in some cases. You will never hear of any test which did not come out the desired way. Just as the drug companies will never release a study which does not make their drug look great no other ad will reflect badly on a product. No way to make me think that the 21 is 40 times stronger than a NID. Just a hyped up test that came out the way they wanted it to.

I do not think that a NID is a 10,000-15,000 a year gun like many modern clay target guns. Might make it the first year, without major wear or problems, but not year after year. 10,000-15,000 shells is more shooting than most doubleguns get in a lifetime or several lifetimes. Back when I ate, slept, and breathed duck hunting, I did not shoot 10,000 shells in four years. And I killed a lot of birds and put a ton of time into hunting. But I could have shot a NID and handled all the shooting I ever did back then. The NID is up to task, parts may fail but the design is solid and durable.

Averaging, I come up with no more than about 600 rounds fired this season for my upland hunting. Probably closer to 450 ish.

Miller, are you suggesting that Olin used a Trojan as the Parker Brothers representative in the "test"? I really don't think that the Trojan is any weaker than any other Parker. The standard Parker doll's head is not a functional locking mechanism, in my opinion. Many special order Parker competition guns were made without doll's heads for whatever reason, and they were not disrespected by Parker gunsmiths or their users. I have never seen a Trojan without doll's head or extension rib that showed wear in excess of a similarly used Parker with square edge doll's head. A Sherman Bell type of test, conducted today, may prove or disprove John Olin's destruction test results. I see no reason to include the Brummy examples, but a test among mint or near mint examples of L.C.Smith, NID, A.H.Fox, and Model 21 would be interesting. A sidelock Lefever would be an interesting addition to the test, but the early demise of that model would have made the result of little interest to John Olin. The unfortunate fact is that Dan Cote's payment would probably not cover the price of the handloaded ammunition, much less the cost of the guns destroyed.

I recall seeing that test ad and reading Schwing's story of the test in his Model 21 book, noting the interesting comparisons of the Model 21 to the Parker, Fox, Smith, and Ithaca gun competition existing at the time; but I don't recall ever reading what component/s actually failed on the subject guns tested. Were the test guns totally destroyed, or were the failures minor; can someone enlighten me?