This is sort of related to Ken61's non-tox post. I asked a ACGC member gunsmith recently about whether installing steel-proof chokes on a vintage gun would allow the gun to shoot steel shot safely. I thought his response would be of interest here:
I personally do not subscribe to the idea that changing a guns choke makes it steel shot worthy. Older guns were designed around an age of paper shotshells and felt wads with little or no wad cups to speak of. The forcing cones on these guns are short and fast in order to seal the gap with the felt wads. Now if you were to fire steel shot through this same barrel the steel shot column is contained in a modern wad however the steel shot must now arrange itself in the column as the steel shot does not compress and deform like lead does. This is why most steel shot proof guns, like all new AYA’s, have at the very least long forcing cones which allows the shot column to elongate so that the steel shot to find its place without scoring the bore. Most modern guns designed around using steel shot have long cones and are over bored for this reason. In my day of running our hone I saw many bores that had long grooves or scoring from steel shot use and it would be quite apparent after honing. This would start at the forcing cone and taper off about half way down the bore
The other issue with steel in vintage guns is pressure. If your vintage gun isn't rated for modern SAAMI-level pressure, then you have another issue to deal with in addition to the hardness of the shot and the choke. There are CIP-approved steel loads for their "standard proof" guns, which have a somewhat lower service pressure standard than under our SAAMI standard. They claim that those loads are OK for old guns (assuming good condition, still in proof, etc). However, I'm not sure I'd want to risk it. And as far as I know, those CIP standard proof steel loads aren't available on this side of the pond anyhow.
If you are shooting a classic vintage double that is valued at 1200/1500 or more you might want to avoid steel shot...but if you are shooting a 500 dollar nitro special or a Fulton, or for that matter a 700 dollar Sterlingworth or field grade Elsie just 4 the nostalgia of hunting with a vintage double....make sure the guns chokes are no more than modified, the gun is tight, shot size is kept to 4 or or smaller, and the steel loads pressures are appropriate 4 the gun and have at it....beats the hell out of paying 40 dollars a box 4 10 rounds of soft nontox....I think this will happen more and more now, because the nontox rules are expanding to more than waterfowl hunting....
If you don't feel like sacrificing a fine (or perhaps not so fine) double, there is always the option of a classic American repeater. Most are substantial enough to handle inexpensive steel and as long as the chokes as no tighter than modified, you should be fine. Always a good waterfowl option, if nothing else.
The author, Worth Matthewson, in his duck hunting book BIG DECEMBER CANVASBACKS wrote that he used an L.C. Smith for all his duck hunting for many years, with steel shot, big steel shot. After years of hard duck hunting with it he had it at a gunsmith for a minor issue and had him check the chokes. He was amazed to find that they were both extra full. Said he never had the least bit of damage to the barrels.
He was not advocating the use of steel through tight choked old doubles, nor am I, but just reporting on his results with it. I found that very interesting. Just maybe, Smiths have better steel in the barrels than many of today's shooters think.
SRH
If you don't feel like sacrificing a fine (or perhaps not so fine) double, there is always the option of a classic American repeater. Most are substantial enough to handle inexpensive steel and as long as the chokes as no tighter than modified, you should be fine. Always a good waterfowl option, if nothing else.
That will work on many old repeaters. That being said, John Browning was American--although many of his classic guns were made in Belgium. And Browning recommends no steel through any of the Belgian-made Brownings, including A-5's, Double Autos, etc.
that's because they want to $$sell$$ you a new one.....
Larry,
The answer to that problem is one of the hundreds of A5 Hasting's screw choke barrels littering the auction sites.
Best,
Ted
I have only seen one repeater that had it's barrel truly swaged out by steel shot. Mind you, it was a combination of all the worst possible scenarios. A situation where a very early Model 12 in full choke was used with some of the first steel shotshells (the early steel shells didn't use the now heavy-walled shot cups). I have also been present in a gun shop when a fellow handed a fairly recent Remington 870 to the smith with it's choke tube missing and the barrel cracked. You can likely guess the combination that caused that disaster. Even fairly modern and robust firearms cannot survive the combination of extra full (a turkey choke!) and steel shot.
Where single barrel guns might tolerate the use of steel shot, a lighter double will most likely not. You have ribs to consider, and a second barrel that isn't undergoing the expansions and contractions required to propel a non-compressing load of ejecta.
There are exceptions, however. Really heavy-barreled doubles seem to be able to survive a limited diet of steel. While it can't be good for them, I have done it now for several years with a 1960s era, Belgium-made 10-bore (a Double Wing variant) that I have used for waterfowl. Much like the L.C. Smith previously mentioned, it shows no obvious signs of the abuse it has suffered (mind you, I opened the chokes to slightly less than Modified first).
FWIW: A John Browning design that wasn't made in Belgium.
This one's a 20.
FWIW: A John Browning design that wasn't made in Belgium.
This one's a 20.
Savage Model 520, 1st version. I have one (2nd version/flat top) in 16ga.
The choke in mine is modified and I shoot steel in it/no damage so far..Geo
Hello George!
Actually, it's a J. Steven's Arms & Tool Company gun (who also made by them for both Sears and Montgomery Ward's). John M. Browning sold them the design (for the very first hammerless repeater) and the rights for production in 1903, with the first guns being made in early 1904. Savage bought Stevens out of bankruptcy in 1920, but continued to pay the (I believe) annual royalty to Browning's estate in order to continue production. The suspicious fire in Steven's plant in 1919 (arguably, in response to an Inspector's General audit of a WWI production contract) and the subsequent bankruptcy and then purchase by Savage (who also seems to have lost or destroyed any further records of production) has made any understanding of the history of these guns almost impossible to document. By doping out annual sales brochures and examining existing guns (for sale at gun shows or on-line) a few observations can be made about production. The double humpback 520s were made from 1904 thru about 1930, when official production ceased. Parts on-hand continued to be made into guns until about 1932. They had been arguably replaced in 1927 anyway, by the introduction of the more-modern looking Model 620 (w/a more streamlined receiver, much like the Remington Model 10 and the Winchester Model 12). Your gun is the single-hump version, which if anything, is even harder to figure out. Known as the Model 520-30 (or 520a), production appears to have begun in 1930 (thus the 520-30 moniker). Production seems to have continued alongside the 620s for only a few years (up to about 1936-38) when Stevens/Savage eliminated it to focus on the Model 620 only. At the lead-in to the Second World War (1940-41), the War Department (now DoD) approached Savage to have them supply firearms for the coming conflict . Since the tooling and a parts stockpile already existed at Chicopee Falls, production was resumed until just after the War (1946-47).
Here's another early Browning design not made in Belgium and it shot FMJ. JMB "hisself":
Thanks for the history Lloyd; I did not know all of that. After I bought my 520 pump-gun, I found another front end for it in 26" IC choke. The 26 incher has a patterned barrel top, but unfortunately does not fit very well and is difficult to pump. I'll get around to having a gun-smith free it up at some point.
The take-down procedure on these guns is unique in my experience...Geo
P.S.: Sorry for getting off topic
You are most welcome, Mr. Newbern! The safety location on these guns can be used to date them as well. In 1929, the safeties were moved behind the trigger guard from inside the trigger guard (i.e. the infamous "suicide" safety). This was for both the Model 520s and the newer 620s. Your gun, with it's top-strap safety, is unique to the Model 520-30 and it's store-branded clones.
Dangerously off-topic now. The Model 520s were made in two frame sizes (much like the Model 12 and the Remington Model 31s). The Model 620s appear to have only one frame size (12-gauge!). Sadly, unlike the Model 12s and 31s, only the 20s were built on the smaller frame (all 16s were built on 12-frames, even in the 520-30s?).
Weight differences between the gauges were accordingly, significant. The 20s weigh-in at under 6 1/2 pounds.
Early A-5's also had the "suicide safety", and the immediate post-WWII guns had it in front of the trigger guard.
The point I'm making with A-5's, however (as well as Double Autos) is that even some single barrel guns shouldn't be used with steel. True, there's far less risk with current steel than with the early stuff. But if you have a "collectible" gun on which you don't wish to ring bulge the barrel, it's best to avoid steel. The Miroku-made barrels will interchange, and that's a solution in the case of A-5's.
Oh man Lloyd, ole' Marlin with short barrel in 20ga is dreamy gun. These gems can be had for less than old Ithaca 37, sadly few seem to populate used gun racks.
Early A-5's also had the "suicide safety", and the immediate post-WWII guns had it in front of the trigger guard.
The point I'm making with A-5's, however (as well as Double Autos) is that even some single barrel guns shouldn't be used with steel. True, there's far less risk with current steel than with the early stuff. But if you have a "collectible" gun on which you don't wish to ring bulge the barrel, it's best to avoid steel. The Miroku-made barrels will interchange, and that's a solution in the case of A-5's.
If one wants humpback barrel recoiler with steel receiver Yamato or Yamamoto branded one is great choice (some were branded Herter's though those do not have magazine cutoff switch). One in very good shape can be had for <$400.
Jager: Are you talking about the Marlin Model 31s (31-20s and 31-16s)? I see them every once in a while. And....while they are fairly light, most don't look safe to me (they weren't very substantial to begin with). Pretty much anything Browning had a hand in is quite solid. Not sure who did the Marlin designs.
Also, 1929 seems to be a watershed year for elimination of the inside-the-trigger safeties. The 520/620s, the Auto-5s, even the Model 10 abandoned them for the behind-the-trigger-guard option (that's when the Model 10 became the Model 29). On first examination, they don't seem very safe, but as a southpaw I can tell you that they work quite well for me. They make a gun far-more ambidextrous. No-where near as positive as a British rocker-type safety (and of-course, no wonderful interceptors), but adequate for someone who is already safety-conscious.
Mr. Brown: I think ring-bulging with steel is by-in-far the greatest risk. I fear that far-more than swaging out a choke. I watch the tubes on this 10 very closely...
