Sort of continuation of another post. Anyway, I've got some old Paper shells like many. Remington, Winchester, Western etc. What pressures were these loads at ion's and ion's ago? Have to believe someone tests them years ago.

I'm sure that most were listed in LUP's and I don't think there is a conversion to PSI.

Depending upon your definition of ion (eon?), those loads will probably pressure test just about the same as current loads meeting SAAMI specs if your first eon is around 1940. If you are going back to 1900, they would probably test around 8000 in smokeless powders and a little less than that in blackpowder. Pressures are guage related to a certain extent so smaller guages might be a little higher. But the earlier comment about any data from them being in Lead Units of Pressure (LUP) and not directly convertible to psi per modern strain gage measurements. What is the point of the question?

How long in time is an ion? Even I'm not THAT old. I'm only a couple of eons, give or take an acre or two.

I once picked up a girl in chemistry class. I wrote a note that said, "I've had my ion you for an eon." But it didn't work out. We had opposite charges.

Send some to Whats his name and have them pressure tested for $5.00 each and then we will all know. My suspect is not far off what the current standards are. Currents are only a little higher than old times except for steel shot loads.

Guess that is eon. Wonder why spell check didn't get that one. Who is "whats his name"?

Tom Armbrust tried pressure testing some early 1900s shells and found the results to be inconsistent related to primer degradation and hardening of the fibre wads and cases (causing increased pressure.)

Because "Ion" is a word, an electrically charged partical. Spell Check can only read your writing, not your mind as to how you intend using it.

Tut, if they're short shells, chances are they run around 1,000 psi lower service pressure than the current SAAMI standard. But, as noted above, those old paper shells can degrade over time. There was no industry standard prior to the advent of SAAMI (mid-20's I think), but all the gun makers proofed their guns; likewise ammo makers with their shells.

not only primer degradation, but nitro powder decomposing, it's not black powder, its nitro powder and after many years and decomposing some nitro powders could produce extremely high pressures. Do not shoot them, it's collector item only.

Heck I can't even read my own mind and its mine to read.

Depending upon the condition of the original box some of those paper shells are worth some money to a collector. Why shoot them put them up on e-bay or some other site and sale them.

Have some fun and shoot them. I've shot dozens of boxes and most if not all shoot fine. Occasionally you'll get a dud but almost always that is with Winchester Super Speed with the silver primer. You can't sell ammo on Ebay and if you could I've got easily over a hundred boxes of classics that I would gladly put on. I'll sell all the classics anyone wants for $15 per box plus shipping. Told myself that I'm not gonna die with all this ammo. brdslayr@clearwire.net

I agree with Geno. My experience has been super high recoil. I bought what the dealer at a gun show thought would be low pressure in a roll crimped 12g shell. Shot a few at skeet and cracked my stock. I felt the added recoil but did not have enough sense to stop before the damage.

I've shot many hundreds (and chronographed dozens) of shotshells loaded between 1947-1960....never have I experienced a single instance of greater than expected recoil. I've shot very few pre-War (roll crimped) shells because of FTF's I suspect are related to the primers.The first time I experience it I'll cease the practice. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but if it does it's been infrequent enough that I seriously doubt it has ever been correlated to decomposing smokeless powder. IMHO, smokeless powder will not become more energetic with age and I've found no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise. This rates right there with "modern shotshells will blow up a Damascus barrel." I don't doubt that it has happened, I'm just skeptical of the conclusions people draw from such anecdotal evidence. Everyone's entitled to their opinion; I just can't help pointing out where opinion and fact diverge.

Thanks for being gentle in your reply Mike. It is true that it is anecdotal for the first six shells in the box. There were no markings to indicate an out of the ordinary load on the box and I certainly retired it after that. Have it around somewhere since they were pretty and I have trouble throwing things out. I do not shoot old loads anymore regardless of anybodies results. It was an expensive lesson for me.

It sounds like you were "poles apart"!;)

Сhronograph does not show pressures.
When smokeless powder decomposed, smokeless powder doesn't burn, it tends to explode.