Circuitous twisting of what should be clearly understood statements aside, IMHO advising folks to use ammo that reproduces the ballistics of the load for which their vintage gun was designed, and as specified by the makers thereof, is quite reasonable, and might keep the users out of trouble. Of course, none of us can know what boomer loads were used by previous owners.
We're here to help
It would appear that I am now being accused of
"Circuitous twisting of what should be clearly understood statements" when nothing could be further from the truth. But such an accusation was quite predictable, as was the very
triggered multiple responses that were made as a reaction to my post.
There was no need for any "Circuitous twisting". I stand by the clearly stated facts that:
(1) There is no widespread problem with frame cracking in our vintage doubles.
(2) There has been no internet chatter, news reports, warnings from ammunition manufacturers, or bulletins from the Consumer Products Safety Commission of shooters, friends, innocent bystanders, or small children being injured due to a rash of frame cracking in vintage double shotguns.
(3) And there is absolutely zero evidence of the root cause of the cracks that occurred in the shotgun frames posted in this thread. That includes the Ithaca Flues that was reinforced with makeshift sideplates, and is the original subject of this thread.
We're here to help
In addition, the frantic multiple responses to these facts are not at all helpful. I think it is safe to say that probably nobody here is using turn of the century shells loaded with powders like Shultze, Ballastite, Laflin & Rand Infallible, Bulk DuPont, E.C., or New Green Walsrode. That information is not at all relevant to the subject here. It hasn't been relevant for well over 50 years, and neither are the vintage advertisements. If the intent was really to help, then we would have been better served by something like current low pressure factory loads (which most of us here are already aware of), or confirmed and tested low pressure handloads. Even better would have been some effort to actually determine some of the facts surrounding the small number of cracked frames that occur, instead of conjecture and hysterical accusations about a lack of personal responsibility.
In one of the several links provided, I found it interesting that R.D. Show, who sectioned the cracked 16 gauge Flues frame shown here, mentioned that the material seemed harder at the juncture of the frame and standing breech. But this observation was purely subjective, and no Rockwell Hardness or other metallurgical testing was done. Again, there is absolutely no information about what loads were used when that particular frame cracked. So there is still no relevance or helpful information.
Even more interesting was the report from Ithaca1 early in this thread. Bill told us he has a 12 gauge Ithaca Flues with a cracked frame. We do have a very good idea what caused that particular cracked frame. He had both barrels discharge at the same time, probably due to insufficient trigger sear engagement caused by the broken rear trigger spring, and he was shooting "green Remington high brass express" shells.
The double discharge caused a hairline crack that was subsequently repaired, and he states the gun is still in service using sub-7k reloads. From that first hand observation by Ithaca1, we can indeed learn something. The rest... not so much. I'm pretty well versed in the use of RCA (Root Cause Analysis) as a means of determining the cause of machinery failures, and coming up with predictive and preventive maintenance, or engineering solutions. However, the use of WAG (Wild Assed Guessing), paired with totally unrelated copy-and-paste fluff, is not helpful at all. In this event, it merely adds to the already widespread belief that many of these old double barrel shotguns may be dangerous, and ought to just be hung on the wall at the local Cracker Barrel.
Take cover... Triggered Response incoming....
