doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com So, how strong are NID's?

My post on pressure vs payload prompted me to ask this. One of the gus I use fairly regularly is a late model (1937) NID 16ga.

I've read that the NID was one of the strongest guns ever made, used to test Winchester's magnum loads, etc.

Will it stand up to Rem., Win. & Fed.'s 16ga 1oz game loads?

What about late production Nitro Special's, Steven's 311's?

In the famous Winchester Model 21 Proof Test, the NID failed after 56 proof loads, the Fox-Sterlingworth after 80. Of course the point was the overdesigned Model 21 digested 2000 proof loads and was just fine.

Rob....I bought an Ithaca NID 12 gauge a few months ago. Gun was in excellent condition. Barrels rang like a bell. Lot's of case. Bluing about 90%. Earlier one with cocking indicators. My oldest son fell in love with it, and used it for trap shooting at the local club........Probably shot 36 rounds of trap with it, using new Federal Gold Medal Papers. (2 3/4 dram 1 1/8 ounce shot)Cleaning it one evening, we noticed the right barrel separating from the top and bottom rib for a distance of 16 inches. (By the way, hanging the barrels from a string around my finger, they still rang like a bell, so they might have been coming apart before I bought it.)
Anyway, they are on the way to Kirk Merrington for relaying the ribs, at 500 bucks...... And that does not include the reblueing, which I am going to do myself.
How strong?? I don't know........But I'd watch the barrel-rib joint......And maybe check the stock head for cracks....Grant.

RR, if the gun came from the factory with 2 3/4" chambers--and I believe, from previous discussions, Ithaca had gone to 2 3/4" in the 16 by 1937--the ammo available then was essentially the same as the ammo available now. SAAMI standards for the old, 2 9/16" 16ga loads, on the other hand, were about 1,000 psi lower than for 2 3/4".

I have never trusted a "Test" carried out soley by an organization selling a product. I really can see no "Over-Design" in the 21. It simply breaks on a hinge pin & has a single underbolt. The NID with it's rotary bolt, if properly fitted, is a "Stronger Design". The 21 was made of stronger "Alloy" steel, Period. Wonder how many NID rotary bolts Win smoked to "INSURE" they tested one which didn't fit up good?? Also note when they tested the Parkers, they picked the "Only Grade" which didn't have the sq shouldered doll's head. "UnBiased" I doubt it.

Miller,
I agree with you about someone with a vested interest carrying out testing. Hard to be objective even if they want to be.

My take on the 21 being "over designed" is that; given the materials used, it has features like the barrel wallthickness, reciever bar, reciever breach face (and supporting structure), and locking system, etc., that exceed what is necessary for the ammunition it was designed to shoot. I think most guns have "over design" to some degree or another. The 21 seems to have more margin than most other guns.

My take on rotary bolt designs is that they are placed with a mechanical advantage over underlug designs. However, they rely on typically less substantial structure on the barrels to hold on to (rib extentions). The rotary bolts tend to have small cross sections in shear compared to underlugs.

So, sizing of the parts and materials used would seem to be what makes a particular one stronger than another.

Ad hype, is at best interesting, at worst misleading in some cases. You will never hear of any test which did not come out the desired way. Just as the drug companies will never release a study which does not make their drug look great no other ad will reflect badly on a product. No way to make me think that the 21 is 40 times stronger than a NID. Just a hyped up test that came out the way they wanted it to.

I do not think that a NID is a 10,000-15,000 a year gun like many modern clay target guns. Might make it the first year, without major wear or problems, but not year after year. 10,000-15,000 shells is more shooting than most doubleguns get in a lifetime or several lifetimes. Back when I ate, slept, and breathed duck hunting, I did not shoot 10,000 shells in four years. And I killed a lot of birds and put a ton of time into hunting. But I could have shot a NID and handled all the shooting I ever did back then. The NID is up to task, parts may fail but the design is solid and durable.

Averaging, I come up with no more than about 600 rounds fired this season for my upland hunting. Probably closer to 450 ish.

Miller, are you suggesting that Olin used a Trojan as the Parker Brothers representative in the "test"? I really don't think that the Trojan is any weaker than any other Parker. The standard Parker doll's head is not a functional locking mechanism, in my opinion. Many special order Parker competition guns were made without doll's heads for whatever reason, and they were not disrespected by Parker gunsmiths or their users. I have never seen a Trojan without doll's head or extension rib that showed wear in excess of a similarly used Parker with square edge doll's head. A Sherman Bell type of test, conducted today, may prove or disprove John Olin's destruction test results. I see no reason to include the Brummy examples, but a test among mint or near mint examples of L.C.Smith, NID, A.H.Fox, and Model 21 would be interesting. A sidelock Lefever would be an interesting addition to the test, but the early demise of that model would have made the result of little interest to John Olin. The unfortunate fact is that Dan Cote's payment would probably not cover the price of the handloaded ammunition, much less the cost of the guns destroyed.

I recall seeing that test ad and reading Schwing's story of the test in his Model 21 book, noting the interesting comparisons of the Model 21 to the Parker, Fox, Smith, and Ithaca gun competition existing at the time; but I don't recall ever reading what component/s actually failed on the subject guns tested. Were the test guns totally destroyed, or were the failures minor; can someone enlighten me?

Back at the ranch....
Yes it's stamped a 2-3/4" chambered gun and actually measures a pinch more. I probably shoot 2-3 boxes a year through it, I should be good.

I thought the Mag 10 was built specifically at Olin's request for the larger shells?

As I recall, there were no actual catastrophic failures - rather, a failure was when the gun would not function correctly.

This was not a very hig dollar test. I have always wondered why the competition didn't rerun it. Certainly Remington had the wherewithall to do it!!

Per the value of strong lock-up, Greener (?) showed fairly clearly that there was minimul force trying to open the gun. I recall that he removed the bolts and fired a gun held shut with finger pressure. So, why all the issue with who has the strongest locking? Seems to me that durability of the hook/hinge pin is a much bigger issue, not to mention springs, firing pins, hammers, triggers, etc. Or, did I miss something?

The Magnum-Ten NID takes an idea from the Model 21 in its much longer frame then the standard NID. The magnum frame NID also has a larger diameter hinge pin and the lug extension through the bottom of the frame. It has always been interesting that the Olins went to Ithaca to build a gun for their 3 1/2 inch ten gauge shell. I wonder when that request was actually made and the plan hatched. The Magnum-Ten first appears in the 1932 Ithaca catalogue. Was the plan made with Ithaca before the Olins bought the defunct Winchester Repeating Arms Co.? Why didn't they just build a Magnum-Ten Model 21?? Western Cartridge Co. did have a track record of working with double gun manufacturers with the original developement of the Super-X and the Super-Fox gun to handle those shells a decade earlier.

The M21 stock failed after 15 rounds but they kept shooting proof loads for 2000 rounds. Tell me, why does it matter that it went 2000 rounds if the stock failed after 15. In the write-up I have (Stadt, 1995) it says:"L.C. Smith: no data available. It is known that after testing, the L.C. Smith was unserviceable and unsafe" (Wonder if that means the stock cracked? They were very clear about what failed on the other models. Note that they kept shooting the 21 after its stock broke, rendering IT unserviceable and unsafe!)
"Fox: daylight visible at face of breech after six rounds; draw in bolt gone after 50 rounds; gun started to blow open after 60 rounds; testing discontinued after 80."
"Ithaca: daylight visible at face of breech after three rounds; draw in bolt gone and buttstock cracked after 10 rounds; action seized and testing discontinued after 56 rounds."
"Parker: daylight visible at face of breech after 10 rounds; left side of frame cracking after 26 rounds; forearm wood split at 275 rounds; buttstock split at 300 rounds; daylight at breech too great for firing after 305."

I should think that the L.C. failure would have been noted if it were metal or action related. That's why I suspect it was the stock. Note that the M21 stock failed before some of the others. This test was pure marketing malarky. mike

Well, I'll take some heat on this but Sherman Bell's tests are also malarkey. They're 'better than nothing', perhaps, but anyone with any knowledge of testing and statistics would know that his tests are too uncontrolled and have too small a sample group to be meaningful.


It's like the guy who feels an elephant's tail and describes an elephant as long and stringy at the end.

Discounting the broken stocks which are a different level of failure that metal failures, looks to me like the issue was that guns got knocked off face and then the locking bolts were trying to carry the whole load - a job for which they are not suited. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the M-21 came off face. Wonder why?? Is the M-21 action strong and durable? Yes! Is the whole gun somehow extra strong? No - same stock problems as others and the same barrel/rib solder problems. Again, looks to me like at least one of the competition would have run a refutation if the test was entirely bogus.

I think by the time the M21 test was conducted all of the double barrel gun companies were on hard times and they had bigger fish to fry than worrying about a competitor's test. The M21 came along very late in the game...it had better be stronger.

No heat from me, just an observation. Sherman Bell himself points out that his data is not exhaustive, it is just the results of that test on that particular gun. His work remains the best that we have because doing destructive testing on a large sample of a limited resource isn't possible.

I think Sherman realizes that much of his experimentation is "just funnin'". If someone, maybe Sherman, would take on the replay of the Model 21 destruction test, somehow the stocks could be taken out of the equation by the use of a simple padded cradle. Mr. Researcher, I think we solved the riddle of the John Olin/Winchester Repeating Arms/Ithaca timetable just a few months ago. I just can't remember what we decided. It seems to me that we figured that Olin had made the Ithaca deal before the Olins were issued Winchester keys. The events were pretty close together, but it takes a while before the new owners reach a backslapping relationship with the prototype shop. The Lovely Linda's late husband built a working Vxxxxx (Yes, one of those) while in charge of the instrument shop at NIH, but not under the direction of anyone that came on board the day before.

Chuck;
I would really not call the bbl wall thickness etc of the 21 as being "Over engineered". As to the underbolt as applied on the 21 it does absolutely nothing except latch the bbls to the frame. Properly fitted rotary bolts, Greener Cross bolts as well as doll's heads help absorb axial thrust at the top of the frame where they aid in resisting "Bending" at the juncture of bar & breech. No underbolt does this. The forward lug face of the rear lug on a dbl under bolted gun can (and does on many designs) hook into the frame cross member & assist the hinge pin in taking axial thrust, but still doesn't give the top connection. Virtually all well designed guns are designed with adequate frame strength to stand up to normal loads without the top connection. It should not be too hard to understand though as loads are increased above normal an efficient top connection will keep the frame from bending & finally cracking longer than the same frame without one.
8-bore, of course a tight fitting doll's head provides resistance against this frame bending. The fact that a Parker frame is amply strong for all normal use without it, has little bearing upon the fact that it would come into play in such a test as this. No doubt Winchester engineers were aware of this fact even if you don't seem to be. It is my understanding a Trojan was used for the test.
I still see absolutely nothing about it I would refer to as Over-Engineered, just a normally constructed gun made of modern materials.

So, like most of the debates on strength of designs, it all becomes academic once you get past what's required for strength, fatique and wear. ...unless, of course, you shoot proof loads.

If a modern retest is to be scheduled, surely a Trojan and a doll's head Parker should be included. Just as a matter of information, it is my understanding that the replaceable "cheek things" or whatever they are called on a 680 series Beretta are not to give additional friction to the locking mechanism, but (big news for everyone who for years had assumed otherwise) they are to force the monobloc assembly slightly away from the trunnions during the firing process. Well, to be honest, Beretta engineers are a lot more gun savvy than turn of the century Parker mechanics. We have read for years that we shouldn't believe the "multi bolt" guys when they describe the activities of the various cross bolts because "they are rarely all in contact with anything at the same time". Miller would have us believe that the Parker frame flexes enough to put the doll's head into action when heavy proof loads are shot. My opinion is that if the load is heavy enough to flex the frame so far as to use the doll's head for support, the gun is gone. At least the rib extension is in serious danger of fracturing. What do you guys think? What does Sherman Bell think?

You think that frame wasn't flexing?? Again this was as I recall having been posted here before, a Trojan grade, the only hammerless Parker made without the doll's head.
Personally I knew some 40+ yrs ago, when the Berettas were coming into this country via Galef as Silver & Golden Snipes that the front surface of the locking bolt cheek was designed to take the load upon firing from the trunnions, thought everyone new it. I didn't per se know it pulled them free of the trunnions, just supposed it augmented them & perhaps that was the case then.
The test referenced on Greener's cross bolt can be read on pages 154-56 of his ninth edition & showed a clear superiority to a top fastening. After normal loads were exceeded the frame did begin to flex without the topbolt but never did with it installed. The test itself was carried out by the "Field", not by Greener himself. The Greener gun was selected because it was easy to adapt to use the same gun both with & without the top bolt so was not a test of one brand against another, just of the bolting. A piece of silver paper was stretched across the joint so any flexing would break the paper.
My ca 1863 W & C Scott pinfire has a hinge pin & a single underbolt to contain all forces. The parts of a 21 are some beefier & made of modern alloy steel but there was no basic improvement of design.
The frame of a break action dbl is a bent lever. Without that top connection if you put enough pressure on it, it will flex. With a proper top connection the bbls are likely to let go before the frame. One notes this is exactly what happened on the "Parker G's" (with doll's head) on which Bell ran the tests on guns with both damascus & steel bbls. Their first failures was when the chambers let go.

Back to the original question. The NID, like most of its contempories, is strong enough! I usually do not participate in these peeing contests but any gun that is still spewing lead after 75 ish years is ok in my book.

Thanks for the comments, Walt. I agree with you that the excess strength of some of these guns is not needed in normal use. However, Miller and I are not in a peeing contest, I am learning a lot from his recollections and knowledge. By the way, Miller, one of my Parkers, a DH Grade hammerless pigeon gun, was made without doll's head by specification and it seems to be holding up pretty well after 106 years. As you know, I will not be feeding it any proof loads to further test it. I stand by my statement that if the frame flexes enough to put the doll's head into action, the gun is gone. Both Olin's test and Sherman Bell's test are at least some proof of that.

8-bore;
I totally agree the Parker frame is stout enough to hold up to all normal use without the doll's head, as is also the Lefever as proved by the DS grade which omited it. Where I believe it definately would come into play would be on loads heavier than normal as used in this So-Called "Test". I would have to dig out the old issue & re-read, but as I recall from Bell's test the frame itself was undamaged & was said it could likely still be re-fitted with bbls & be usable. I personally would take that as positive proof the Doll's Head was working. What it is there for is "IF" a heavier load than normal gets fired it "Stops" the bending/flexing before it can cause frame stretching. The thrust comes straight back along the bore axis. Containing it from both above & below that axis is far more efficient than from only one side & depending totally upon the strength of the frame. This is basic mechanics, know ever since the "Clevise" (shackle) was designed to hitch a mule to a plow. Incidently I have hitched a few mules, perhaps that is why I understand the principal involved. I do not believe the Win engineers mised this when they chose the Trojan over the more common VH, but that's just my opinion. Incidently I have tried a couple of Lefevers on which the ball screws had been loosened & with the ball backed out of engagement upon closing the bls they snug right up against the breech with the top lever still centered. Even with the ball tight there can be no more than about a .001" clearance on that doll's head. There in lies the secret for any top fastening, IT Has To Fit, or it is of no value. It has been shown, that in spite of A T Brown's original design intent, the vast majority of rotary bolts built over the yrs do not fulfill their mission. This likely was the short coming of the NID "Tested" by Win. Perhaps they picked it to be sure, who knows.