doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Strength of Early vs Later SxS guns

I just picked up what appears to be a pretty nice 1940 DOM LC Smith 16ga Field gun. I have several other 16ga SxS's most of which are pre-1930 guns. They have the 2 9/16" chambers, and I only shoot RST 2.5's out of them. This new gun has 2 3/4" chambers and would have been made after the intrduction of super X loads, etc.

So, that said should this gun be safe to shoot most, if not all modern 16ga loads?

As soon as it gets in, it's going to gunsmith to have the lock mortise acraglas'd, and the gun overall checked out. Also going to have Josten's recoil pad added to the gun, as the butt plate is not in good condition, and I'd like the extra almost inch of LOP.

I was under the impression that all pre-WWI French Saint-Etienne shotguns were chambered for 6.5 cm (65mm or 2 1/2). I was wrong since I found a 16 gauge 1906 with a 7cm chamber as measured by a chamber gauge and so stamped on the barrel So I copied this post from another board to help try to date guns by their chambers. It might help on the pressure issue.

The first smokeless powder for shotgun shells was Wood powder introduced in 1876. Shotgunners being a hidebound lot were rather slow to embrace smokeless powder, but by the 1890s it was coming on strong. In 1890, Captain A.W. Money came to America from England, and established the American E.C. and Schultze Powder Company in Oakland Park, Bergen County, New Jersey, with offices on Broadway in New York City, to manufacture smokeless shotgun powders.

By their July 20, 1891 price list, Union Metallic Cartridge Co. was offering American Wood or Schultze smokeless powder shotshells.

In 1893, Winchester was providing smokeless powder shells to selected shooters with Winchester offering them to the general public in 1894.

The American ammunition companies held their smokeless powder loads offered in the 2 5/8 inch 12-gauge shells lower than those offered in the 2 3/4 inch and longer shells. The very heaviest 2 5/8 inch shells I find offered were 3 1/4 drams of bulk smokeless powder or 26 grains of dense smokeless powders such as Ballistite or Infallible with 1 1/4 ounces of shot in the early 1900s.

Before 1910, according to the ammunition company catalogues I have, the companies backed off on the 2 5/8 inch 12-gauge shells to nothing heavier than 1 1/8 ounce, and one needed to go to the 2 3/4 inch or longer 12-gauge shells to get 1 1/4 ounce payloads. In 2 3/4 inch and longer shells they offered up to 3 1/2 drams of bulk smokeless powders or 28 grains of Ballistite or Infallible dense smokeless powders with the same 1 1/4 ounce of shot.

These loads were very high pressure according to a DuPont Smokeless Shotgun Powders (1933) book I have. It shows the 3 1/2 drams of DuPont bulk smokeless powder pushing 1 1/4 ounces of shot as being 11,700 pounds; 3 1/2 drams of Schultze bulk smokeless powders pushing 1 1/4 ounces of shot being 11,800 pounds and the 28-grains of Ballistite pushing the 1 1/4 ounces of shot being 12,600 pounds!!!

There were plenty of lighter loads being offered, but American shotgunners being what they are, I'm sure many were opting for the heaviest loads available. The same situation held with the 20-gauge shells. The "standard" 2 1/2 inch 20-gauge shells carried slightly milder loads than the extra cost longer shells in 2 3/4, 2 7/8, and 3-inch lengths.

Many folks believe that the "modern" shotshells loaded with progressive burning smokeless powders, introduced in the early 1920s, Western Cartridge Company's Super-X loads leading the way, were higher pressure than the old bulk and dense smokeless powder loads. Reading period literature, this is not the case. With progressive burning smokeless powders they were able to move out equal shot loads at higher velocity or a heavier shot load at equal velocity, but at lower pressure than the old style bulk or dense smokeless powders.

In reviewing old Union Metallic Cartridge Co. catalogues and price lists, the first time I see mention of paper shotshell lengths is in

1895 catalogue on offer:
� 10-gauge: 2 5/8� and 2 7/8�
� 12-gauge: 2 5/8� and 2 3/4�
� 16-gauge: 2 9/16�
� 20-gauge: 2 1/2�

Sep 1896 catalogue
� 12-gauge: paper "Smokeless" shell in lengths up to 3�.
� 10- and 12-gauge: All brass NPEs in 3 1/4� length.

April 1899 UMC Catalogue:
� 12 guage: added 3 1/4� "Trap" shell.
� 16 Guage: added 2 3/4� and 2 7/8�
� 20 Guage: added 2 3/4� and 2 7/8�

May 1900 UMC catalogue
� 16 Guage: added 3� salmon colored "Smokeless" shell and green colored "Trap" shell.
� 20 Gauge: added 3� salmon colored "Smokeless" shell and green colored "Trap" shell.

So, by 1900 we had
� 12-gauge: paper shells in 2 5/8�; 2 3/4�; 2 7/8�; 3�; and 3 1/4� lengths;
� 16-gauge: paper shells in 2 9/16�; 2 3/4�; 2 7/8�; and 3� lengths;
� 20-gauge: paper shells in 2 1/2�; 2 3/4�; 2 7/8� and 3� lengths.

Have you looked this over Joe?
http://www.lcsmith.org/faq/faqhome.html

Esp. http://www.lcsmith.org/faq/loads.html
The Western Super-X 2 9/16 inch 16 gauge with 1 1/8 oz of shot was introduced in 1923.

A correction is pending regarding vintage 16g load pressures:
1 oz. 2 1/2 Dr. Eq. BULK Smokeless (1165 fps) was about 7000 psi;
2 3/4 Dr. Eq. (1220 fps) about 8500 psi.

BTW: Hunter Arms began correcting the stock design deficiency by 1940 and thickened the head strips for more surface area in contact with the action. This is a 1945 16g FW.



The cracks at the apex of the lock inlet start at the head of the stock; both strips cracked and stock split down the middle

1921 16g FW



More information regarding 1940s 16g loads here mostly courtesy of David Noreen
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=341122&page=all

Argo44,
You "discovered" a 7cm bore? What is a 7cm bore? Bore would have nothing to do with chamber length.
I have seen 76mm chambers on French guns. This is a 3" chamber, but, I'm, pretty sure that any gun proofed at this chamber length PRIOR to 1923 wouldn't have a higher level of proof just because of the chamber length. Level of proof was specified without regard to chamber length at that time.

I am also curious as to how you came up with such an exact date on a French gun?

Post 1964, French proof was the same for 2 3/4" and 3" Darne shotguns. Triple proof would have been applied to guns with either chamber length, and, it is more than adequate for either. One thing that did change was the steel used in the guns at the Darne factory, 2 3/4" guns got French forgings of XT, 3" guns got forgings of XTC, a higher chrome content tool steel. Either version is a tough steel.

I am relatively certain the American powder facts you have listed above, while very interesting, have little relevance when the subject is French shotguns of the same era. Damascus barrels were pretty much a thing of the past by about 1880 in France. It was the French who taught American industry how do produce steel tubes.

Since I neglected to do so in a previous post, I do want to take a moment to thank you for the time you took to put up all the different French gun making terms, and clear English definitions. That will be very helpful to all non French language speakers who are interested in French guns or gun literature.


Best,
Ted

Ted: Remington produced decarbonized (Bessemer) steel barrels for North & Savage of Middletown, Connecticut and for the Ames Manufacturing Co. of Chicopee, Massachusetts, as early as 1846.
Remington, Winchester and Marlin all produced "cold rolled" decarbonized barrels until the introduction of Winchester Nickel Steel (by Bethlehem and Midvale Steel) for the Model 1894 rifle about 1896, Marlin �Special Smokeless Steel� introduced for the Model 1893 rifle in 1897, and Remington Ordnance Steel in 1897.
The other U.S. double gun makers sourced their fluid steel "rough forged tubes" from Belgium. Hunter Arms Crown steel appeared in 1893 on the Pigeon Gun.
Was there a relationship between Remington and the French steel makers?

I shoot mine with standard modern 16 gauge shells, built in 1935. And your LC Smith is a lot stronger than mine.

Since I wrote that chronology that ARGO44 posted, I've found an 1885 UMC catalog, from before they were even offering loaded shotgun shells, but they were offering their First Quality 10- and 12-gauge paper NPEs in lengths from 2 5/8 to 3 1/4 inch.

I recall reading in some of Nash Buckingham's writings his Father having a Greener 12ga hammer gun with 3�" chambers. While the gun itself was British he was getting his shells from an American maker. I will have to look this up but they were the favorite load of a noted shooter of the day. As I recall they were only loaded with an ounce of shot. Nash admitted to "Borrowing" a good many of these shells & using them in his gun which did not have 3�" chambers. This as I recall was all prior to 1900.
Info I have read on the 1894 Winchester is that it was introduced with a Nickel Steel Barrel along with the .30WCF (.30-30) cartridge in 1895. The .30WCF was introduced as a Smokeless cartridge & never carried 30 grains of black as is so often mis-stated. Most seem to think that Marlin was likely to be the first to call it the .30-30 simply because they did not want to mark that "WCF" (Winchester Central Fire) on one of their rifles.

Researcher, that was an excellent post and had I known it was you who wrote it, I'd have given credit. It certainly makes historical research easier. And Dr, Haus, your forum post is excellent.

My problem now comes with trying to understand what was going in Saint-Etienne about the same time....what cartridges were available a what were the guns being chambered for. In fact, I was going to translate part of it into French, post it on http://www.passionlachasse.com/forum and see what Neltir and company will say.

I'll explain my post about dating a French gun and its chambering in a separate post.

No, it isn't. Start by looking at the stock picture Drew put up.

Drew,
There was a French Doctorate, involved with the French steel industry, that came to the US in the late 1870s to demonstrate producing ingots and tube to American industries. I thought I got the information, which, I don't have at hand, from you!

Best,
Ted