doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Another LC Smith Behemoth - Will it Digest Steel?

Just for clarification,I also load Bismuth in these two gauges for my guns that have a lot of original choke.ie over 20 thou,and would not remove choke for the sake of shooting steel from a sound original gun. The lower pressure/high velocity steel loads can be achieved using Alliant "Steel" powder and Sam 1 wads by Reloading Specialities and Federal cases.The recipies are published by them.

Terry, thank you for finally providing some FACTS, albeit empirical. I am going to put old Elsie to the test shortly and will keep shooting til she blows.

Topgun, you are are pioneer! I agree, there is no recoil issue, nor a scoring issue. I think the real issue is just bridging/stacking through the chokes.

Gents:

The recoil issue is from the high velocities. If you throw the shot at moderate velocities, then , using m1v1=m2v2, solving for v2, and then subbing back into Ke = 1/2 Mv^2, you will not have any more recoil than if you shoot lead.

I have handled on 3 different occasions 870 barrels with deep parallel scores in them. Someone was either shooting rocks in them, or steel. Which one is anybody's guess, but I bet it was steel shot.

I have in my closet, as we speak, and as I type, a very nice Le Shootsgun Belgique, a J. Saive Armes, Liege, 3-1/2" 10 gauge mag. The gun bears the date code of a lower case Greek lamda, meaning proof date of 1958. It is meaty, massive, heavy, and modern.

The barrels are gently bulged at the choke, and the barrels exhibit faint parallel scoring for about 20 inches. I am going to have them polished by Orlen to remove the scoring ( I hope) and intend to reduce the bulges with some judicious peening , as I have in the past.

To the meat of the matter, though - the bulge and scoring came from somewhere. I would hazard the guess that it came from firing steel shot.

Maybe steel 7-1/2 's will work just fine in a damascus barrel. If Keith Kearcher uses steel in damascus he must feel at least somewhat comfortable with it. More power to him- he has the skills to fix the damage, if any should occur. I would question either the wisdom or ballistic efficiency of steel 2's and larger in a damascus gun.

I guess thats 'nuff said.

Regards

GKT

GKT I don't think anything that's been said will ever soAk in.

DG...The shot cup will not protect a barrel from the steel shot.

Old L.C.Smiths deserve respect just like your Boss. After surviving for all these years it seems you are determined to destroy it.
If it's true old SxS's have a soul maybe the soul of the Elsie will prevail...

Hope she doesn't commit suicied...good luck with your fingers pioneer.
L.F.

Personal anecdote is not considered to be a 'study'. The parameters for conclusive studies, that set standards of testing specified variables, are well known to engineer and science types, so they may wish to comment.

What we hobbiests tend to accept as conclusive proof, is far from 'testing'. I suppose that therein lies the problem of human behavior, in that we all like to think we're pretty smart observant guys, capable of 'dealing'. Consequently, we tend to select answers that reinforce our original intent, since we could hardly be wrong in our assesments. Women, cars, horses, dogs, cards, guns and whiskey -- whose opinion is better than that of our own, eh?

My contribution is this. I know that studies and the conclusions accepted for publication regarding conservation procedures, require rigorous peer review. Said reviews may even be genteely hostile, should there be a real conflict of conclusions. No knife cuts so deep and keenly as that of an academic affronted. ;~`)However, the ground rules are pretty clear for 'proving' ones discoveries.

On one thing I will agree. The casual 'using up' of originals has pretty much ceased among the muzzleloading rifleman and shotgunners. For good reason: it became difficult to find good shooters. In fact collectors began paying good money for a plain shooter in good condition. As well, many of us began to have a bit of remorse at so cheerfully having used up a good bit of a non-renewable resource. Old wood and old steel -- where ya gonna finds it, when ya rilly need it?

Good point GKT. Comparing lead to steel requires that we consider both the velocity and the mass of the ejecta.

I think the relevant recoil metric here is the force of the shoulder applied to the gun via the stock to decelerate the gun from v2. That is pretty much the same as the force of the stock head pressing against the action, since most of the gun's mass is in the metal. Since we don't know the time-pressure curve that's hard to calc . I suppose v2 (the final velocity of the gun) is a reasonable proxy. As you rightly point out, this is proportional to the mass and velocity of the ejecta but inversely proportional to the gun's weight. So while we have high velocity of the steel shot working against us, we have the lower mass of a given volume of steel shot (low density), and the higher mass of the gun to help us (in this case the gun is a heavy one even for a 10). So I am not worried about stock failure, if it does fail it would have failed with "regular" loads. I'll put a thick removeable pad on it, that will further reduce the stock head pulse. (taken to an extreme, if we had a 100 lb gun and a one ft recoil pad, the gun would hardly move and any movement would be stopped very gradually, so the stock head would hardly experience any force pulse.)

I don't like Ke as a measure of recoil. But if you use this paradigm, the gun is coming at your shoulder with a certain energy that is proportional to the square of it's recoil velocity, which in turn depends on the mass and velo of the ejecta divided the gun's weight. To stop it, you must apply a force inversely proportional to the distance the gun moves before coming to rest, assuming the force is uniform. So a heavy gun won't be coming very fast, and if you use a recoil pad, you need to apply less force because you have more recoil distance to work with. Standing up has the same effect.. your shoulder can move backward with the gun.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I think what GKT is saying is the same thing I have been saying, steel doesn't recoil very hard unless there is enough extra shot in the cup to offset the lower density of steel (ie about 1.5x the amount of shot to get almost the same weight of shot as lead in the same shell).

Good point GKT. Comparing lead to steel requires that we consider both the velocity and the mass of the ejecta.

I think the relevant recoil metric here is the force of the shoulder applied to the gun via the stock to decelerate the gun from v2. That is pretty much the same as the force of the stock head pressing against the action, since most of the gun's mass is in the metal. Since we don't know the time-pressure curve that's hard to calc . I suppose v2 (the final velocity of the gun) is a reasonable proxy. As you rightly point out, this is proportional to the mass and velocity of the ejecta but inversely proportional to the gun's weight. So while we have high velocity of the steel shot working against us, we have the lower mass of a given volume of steel shot (low density), and the higher mass of the gun to help us (in this case the gun is a heavy one even for a 10). So I am not worried about stock failure, if it does fail it would have failed with "regular" loads. I'll put a thick removeable pad on it, that will further reduce the stock head pulse. (taken to an extreme, if we had a 100 lb gun and a one ft recoil pad, the gun would hardly move and any movement would be stopped very gradually, so the stock head would hardly experience any force pulse.)

I don't like Ke as a measure of recoil. But if you use this paradigm, the gun is coming at your shoulder with a certain energy that is proportional to the square of it's recoil velocity, which in turn depends on the mass and velo of the ejecta divided the gun's weight. To stop it, you must apply a force inversely proportional to the distance the gun moves before coming to rest, assuming the force is uniform. So a heavy gun won't be coming very fast, and if you use a recoil pad, you need to apply less force because you have more recoil distance to work with. Standing up has the same effect.. your shoulder can move backward with the gun.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I think what GKT is saying is the same thing I have been saying, steel doesn't recoil very hard unless there is enough extra shot in the cup to offset the lower density of steel (ie about 1.5x the amount of shot to get almost the same weight of shot as lead in the same shell).

If the Smiths poor soul survives do you plan on telling the next owner of the L.C.Smith that you shot steel shot through it ?
L.F.

I won't sell a gun that has issues without disclosing them LF. And every gun I sell has a 3 day inspection period.

Let's think about your question. If shooting steel causes scoring, bulges, or looseness, that would be obvious and disclosed. If it doesn't cause any of those things, then there is nothing to disclose, other than perhaps the gun has been "proven" on steel shot, making it somewhat useful. If you are suggesting that shooting steel somehow damages the gun in ways that cannot be detected, then I would be interested to hear more about that theory. Could you be more specific?

This gun is living on borrowed time. It has had the entire wrist section cut out and replaced. The bores have been honed out to .790. The chokes have been taken out to nothing in the right, about .015 in the left. The extractor is currently not working (although I plan to fix that). The forend hook has been resoldered by an idiot. I plan to fix that too. The gun is tight, has some engraving, and is not pitted (the bbls, near the muzzles, have been sanded by another idiot (maybe the same one) probably to remove rust, leaving 180 grit sanding marks in the metal), that's about all in the positive column. It's not practical for anything but pass shooting, due to its weight and nearly 4" of drop. I plan to shoot the gun, and someday, yes, I may sell it on, if it is still shootable and if I can't hit well with it. If not, I will sell it for parts. If this were a high grade gun or a gun in excellent shape, or if I thought it worth restoring, would I take it out in Oregon weather and shoot steel with it? No. It's a $500 gun with no future. I plan to enjoy it and perhaps learn something in the meanwhile (that I will be happy to share with the bb).

If you would like to "rescue" this gun, do so soon because the ducks are in the valley! I can always use my Ithaca Mag 10, but I do like having a choice of chokes and that sxs sight picture.

"Bores honed out to 0.790?" I understand that the chambers are very thick-walled. How are barrel wall thicknesses out to about 16" from breech?