|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,630
Posts547,152
Members14,431
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,096
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,096 |
Mike,Justin,
Now I'm completely confused...The barrels are .250 at the breech with a minimal wall thickness of .045 near the chokes...the bore diameter is .740 just before the chokes but from the chambers to the chokes the bore measures a whopping .770...
Although it's stamped 13/1, remember it's a 3 1/4 inch magnum 12 ga, but the history of the 12 gauge magnum cartridge has always eluded me...about the only thing I can say for sure is the 3 inch 12 ga (75mm) has been around since before 1924 because I have a pre-1924 (Belgian) Raick Freres in 75mm. The other bit of information to consider is that the age puts it near the tail end of those first choke boring concepts and trials.
Thanks for any insights concerning this gun and it's very strange bore dimensions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 |
Robert I don't know that the "magnum" in "3 1/4 inch magnum" should be there. Don't know it shouldn't either.
From Burrard's "The Gun and the Cartridge, Volume III" New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932, page 320 there is a table titled "Table XXIX Proof and Service Charges for Different Gauges". That table gives the charges for a 3" and for a 3-1/4" 12 gauge as 3-3/4 drams of black powder and 1-1/2 ounces of shot. Researcher has posted that longer cartridges used to be about more wadding to cushion the shot, not about more powder and shot.
Robert the minimum wall thickness at the forward/muzzle end of the chambers would be a nice measurement to have.
Could you perhaps posts a picture of the barrel flats?
Maybe someone who actually knows what they are talking about will pipe in on this but at one time bore diameter was measured by the largest diameter of brass slug would drop through to about mid-barrel.
I would be suspicious of the wall thicknesses where the bore diameter measures .770" Can your friend get several wall measurements in that area?
The gun still has possibilities even though it appears it is out of proof. In this case my worry would be the wall thickness at the forward/muzzle end of the chambers right before the forcing cones and the minimum wall thickness at the .770" bore diameter areas.
I repeat, a picture of the barrel flats would be very helpful.
Best,
Mike
Last edited by AmarilloMike; 09/20/12 07:52 PM.
I am glad to be here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,096
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,096 |
 From one end to the other, both barrels, the minimum wall thickness is .032 where the bore is .770 (just before the choke)...then thicker again, more like .045 right at the choke
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,450 Likes: 330
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,450 Likes: 330 |
DuPont Trophy Oct 24 & 25 1895 http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1895/VOL_26_NO_06/SL2606012.pdfFred Gilbert (L.C. Smith) and Charles “Hayward” Macalester (Purdey) tied at 25; Gilbert won the shoot-off 5/5 to 4/5. Charles Wagner (Parker), E.B. Coe (Smith), John Brewer (Greener), and A.H. King (Scott Monte Carlo) tied at 24; Wagner won the shoot-off taking 3rd place. Gilbert used a Smith gun, 8 pounds, and his load consisted of a scant 3 1/4 drams Du Pont, by measure, which weighed 42 grains. It was wadded with a Winchester field wad, a 3/8-inch pink felt and an ordinary pink edge, all 12-gauge and 1 1/8 ounces of No. 7 chilled shot. Capt. John L. Brewer was using a Greener gun of high grade. His shells were the U. M. C. Trap, 3 1/4 inches long, 4 drams of DuPont powder by measure, weighing 36 1/2 grains; one trap wad, two pink felts, 1/4 inch 11-gauge wad and one ordinary 12-gauge pink edge wad over the powder and 1 1/4 ounces of No. 7 chilled shot; the shell had a very hard square crimp. The ‘machine loaded’ shells and components available in the 1895 Montgomery Ward & Co. catalog http://books.google.com/books?id=zWel51IwQ2AC&pg=PA473&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=falseThe 'Trap Shooters Delight' could be ordered with 'E.C.', Schultze, American Wood, Black Powder, Dupont Smokeless or Laflin & Rand Smokeless powder. 12g Winchester “Leader” and “Blue Rival” NPEs are offered in 3-inch length. UMC 12g Green “Trap” NPEs are offered in 2 7/8 and 3-inch lengths. http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1897/VOL_30_NO_12/SL3012023.pdf"Cast Iron Medal", emblematic of championship of America, and a purse of $200, was shot on Watson’s Shooting Grounds. R.O. Heikes (using a Winchester 1897 pump) won the match by killing 91 out of 100 birds, taking the Cast Iron Medal and the $200. Grimm killed 87 out of the 100 birds, using an L. C. Smith gun, 3 1/4 drams Du Pont powder in a 3-inch U. M. C. Smokeless shell, for first barrel, and 3 1/2 drams Du Pont powder in a 3 1/4-inch U. M. C. Trap shell in second barrel, 1 1/4 ounces No. 7 chilled shot in both barrels. The "machine loaded" shells and components available from Sears in 1897 http://books.google.com/books?id=CSVIpqnFMTMC&pg=PA545&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Last edited by Drew Hause; 09/20/12 08:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610 |
If the bore diameter is .770 and the original diameter was .719 than this gun is so far out of proof that it will impact it's value. Please remeasure the bores the standard 9" from the breech end.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 |
justin I am not stating this as fact but I think the way it worked is that the brass plugs they would drop down the barrel (from the breech) had to go a minimum distance into the barrel, say 9". You could have a larger diameter further down the barrel, say .770" just ahead of the chokes. I think you idea of measuring the bore diameter at 9" may be the where the Proof House measured it. They may measure .719" there perhaps the gun is still in proof.
Robert if that .770" is right before the chokes and if the minimum wall thickness is .032" at that point and for the forward half of the barrel and the chamber wall thickness at the forward end of the chamber is adequate I would happily shoot that gun.
Best,
Mike
I am glad to be here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610 |
OK, but rereading Roberts post he says the bore measures .770 from just past the chambers to just before the chokes where it measures .740. So what am i missing.
The bore measurement is 9" from the breech. Right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 866
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 866 |
Gentlemen,the gun was originally proofed at a bore diameter between .719 and .729 . If it now measures .770 all the way from the forcing cones to the start of the choking,at least 20-25 thou of metal has been removed from the barrel walls. This is a serious amount of metal. It may have been built to handle the heavy magnum loads of the day but this gun needs to be measured carefully from
chambers to muzzle. Barrel wall of .032 is fine from the middle of the barrels to the muzzle, but not so fine directly ahead of the chambers.... You need to know what amount of metal you have, at, and near the chamber where the real pressures are.It may still be safe to shoot light and low pressure loads but its magnum days could be over....
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought stupid,than open it and confirm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 |
Terry I agree but it is not clear to me that the gun measures .770" from forcing cones to the chokes. As I read Robert's post the .770 measure is just before the chokes.
I have suggested in this post three times that the chamber walls be measured at the front/muzzle end.
Best,
Mike
I am glad to be here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,096
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,096 |
Justin,
I don't think the bore was ever .719 or .729-.732 (standard 12 bore diameter) ...I think it was some variation of barrel/choke design that used .770 wadding...just as the inside of a brass 12 gauge shell is also .770...this was a high stakes gambling gun where any technic that increased scores would be used whether it was standardized or not. It's not too far out to think that a high stakes live bird gun might be specially bored or even experimentally bored. The bore diameter 9 inches from the breech is .770
The wall thickness 9 inches from the breech is .092
Mike,
I agree the gun appears totally safe to shoot, but I haven't yet accepted .719 thinking...lagopus said in another thread that anything over .729 is out of proof in British terms...I couldn't wrap my head around that because that would make every L C Smith ever made out of proof with the standard bore diameter of .732...that figure is from Bill Brophy's book on plans and specs of the L C Smith.
I have no problem with a competition gun being bored at .770...the part I don't understand is why it was stamped 13/1...
A interesting side note about experimental bores....
Experimental bores interested Charles Newton (c1920) and it was reported that he was seen shooting a double-trigger, side-break, boxlock, over & under, 16 gauge at over 2000 FPS, minimizing the need to lead flying targets...although I have a Newton Arms shop floor drawing of that American made (Britte & Britte type) over under, I've yet to see one or even photos, but I have a pretty good idea of that particular gun's last known address...and of course the name of the gunsmith who made it...So if you ever see a side break with no proof marks, you had better nail it down (every super Britte or Paul Scholberg side break is Liege proofed)
|
|
|
|
|
