I have an old Stevens 215, it's a 12 gauge SXS with external hammers. It's mechanically flawless. I've used it quite successfully to reduce the resident starling population, I have used 1 1/8oz factory loads a 1200fps only thus far, and the gun has handled them just fine. I know that these old guns have been known to shoot loose easily with heavier loads, so I've been hesitant to run anything heavier through it. I would like to load some 1 1/4oz shells, and have data that is relatively low pressure for that shot weight. This gun, it has been approved as safe, all the same I would like to keep things below 10'000psi. Anyways, I'm aware that pressure is not a major factor in recoil, and that heavy recoil will do more to wear the gun than the pressure. I was wondering if any of you know what level of recoil this thing could take before wearing out, IE shooting loose. My max planned load would be 1 1/4oz @ 1250fps. This gun only locks up on the metal extension between the barrels.

1/8 ounce shot is not that much extra. What 1 1/8 can do 1 1/4 can only do as well as or slightly better. Your factory 1 1/8, 1200 fps most likely are 10k already. You could look at longshot powder loads to keep pressure down.

Most of us load low pressure to protect old wood not because the barrels are suspect. Weak actions or weak barrels need not be shot. Recoil is our enemy. And when you increase the weight of shot while keeping velocity constant you will increase recoil a lot. If I were trying to increase shot load I'd look to lower velocity slightly. 1100 fps verse 1200 does not sound like that much a difference but it is and anything you hit with it will not know if it came from 1100 or 1200. Dead is dead.

One factor in a Gun shooting loose is failure to properly lubricate the gun, especially the hinge pin.

"I was wondering if any of you know what level of recoil this thing could take before wearing out, IE shooting loose."

No one can answer that question, for your gun. The hang tag attached to the gun when new, possibly 100 years ago, likely called for a 1 1/8 oz. 3 Dr. Eq. load. No one knows what boomers have been used since. The head of the stock may crack prior to the gun shooting loose, or maybe not.

For reference:
1 1/8 oz. at 1150 fps in a 7.5 pound shotgun = 20 ft/lbs of free recoil
1 1/8 oz. at 1200 (3 Dram) in a 7.5 pound shotgun = 23.0 ft/lbs
1 1/4 oz. 3 1/4 Dr. Eq. (1220 fps) in an 8 pound gun = 25 ft/lbs

Slamming it shut may well do more damage than the shooting part.

You are shooting starlings, and want a heavier load? It might be considered a punt gun for the four and twenty blackbirds. I would go the other way. Try some Win AA Low Noise/ Low Recoil and see if your hit ratio changes any. It may actually improve.

my $.02

I stand behind Ken61 on this. The only loose break-actions guns I have ever seen were utterly void of any lubrication.

Slamming a gun shut, as opposed to lightly snapping it closed, can't be doing any good. I once had a guy close one of my trap guns so hard he couldn't get it open again. I shudder every time I think of it.

I may be wrong Catalog pages courtesy of Researcher

c. 1906 Stevens 225 "Adapted for any standard make of shell, loaded with either black or smokeless powder."



Post-WWI Stevens 235 "Any standard factory loaded shell."



Until Western Cartridge Co. introduced the 'Super-X Field' 12g 2 3/4" 1 1/4 oz. 3 3/4 Dr. Eq. (1330 fps) shell in 1922, the maximum "standard" load would have been 1 1/4 oz. 3 1/4 Dr. Eq.

Yeah, that's the same family of gun. I don't want to use 1 1/4oz on starlings, the gun may be changing homes, and the prospective new owner is a stickler for versatility, though he never hunts anything but partridge. I'll have to show him some of my patterning papers sometime. If the patent date for this model of gun was 1914, they were produced until 1927 I believe. If 1 1/4oz at the 3 1/4dram velocity of 1220fps was the heaviest load around when this gun was first made that's what I'll tell him the max is.

Get your money quick.

Old guns can't take the pounding of cheap modern ammunition. And it sounds like that will be the old guns diet after the trade.

There's a reason that of the millions made, few are in much condition 100 years later, and it isn't grease.
And it is a true curiosity as to why so many adverts claim "never to shoot loose".

Anybody who believes the only reason doubleguns get loose is because of lack of cleanliness and lubrication just hasn't been around as much shooting in their life as I have. I OWN a double that was not loose when I bought it but now is loose and off face ..... a modern made double. And, I NEVER let it go uncleaned or unloved, but I have shot the h--- out of it for about 7 years with some pretty stout modern loads. I do agree that most wear is caused by dirt and lack of lube, but certainly not all of it.

No one can answer your question because no one knows what the current condition is. I.e., it may not exhibit looseness now, but how close is it to being that way right now?

SRH

I hear ya Stan. I may have loosened up a dozen or more over the years meeself.

Poor mechanics, Loose machining, and crude metallurgy. Not grease.

In 40K rounds a brand new Browning O/U that was too tight to cock when new, will be too loose to safely shoot. And that's a modern gun in most respects, with an optimized design, modern machining, and modern alloys. It'll shake like a RRL.

I agree 100%, but we're in the minority in that opinion, CZ. That is the modern O/U that is the most likely to shoot loose among all the most popular ones for clay target shooting sports. I have seen it over and over, with shooters who care for their guns ...... clean them religiously and keep them lubed. I can't tell you how many I know of that began opening the top lever upon firing the first shot. I have seen them with rubber bands around the top lever and action to help keep this from happening. And, these are guns owned by regular Joes, not pros who put 50,000 rounds a year through them. I know one sporting clays shooter, who competed a lot with Brownings, who owned two exactly alike. One would be in the shop being refitted while he shot the other.

My theory is that part of the reason Brownings are so prone to this wear is the height of the action, putting the barrels higher above the plane of the hook and pin than so many others. This "extreme" distance from the plane of the hook/pin to the plane of the top barrel especially, gives the recoil greater leverage to try and defeat the bolt, causing it to have a greater tendency to open itself. But, I'm no engineer, just a shooter/competitor/hunter, and I could be all wrong with that theory.

SRH

The No. 215 was introduced and manufactured by by J. Stevens Arms & Tool Co. and later J. Stevens Arms Co., but marketed as a Riverside Arms Co. or after 1929 a Springfield Arms Co. No. 215.



The No. 215 was made from about 1915 to at least 1932. So, it was in production for at least a decade after the progressive burning powder, high velocity, 3 3/4 drams equiv., 1 1/4 ounce loads were introduced.

Youz guys are sooooo cynical

You left out a few Drew

A gun goes off-face when the connection between barrels and action wears enough that the barrels are no longer in firm contact with the breech face. Usually, the gun is considered a must-fix when the barrels will close on a 0.004" feeler gauge.

Wear comes from all sources: cyclical movement, firing caused movement, poor lube and dirt, stretch from over-pressure, fatigue, and a few others probably. The quality of the bearing fit and finish, along with proper steel and lube, play a significant role. As the gap grows, the wear accelerates form increased "slamming" (hammer backswing).

Action and barrels are affected by pressure and care less about recoil. Wood and shooter care about recoil.IMO, the wood knows about the recoil acceleration force. Shooters differ in perception of recoil. Consider that recoil acceleration is directly proportional to pressure and that peak pressure is reached about the time the shot clears the forcing cone. High pressure loads are going to give the stock a pretty good whack. Old wood is always best treated with respect and low pressure loads.

DDA

A shotgun you shoot well is priceless. If it shoots loose then take it to a gunsmith and have it fixed.

Its an old field grade that's just not worth pouring money into it.

It is to me.

But you'll lose money when you go to sell it.

It ain't for sale.

One of the issues that Stevens 215's seem to be prone to is cracking at the top of the stock head along the top tang. If you're going to be shooting the gun much you should consider glass bedding the head.

Regards
Ken

Okay, I've thunk on it since last night ......... Rock and Roll Library?

(Actually had to do a Google search)

Favorite saying for that down heah' is ....."shake like a bird dog passing a peach pit".

SRH

RRL = Ruger Red Label, I believe

Well said Treblig!

Thank you Sir!!!

I have my uses, they are limited but I do have them.

About 100 years for a Parker.
My VH 20 gauge was made on a 28 ga frame way back in 1900 and around 2000 it had become loose enough to have it serviced. A gun maker friend of mine took it to Dale Tate ( http://www.daletategunmaker.com/ ) and they brought it back to life with a period recoil pad and my initials on the German silver stock shield.
It should last another 100 years now as I only take it out a couple times per year.

Yeah, I'd like to sell it asap. I can't really judge my friend too heavily for his attitude, he just hasn't done the research, it wasn't that long ago that I was in his shoes.

CZ - Re: those shaky RRLs. I hear you. Have an early one with about 75k rounds through it. Though it's tight on face, I had to send it back last year for a new bolt.

I hate too much thread drift.
I bear no malice toward RRL's. I've enjoyed shooting them.
And the looseness is by design. It's intentional.
For me, it's just that having come from the "Tighter is better, Tight is a sign of precision, and Loose is bad" school, I can't appreciate the RRL's genius.

The OP wants to be rid of an old hammergun in good condition.

I advocate putting an ad up here, and selling it to me or someone else that wants to participate in the Hammer gun shoots for short money.

These don't "shoot loose":



The gun on the bottom was produced in 1946. It is on it's second buttstock, has suffered two pimple bulges it the left barrel, a huge backbore and relief of the chokes in both barrels, and was used hard, by the former owner, one Steve Bodio, and harder by me in the two decades I've owned it.
There is no pin to wear in the design, and a spring loaded cam holds the action closed, and will compensate for any wear that occurs, although the wear surfaces in the design are enormous, and don't really allow for a lot of wear.
The barrels measure .090 in the area of the bulges, and, while technically out of proof, the maker assured me it would be fine to use as it, just not to let anything obstruct the bore.
You guys and your hinge pins...


Best,
Ted

You're fighting a losing battle, Ted. Most of us would rather have a gun that looks nice, was built right here by our ancestors, but after many tens of thousands of rounds shoots loose and has to be corrected, than shoot an ugly gun all our lives.

I know you won't agree, but the old adage that "pretty is as pretty does" only goes so far. And for most of us, not quite as far as a sliding breech gun.

All my best, SRH

Oh, I don't consider it a battle, Stan. As I have pointed out before, the Darne works had over 120,000 guns on the books by 1932, at the beginning of what was a huge decade for them, production wise.



I guess somebody considers a Darne good looking, Stan. I know I do.



So, in reality, no American double gun manufacturers even got close to that level of production. As Dig has pointed out, had there not been such high taxes placed on imported guns, American guns would have slugged it out here in the states, with the best from England, and the continent, and, well, I'm pretty sure that would have been the end of that, Stan.

Which one of your ancesters built that Browning that went off the hook, Stan?


Best,
Ted

None of them, Ted. Point taken. But, how many of your Darnes have been shot as much as it has, particularly with 1 1/4 oz. modern loads?

SRH

The R10 has seen a lot of use, Stan. It is, what, 30 years older than the Browning? I use 1 1/4 oz in it when I need it, late season pheasants in the cold, for example, but, no waterfowling.
I am the third owner I know of, and like all Rs that have seen a bunch of use, the action has slicked up and cycles like it has been greased with butter. It takes a lot of use for that to happen, the first owner doesn't usually get to see it.
You won't find Darnes for sale that are off the face, Stan. It doesn't happen, regardless of use. The problems most often seen involve people who have access to tools, who, really shouldn't.
Good luck with the repairs on the Browning.

Best,
Ted

Thanks, Ted. May you live so long and get to shoot so much that you're the first one to shoot a Darne loose.

SRH

For me, sliding breech vs. “Tipping-Gun” is not an either/or proposition. I like them both--and would like more of each. As for looks, there’s another old adage, “form follows function.” Both the form and function of the Darne look fine to me. Gil

I don't know about the other American makers but Ithaca Gun Company had approx. 390,000 double and single guns on the books by 1926.

By the way, I do like the looks of a Darne.

John

Ted, in addition to the numbers John posted above: Ithaca made 225,000 guns, just during the Flues years. Fox was just shy of 200,000 sxs produced. And Parker, LC Smith, and Ithaca all made more doubles than Fox. If you're going to cite a French maker for volume, you'd be much better off using Manufrance rather than Darne. But I will join you in defending the gun's esthetics and action. I've determined they're not for me (the R-14 now has a new owner), but I do think they're attractive, and clearly well-made.

Re Bodio, I heard (long ago) that he was contacted by convicted spy Christopher Boyce ("The Falcon" of the book and movie "The Falcon and the Snowman", who sold out his country to the Russians) about writing his biography. Falconry was the obvious connection there. My understanding is that Bodio turned him down. Bravo for him.

Yes, Larry, all those makers made bunches of guns. Until, they didn't.

Darne still does. They had a year and a half off, 1979-1981, and they have kept right at it, lower production as custom guns, but, a remarkable production run. They had booming times in the 1930s, and post WWII until 1957, or so. The early to mid 1960s were also good, long after most American double makers had thrown in the towel.

I had a discussion with Steve, not long ago, and brought up the question of Christopher Boyce and his biography to him. Every word you typed is true, Larry.

Best,
Ted

Ted has a point re looseness being a mostly a break action problem. I have yet to see a loose Darne or Charlin.

Friction in an engine revving at thousand of RPM takes years to wear a gap like that seen in a loose double. It is unlikely to be the sole cause for wear and looseness.

Action flexing is indicated as the primary, if not the only form of action dynamics during firing. The barrels are usually assumed to be totally inert and unaffected by pressure even though they are soft and malleable and actions are stiff and hardened.

Radial expansion and axial contraction in thick walled cylinders (such as barrels), are systematically ignored in the analysis. Even though the phenomenon must cause pounding between barrel and action during the recovery phase.

Good to hear confirmation on the Boyce story. Thanks.

The reason makers of American doubleguns got out of the business had nothing to do with the quality of the guns. And I could point out that two of those classic doubles--Winchester 21 and Fox--are still being made in this country. Like Darne, much lower production and as custom guns, but still being made. With a much longer break in production.

Darne had the advantage of operating in a market where sxs remained far more popular, comparatively speaking, than they did in this country post-WWII. In contrast, in this country, there were so many used American doubles available, at relatively low prices, that it didn't make bottom line sense to build new ones--except at the lower end of the market (Stevens). Although I think Savage might have made a go of it with smallbore Sterlingworths, and Marlin's revival of the L.C. Smith might have caught on if they'd made them as 20's rather than 12's. The Parker Reproduction clearly demonstrated that there was a limited market for classic American-designed (if not made) smallbore doubles at a relatively high price.

Manufrance.

Approx 74,000 Ideals between 1888 and 1939. Unknown number between 1946 and 1985 when MF shut down.

Approx 950,000 Robusts between the introduction in the 1920s and when MF shut down in 1985. More than all of Ithaca in just one model.

Those weren't the only SxS they made and they made pumps, semis and single shots as well.

And a field grade Robust is miles ahead in quality to any hardware store gun turned out by the likes of Stevens or Meridian.

I think it's pretty likely that without the excessive tariffs, the European and British gun industry would have eaten America's lunch. Clearly the makers and politicians of the time thought so as well. That's why the tariffs were in place.

Agree on the Robust, canvasback: More or less the Stevens of France, but a much better gun.

Larry,
A run of the mill English A & D boxlock is a better gun than just about any American double.
Agree with James that the same is true of a Robust, or a Costo.
Or, an R10.
Also agree that without those tarrifs, the American trade in guns would have went to bicycles, car parts, typewriters, and chain saws, before it did.
And the world would have been better for it.

Best,
Ted

It's been years ago on another thread that some disagreed with the Stevens comparison of the Robust. The observation was that the Robust was the M21 of France. Gil

Klunk, RIP, always considered the Stevens a better gun than the model 21.

Best,
Ted

Sorry, Ted. Having owned plenty of both, can't agree with that. American doubles, in general, were built more like tools designed for hard use. Long after we'd converted to stout 2 3/4" loads in our doubles on this side of the pond, the Brits stuck with their 2 1/2" standard. If they'd tried to do what we did, the majority of their doubles would have been built like their waterfowl guns . . . but they weren't. What do you suppose would have happened to Brit doubles--or, for that matter, Robusts--if they'd been submitted to the torture test (a whole bunch of proof loads) that John Olin fed the Model 21 (and all the other classic American doubles of that period)? Our doubles, in general, were overbuilt. Theirs, by our standards, were underbuilt. Worked with their loads, but try punching the chambers on a 2 1/2" Brit 12 and then feeding it Super-X loads for the next few decades. Shouldn't have been done to short-chambered American 12's, but it has been . . . and most of them handled the overload because they were overbuilt.

In terms of handling qualities in the field, I'll take your average Brit 12 bore game gun over just about any American classic 12. But if I'm going to shoot 3 3/4 DE, 1 1/4 oz loads as a steady diet--or maybe even hotter stuff--I'll take the American gun. The fact that so many of them are still out there and still shooting reliably, when the last of them went out of production shortly after WWII, shows there's nothing really wrong with the basic designs.

Not to mention the fact that you can pick up an American classic for less money than a basic Brit A&D in similar condition. I just sold a nice, solid Ithaca NID 12ga for $700. I can't imagine being able to buy a basic Brit 12 in similar condition for that kind of money. Spanish version of the A&D from Uggie, yes . . . but they're also more in the direction of being overbuilt for heavier, modern loads.

Larry,
The 1 1/4 oz load wasn't needed in England, and, truth be told, wasn't needed the great majority of the time, here, either.
I use them when it gets cold, temps around zero start affecting shotshell performance. I go right back to 1 1/8th oz if it warms up a bit. I never give it much thought, but, the Federal Pheasants Forever load is likely outside of what my Silver Snipe is proofed for.

Not my R10, however.

Using the English gun, as intended, would cover 90% of what goes on here in the states. Maybe 95%.
All Olin's test really proved to me was that ALL the guns he tested were more than strong enough for what they were intended for. I'd also be curious to see what would happen if a variety of American designs had visited the French proof house back in the day, and been submitted for triple proof. Would they hold together?
Hard to say.
Seems like it is a lot easier to find an American "project" gun at a show, than anything English. Anecdotal, for sure, but, I wish I had a buck for every broken Yank double I'd ever seen at a show in my life.
While it won't likely be shooting any longer than your NID that you sold, I'd much rather have that 30" Webley 12 that is over on the for sale section. Most people would, I'm thinking, which explains the price difference.
A gun can be a tool and be beautiful, as well, as that gun so well illustrates.


http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=471583#Post471583

Best,
Ted

I'll just stick to my Lefevers, they've been going strong for more than 100 years, have better lines in my eye, & "If" it ever does wear off face the hinge can be tightened with the twist of a screwdriver. You can have all of my share of them W&S 700's.

How many NIDs do you have?

The Lefevers are generally good looking guns. I've seen bunches with 3", or more, of drop, however.

That doesn't work out so well for me.


Best,
Ted

Comparing an extra light British gun for 2 1/2 inch cartridges to heavier American working guns is unreasonable. Compare British waterfowling guns to equivalent weight American guns. You will then find their superior durability.

It is. But, that said, I'm pretty certain the listed 700 is 2 3/4" proofed.

Still superior, even to Larry's NID, which, isn't
Larry's anymore.

Best,
Ted

I think the last few years of production of the 700 were chambered for 2 3/4" cartridges. An uncle of mine used to buy "Guns review" magazine i am sure some of you will remember, and passed them to me when he was finished. I vaguely remember adverts for the ph 700 and by then (early 80's) they were chambered in 2 3/4".

What makes me laugh now is modern clay and some game cartridges are going to 24gram/7/8 oz loads. If you open a cartridge, the thing is made up mostly of a silly long wad. They would be much better going back to a 2 1/2" case.

Most W&S 700's were chambered for 2 3/4" shells, although the early post-war ones were not. But in 12 bore, we'd made the switch to 2 3/4" as the 12 bore standard on this side of the pond a couple decades earlier. The idea was that the same American 12--which, like 12 bores in the UK, was by far the most common gauge--could be used for anything from waterfowl to quail. It was not ideal for both, but it was more of an "all purpose" tool than either a British fowler or game gun.

Ted, you'll undoubtedly find more old American classics available as project guns than Brit doubles for the simple reason that there are WAY more old American classics out there. And the reasons I no longer own the NID 12ga have nothing to do with the gun's condition. Like you, I'm not interested in taking a 7 1/2# gun with tight chokes pheasant hunting . . . but plenty of Americans are. And the 1 1/4 oz "Super-X" formula has long been the standard pheasant load in this country . . . whether shooters really need that much shot and velocity or not. (But please note that the ammo makers are now offering even faster lead loads as their "premium" pheasant shells.)

I also felt sorry for a young guy at our club who'd been sold a poor excuse for a Savage Fox B. Told him for not much more money, I could fix him up with a far superior gun. He was able to "undo" the Model B sale, and I think will be quite happy with that NID. There's also the fact that its only purpose for me was as a target gun when tight chokes are needed. Like trap, which I hardly ever shoot, and the pigeon ring at the Great Northern. I currently have a set of 16ga barrels for a modern Bernardelli hammergun down at Briley being fitted with screw-ins. I figure that gun will be solid enough and versatile enough to cover most of my needs for semi-serious target shooting: everything from skeet to SC to trap. Which meant that that nice NID was mostly going to gather dust in my safe. One heck of a stout design, for sure . . . when you consider that when John Olin came up with the 10ga magnum load, he didn't have guns made on the Model 21 platform, but instead turned to Ithaca and their NID as a platform for their big 10's.

As for the French proof loads, the triple proof ones--and you don't see triple proof on many French guns other than Darnes--are about equivalent to our standard proof on this side of the pond. Remember that standard CIP proof is a bit under 14,000 psi. We're 4-5,000 psi beyond that.

As for the price difference, NID to W&S 700: In 1914, a W&S Model 400 Grade 3--the predecessor of the 700--cost 18 pounds. (I think a pound, back then, was in the neighborhood of $4.) When the NID appeared, in 1926, the Field Grade sold for $37.50 When the last NID's were sold, in 1948, the price was $80.50. I don't have a price for the 700 when it first appeared, but in 1958, it was 80 pounds . . . and I don't think we'd seen prices quadruple in the States in the preceding decade. By 1979, the 700 was selling for close to 1,000 pounds. Those W&S basic boxlocks have always been more expensive guns, even using UK prices, than the Ithaca, Fox, or Elsie entry level guns. Not surprised that one would sell for 3x the price of a NID Field Grade . . . and I'd consider both guns pretty good buys at their respective prices.

Perfect.

Larry,
Couldn't help but notice, that at no point did you say the NID was better than a 700.

Hey, why not?

I'm not a huge fan of 700s, but, I can see the forrest for the trees, I like to think.


Best,
Ted

Gents,

In regards to some of the more Euro-phile comments made here, I will ask you to consider the following:

1. Consider that on the lower end of quality (trade guns, etc.) European guns were simply not competitive below a certain price point, due both to the cost of getting the guns here, and due to the tariffs (rightly or wrongly). And THAT is why you see few lower end English guns at shows amidst a sea of Crescent Arms quality clunkers. A simple matter of home-field advantage. NOT that the average quality of those numerous Birmingham guns was necessarily any better than the average of those made here.

2. On the higher end, the very best of what America produced in the golden age of shotguns (roughly 1875-1925) was every bit as good as the best England or Germany made. No, they didn't make as many. But I believe the best of what they did make stands a peer to their Euro bretheren.

Is it true that the American aesthetic was and remains more grounded in utilitarian purposes. Our historical experiences have nudged us this way. And it's also true that the class system of Europe has tended to nudge those countries the other way. But that does not mean that the highest and best of what we could -- and can -- produce, isn't as good. And anyone who thinks so has never bought an English or French car.

The English ones usually look great while you're on the side of the road awaiting a tow. The French ones will get you laughed at while waiting for a tow. Either way, you waited for a tow from a guy with an old American pickup.

3. English 'best' guns were -- and are -- built for a man whose hands have quite literally never seen dirt. Most of their shooting in the golden age was purely for sport. Hence the emphasis on how light and dainty they were/are. This is probably less so with the Germans and their superb guild guns, as even the aristocracy had a rich hunting-for-the-table lifestyle heritage.

We have our differences, and our pros and cons in terms of what matters to our consuming public, but that doesn't mean that Dan Lefever wasn't every bit the equal to James Purdey. And if you doubt me, you haven't seen the very best of what he created. I can think of a number of special order guns of his make that will quite literally bring a tear to your eye.

Lastly, please humor me. What is "shooting loose?" And I guess related, what is a "hinge pin?" Didn't it occur to any of these makers to put in some wear compensating features in their design?

Oh...


- Nudge

Oh do I have a big problem with that statement. English built guns made their mark during the muzzleloading period and have progressed since then. Even our American Indian preferred the English built 'Trade' gun over all others and was the beginning of the divide between the Birmingham and London makers who would not participate because they, the London makers, considered it a 'Blood Trade' and the Birmingham makers 'Blood Houses'

Nudge, with all due respect, your attempt to make a comparison to the auto industry just demonstrated clearly how little you know about the auto industry.

Now let's go back to your comparison of lower end guns. Two things to consider.

First, tariffs don't happen by chance. They are put in place as protectionist measures, for better or worse. And they have an impact. The impact in America is that the gun industry could pump out the volumes of guns required to keep the factories in business. So they did, and they built the guns they could get away with in that lower end protected market. Tariffs ALWAYS distort the market.

Second, with no tariffs, the Brit and Belgian gun industry would have swamped America at the lower end. And, as in any competitive commercial market, the makers would have responded to the demands of that marker, as evidenced by what sells and what doesn't, and if heavier, stouter guns were in demand, they would have made them and that's what you would see dominating the lower end used SxS market now.

Nudge,

You speak the truth! Uncle Dan's finest creations can truly be breathtaking.

I collect both Boss and Lefever and I would differ with you slightly on one point.

While the beauty and finish of an Optimus and a Boss SLE Best are comparable, as are by and large their durability (except of course the Lefever's ability to be put back on face with a turn of a special screw driver), the British Boss' handling characteristics are consistently better than a Lefever's. This is simply because Boss and all the other English gun houses were focused on producing lightweight and balanced guns for fast driven shooting. Their proof houses allowed them to push the envelope on barrel wall thickness and 2 1/2" loads kept even their finest 12s under 7 lbs.

Generally Americans valued stoutness and durability over handling.

In the 1890s Boss and Purdey SLEs were being shot by the aristocracy of the wealthiest society since the Romans at pheasants pushed over them by serfs. High grade Lefevers were shot at live pigeon shoots and waterfowl by wealthy competitive American businessmen.

To get an American gun with proper handling for the uplands (under 7 lbs with barrel weight forward) in the early 20th century, we turned to the 16 gauge. Now a 16 gauge special order Lefever may well be the handling peer of a 12 bore London Best. Particularly one with 30" barrels! I think Rocketman's objective measurements on handling characteristics will show this to be the case.

PS. One of our brethren is offering a great deal on what should be a dynamic handling upland American Classic:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...nt=2&page=1

I can't believe it has not sold yet. If I had room in my safe, it would already be there!

Treblig,

My comment was specifically about English BEST, in the context of comparing the best the English made vs the very best America could produce. It wasnt a comment of the broader industry of English guns.

Canvasback,

Please re-read carefully. You're picking a bone with my logic...by re-stating what I said? My point is exactly yours, that cost and [mostly] protectionist tariffs protected the American gun industry on the lower and middle end. I said it because another gentleman had asserted that he never sees lower end English guns at gun shows...which in his mind is because people are holding on to them while selling their clunky American guns. Hogwash, it was the tariffs.

As for my snarky car comment, that wasnt made in the context of tariffs, although as you point out, they are likewise affected. I brought up cars to point to a completely different manufacturing area where any notion of "quality superiority" on fhe part of our English or French friends is very obviously hogwash. My father owned an MG, my uncle a 1970's era Jaguar, and my mother owned a Volvo with Peugot guts (they did this for base models in the late 70's)

ALL were nightmares.

The point was simply to say that a quality aesthetic at the upper end of ONE INDUSTRY does not mean that as a blanket statement that country has a corner on quality. Although i might be willing to grant the Germans on this count. Even the simplest tools they seem to put care into.

- Nudge

I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about not seeing English guns at gun shows-I pointed out I have seen a lot more broken, American project guns at gun shows, than broken English project guns at shows.
The English guns are there all right-they just function perfectly and are having full price asked for them. It is often evident that they have been used quite hard as well, and the owners still stand pretty firm on price. I also pointed out it was anecdotal, just what I have seen, in my corner of the world.

Best,
Ted

Nudge, agreed on the tariffs subject. Still disagree on the autos. Not that you are wrong about post war English cars (My father was an Austin, Triumph, MG, Jag dealer in the 50's) but that we were talking about a different era with the guns.....pre war, and thought we should be doing the same to make the car analogy useful. Pre war Rolls, Bentleys, Bugattis, Delage, Delahayes, Talbot Lago etc were as advanced, well made and mechanically sound as anything America made. For sure.

American and European were all just as likely to leave you on the side of the road.

Some time ago i was looking for blueprints or plans for a british falling block rifle action. On some of the other websites this attitude came up about the american actions being superior because they were designed for working men who got their hands dirty, where as the british actions were meant for use by people who never done a days work in their lifes.
My response is "so what". Its an attitude i used to hear from a marxist/communist chap who used to come to my workplace looking for us to join the trade union. Yes he did call eveyone "comrade".

Bonny,

WOW. I guess we all read what we want to read...not necessarily what is written.

Never, not once, in any comment that I made, did I suggest that American anything is necessarily superior to anything. My point in taking on the Euro-phile perspective was simply to state that the very best of what America made in the golden age of shotguns was every bit the equal of the very best of what was made 'over there.' Did we make as many? No. But I don't think that matters.

Did the "average" quality of things measure? I dunno...I wasn't getting into that. Low and average quality ANYTHING that is foreign usually doesn't make it to ANY country's shores, precisely because of the cost + tariffs. (Or at least...prior to NAFTA and China entering the WTO, this was the case. Thank you Bill Clinton.)

British falling block rifles might be every bit the equal to American designs. And I'm not asserting that the working class is inherently "noble" -- I detest such generalizations. The conversation was simply about the aesthetic which prompted the English best gun design. Good for them if their hands never got dirty!

Anything else you, or anyone else want to "think" you read in my comments...are nothing more than a construct of your own willful misinterpretation. Or lack of reading comprehension.


- Nudge

I believe one reason for this to be that the English had a far different perspective on the maintenance of doubles than did Americans. They would return their guns to the maker on a regular basis for maintenance and refurbishing. Americans, however, would not return guns to the maker unless it was to be modified or repaired ...........and only then when they felt they could not do the work themselves. Were the English "smarter"? Not necessarily. More a difference in the national spirit, I'd say. Americans have always been fiercely independent and in possession of a strong "I can do this" ethic. Why else would we(they) have believed we(they) could wage war on the greatest military power in the world and win independence? It has never fully changed, though much of today's society has forgotten it. I have a friend who sends his K80 to have it gone through completely each winter, after only about 3000-4000 rounds a year. His brother in law thinks he is a fool. Those are the two differing attitudes I am talking about.

The result? Rough used American guns that were attempted to be fixed by their owners who, because of independent spirits or, difficulty and cost involved in getting it back to the maker, didn't return them to the maker. They are bound to be in worse condition after a life like that. Would an English gun of the same quality have fared any better with that type of treatment? I think not. So, the results of both "lifestyles" shows up at the gun shows today. I think it is no accident that the finer examples of surviving American guns are the higher grades which were owned by men of means, who were more financially able to pamper them and have them properly maintained.

JMO, SRH

Sorry nudge, but its an attitude that i have come across on a few American based forums, especially ones dealing mainly with older and classic firearms. I accept It was my misreading and not the point you were making.

Sounds like a pretty immature, mixed in with a little bit of jealousy, opinion. President Teddy Roosevelt loved his Winchester but when he ran into all those big, gut smashing pachyderms in Africa he went with his Holland & Holland.

I guess you missed it, Ted. I pointed out that American 12's are multi-purpose guns, for everything from upland to waterfowl (especially back when they were made, when we could shoot lead) to turkeys. Brit 12's are not. They're more specific tools: Either wildfowl guns or upland guns.

And, at 3x the price, the W&S SHOULD be a better gun than a NID. And it is . . . IF you feed it the proper ammo. I've owned several 700's (as well as several NID's), and the 700 is a fine gun . . . for loads of relatively moderate velocity up to 1 1/8 oz shot, if you're hunting and not shooting a lot of them. (See Mr. Greener's Rule of 96.) I've shot multiple rounds of trap with those same 1 1/8 oz loads in a NID, and I could shoot them all day. And I could move up to heavier and faster 1 1/4 oz loads, which would not be a wise choice in the 700. It's not built for those.

What it comes down to is that the 700 is a better gun . . .for you and for me, if we're looking for a pheasant gun and if we don't see the need to shoot heavy loads. See what most American pheasant hunters choose for loads. Most would not be happy with a 700 if they were to touch off a couple Super-X's. Most American pheasant hunters carry guns that are heavier than they really need and shoot loads that are faster and heavier than they really need . . . but Ted, you and I are in a minority on that score. And even though I've written a book and a ton of articles on pheasant hunting, I don't think I've swung all that many people to our way of thinking. I feel lucky when I can convince them that they'll hardly ever need more than the old "Super Pigeon" load: 3 1/4 DE, 1 1/4 oz shot, 1220 fps. And in the case of that particular load, I can invoke names of true shotgun gods: McIntosh, Brister, Hill. And I'm still swimming against the tide.

Larry,
If it was really cold, I might just load up a 1 1/4 oz #5 load in that Webley. It shouldn't be a big problem, as performance goes down on all loads around zero, and the thing weighs 6 lbs, 10 ozs. Most of my 12s are lighter than that.
One or two a year, in cold weather, wouldn't hurt it. Been doing it for years with my Silver Snipe, a lighter gun.
I'd rather hunt with the 700 than a NID. While it's worth more, it isn't really an expensive gun.
But, it is much nicer than any NID.

Best,
Ted

Excellent points, Stan. Owners of Brit guns in this country are also more likely to take care of what they bought because they are also more likely to properly maintain something that cost 3X (or more) the price of a basic American classic 12ga field gun. And since the growth in popularity of British shotguns on this side of the pond, we writers have given good publicity to those gunsmiths who know what they're doing when they get their hands on a Brit gun. And they're more likely to be "specialists" rather than generalists. Your average American gunsmith is likely to deal with at least as many rifles and handguns as he does shotguns . . . and, relatively speaking, darned few side by sides compared to OU's, autos, and pumps. They might admire your Fox or Elsie, but it might also be the 2nd one they've worked on in the last 5 years. But if you only pay a few hundred $ for a double, how likely are you to track down one of the doublegun specialists, who probably doesn't live anywhere near you and may very well tell you you're going to get your gun back in 6 months minimum? While the local guy says he can fix it in a week or two for a lot less money. And maybe he can, and maybe it will be fixed right. Or maybe not.

I know a couple gunsmiths who, between them, might have a dozen British "project" guns. You won't see them for sale as is. You'll see them for sale after the work has been done. And probably for a fair price . . . although that price is likely to be a good bit more than an American classic field grade 12ga.

Actually Nudge, you DID suggest that American anything is/was better than that coming out of Europe. You specifically said that British cars will leave you on the side of the road and French cars are to be laughed at. While it will be the American truck that comes to your rescue.

You didn't qualify those comments, to any company, any time period, anything. They were blanket statements.

Cars to laugh at? I'll take a Citroen Deux Chevaux or a Citroen SM over a Pacer, Matador, Aztec or any number of laughably useless and ugly American cars.

There is usually a problem when one makes blanket statements or generalizations. The facts get in the way.

Im not biting, Canvasback. As I said, willfull misinterpretation. Ive never liked the "misfires" threads awash in petty arguments.

You can bicker with yourself...i already have a wife.

- Nudge

Hahaha!

That's quite funny, Nudge. Sorry to hear you have bickering anywhere in your life. As far as willful misinterpretation goes, I can't help what you write. Those were your words and your choices. And misfires? Were you forced to read it or could you just not help yourself? Seems a little self serving at this point.

To bring this at least back onto guns, the reason I took exception to your statements regarding Brit guns is you seem to ignore the fact that the Brit gun industry was export oriented and they made what the market wanted. The punitive tariffs applied by the US to protect home industry resulted in a "distortion" of production by the Brits for your market. Not arguing good or bad, just that is what happened.

So it was not an "aesthetic" that Brit guns had but a response to a tariff-created market distortion. Without the tariffs, it's likely the US would be awash in more robust Brit guns, suitable for the kind of hunting done in NA.

Ted, $2K plus is "expensive" to a lot more people than $700 is. And I do agree that 700's are "nicer" than NID's . . . as they should be, at 3x the price.

Whether a few Super-X loads would "hurt" . . . Well, a 2 3/4" chambered Model 700 is going to carry a 3 1/4 ton proof. That's service pressure. Converted to our psi measurement: 9,682 psi. That's about 2,000 psi shy of the 12ga service pressure standard in this country. Might not hurt . . . or might. And would certainly hurt your shoulder more than the same round fired out of a gun that was designed to handle Super-X loads, and weighs about a pound more. Stronger and heavier, Ted, because it was specifically built for heavier loads.

So, do you take "nicer" in terms of appearance, nicer handling characteristics for an upland gun . . . or do you take stronger and cheaper? You pay your money and you take your chances, as they say.

Larry,
It would only be at zero, or below, as I already posted. I know it wouldn't hurt my shoulder, shotgun ammunition looses quite a bit of steam aproaching zero degrees, and it gets worse as the temp goes down further.
Above that temp, regular 1 1/8th oz loads would go back in the gun, and get me all I needed.
In the Silver Snipe, I load the 1 1/4 oz load in the top tube, and just use a lighter load in the first barrel. I don't get to do a ton of shooting in those temps, so, typically the second round would be a hail mary, and usually wouldn't get taken.
For what it is worth, 1 1/4 oz loads were the MINIMUM my Dad used in the Silver Snipe, he bought into all the hype back in the day on baby magnums, and the gun is still tight as a tick. It is still stiff to open.
It isn't proofed any higher than the Webley, either. Bet in the years I've got left to shoot, I'd be just fine.
And I wouldn't be shooting a NID.


Best,
Ted

Ted, are you sure your Silver Snipe isn't proofed any higher than a W&S? I recently acquired a fancier version of the same gun (BL-4/S56-E) in 20ga. Mine might well be later than yours. Date code says 1972. Anyhow, mine has the superior/magnum proofmark. Check the barrel flats on your Snipe. You should find PSF with either one or two stars in wheels over it. One is standard proof. If yours has two--which mine has--that's 17,600 psi, or about 4,000 psi higher than the standard CIP proof that Webley would have.

Nothing wrong with shooting a NID. As with most American classics, you need to drop down to the 16ga to get a weight similar to a Brit game gun. But you can also shoot the same shot charge you'd want to shoot in a Webley. And you'd have enough money left over to buy a Silver Snipe 12.

Larry,
The PSF mark, with the single pinwheel:



There is also a pinwheel near the Finito stamp that appears elsewhere on the monobloc. But, I'm pretty sure it is the lower level of proof.

I think you have confused the Silver Snipe, imported by Galef, with the BL series guns, imported after 1968 by Garcia. The Snipe guns were all 2 3/4" guns, and all the 20 gauge Garcia BL guns were 3" chamber. That likely explains the higher proof on your gun. The Snipe is a flat spring design, the BL used coils. I'm told that very late in production a selective single trigger was available for the Snipe, however, I've never seen one, and that is in most of forty years of looking, the usual trigger is a non selective single. A few had double triggers.
The short lived BL1 had double triggers. The BL2 had the weird-aunt-locked-in-the attic speed trigger. BL 3s and 4s were single selective trigger.
The Snipes are a different series of guns, with a different importer than the BLs. An interesting side note, Webley bought in-the-white Silver Snipe barreled actions, and stocked and case colored them, selling them as Webleys. There are a few listed on the sites right now, at what I consider stupid money.

I don't actually need another Silver Snipe. But, I would still rather carry it (or, the 30" Webley double for sale right here) over an NID.

Regardless of price.

Best,
Ted

Ted, you are mostly correct on the Galef/Garcia imports. Garcia did not import the Snipes, Silver or Golden. However, the BL guns retained the same European designation (S-55/56, etc) as were used when the Snipes were imported. I have Beretta catalog copy from 1963 that shows the Snipes and the higher grade S-series guns. My BL-4, from 1972, is also marked S-56E on the barrel flats.

And while you might well rather carry the Webley than a NID, you'd still pay 3x as much . . . for a gun with a lower proof standard. The $1500 or so price difference would be a deal breaker for a lot of people. You want a gun that's lighter than a NID, for similar money? And can shoot pretty much anything 2 3/4"? Ithaca SKB 100 12ga.

No, Larry, I'm 100% correct. The designation of S-55, S-56, etc, was applied by Beretta to two DIFFERENT generations of guns. Your BL-4 is not a Snipe, and a Snipe is not a BL.
Regardless of what you read into the similar designation.

Did you check to see if your gun had 3" chambers? According to my 1973 catalog, all the 20 gauge BL models did. That would pretty much explain the higher level of proof.

While I'm not sure what the "proof standard" is for a NID, (where is the US proof house, Larry?) it would seem to me that the newest of them are approaching 80 years of age, and should be treated with a bit of respect related to pressures and recoil, if only for the sake of the wood, if nothing else. In my eyes, that puts you right back where you should be, as far as ammunition, with the Webley.

Too many of the Japanese guns had single triggers, pistole grips and short barrels for my tastes, Larry. Maybe some are out there that are configured like the 700 we see, here, but, I quit looking a long time ago.

You can have my model 100. I'll find something else.


Best,
Ted

Within the last year, Mark Beasland sold a NIB SKB Model 100 12ga with 30" barrels. Plenty out there with 26" barrels, but also plenty with 28" barrels. But, like the 700 advertised, not many of either with 30". If you want it that badly, it's still for sale . . . at which point you could hang that old Snipe on the wall. Although, if you're talking ST, there's a certain advantage for cold weather hunting. And since your Snipe has both a ST and a PG, don't know why those would bother you on a modern Japanese sxs?

My BL-4 20ga does have 3" chambers . . . but that does not necessarily "explain" the higher level of proof. While we don't have a proofhouse, we do have SAAMI, to which all American gun and ammo makers adhere. And it was coming on line just about the same time as the NID. And no need for a higher proof for American 20ga (or 12ga) magnum guns than for those with 2 3/4" chambers, because the SAAMI service pressure standard is the same for both 2 3/4" and 3" shells: 11,500 psi for 12ga; 12,000 psi for 20ga. The magnum (or superior) proof on European guns is simply an adjustment they made to make sure their guns accommodated our higher service pressures--which were already higher in standard 2 3/4" chambers than theirs.

What I "read into" the S-56 etc designations is not that a Snipe is a BL, but that Beretta OU's retained the same European designations when Garcia imported them as when Galef imported them. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for the comparison of the NID to the 700, the newest NID's would be about the same age as the oldest 700's. Overlap in the late 40's. You're eager to equate them because you're trying to sell the superiority of the Webley . . . but it's not superior in terms of original proof, because the NID appeared along with the Super-X (explaining the change to a stronger action from the previous Flues guns). Those were the loads it was designed to handle . . . but they weren't the loads the 700's were designed to handle. Gun for gun, the Webleys are lighter, which means both the shooter and the gun are more susceptible to recoil. You're not likely to find anyone using a 700 as a waterfowl gun. The NID, back in the lead shot days, was a solid candidate for both ducks and pheasants--mainly because the standard lead shot load (maybe changing from 6's to 5's or 4's in the Super-X) was just as good on ducks as it was on pheasants. And, as a heavier gun, it was a better choice for a steady diet of those loads.

Larry,
If your 20 has 3" chambers, and the two pinwheels under PSF, what is left to "explain" about it's level of proof?
It was proofed at 17,637, instead of the 12,000 a Snipe would have been proofed at. It would NOT have left the proof house with 3" chambers, destined for the American market, any other way.
Period.
The problem I have with single triggers on SXS doubles, is, I don't like them there. However, I don't mind them on a superposed gun, particularly during the winter months. The Snipe has a nice, big, trigger guard that allows for a gloved finger to get into it. The Snipe has quite a bit of family history, and will never be hung on a wall.
I much prefer Italian guns to the Japanese guns I have handled. Snipes are usually pretty good buys, these days, but, as I said, I don't need more.

For different reasons, Mr.McIntosh came to the same conclusion I did, double triggers on his SXS guns, and singles on his O/Us.

I don't have to "sell" the Webley as a higher quality gun than a NID. It just is. I have plenty of 12 gauge guns of all stripes, so, I don't need the Webley, but, level of proof isn't something I spend a lot of time pondering, as a week or two of practice with the correct ammunition for the gun would yield better results than buying heavier loads for most people.
Anyone who believes they "need" a higher level of proof for a pheasant gun, likely just needs some practice.
The extra pound or so of weight the NID comes with, would look far better in your gunsafe, at the end of a ten hour day in the Dakotas, hunting pheasants, than it would look in in mine.
Give me the Webley, thank you very much.


Best,
Ted

LGS had later production Webley 700 that was marked 2&3/4" on barrel flats. The Birmingham mass-produced SxS from 700 series is a benchmark for modern knockabout SxS game gun. It isn't going to be bested in quality and handling by anything field grade in same gauge made in USA. It takes very, very good gun to match or beat lowly Webley & Scott. One example would be "pipe-actioned" Manufrance Ideal once made in France.

Ted--Indeed, a gun with 3" chambers would have a magnum/superior proof. What you seem to be overlooking is the fact that a gun DOES NOT HAVE TO BE 3" IN ORDER TO HAVE A MAGNUM/SUPERIOR PROOF. That's because--starting with the Super X loads and going forward--we had much heavier and faster 2 3/4" loads in this country than they did in Europe. The reason the NID was subjected to heavier proof than a Webley is because it evolved simultaneously with the Super-X loads. Which were heavier and faster than what was available on the other side of the pond--especially as far back as the mid-20's, when the NID's first appeared. Whether one thinks one NEEDS those loads for pheasants is immaterial. The fact is, they pretty much became the standard for both pheasant and duck hunters, and likely outsold any other 12ga hunting loads. So if you wish, you could go with the Super Pigeon load, which although also 1 1/4 oz was about 100 fps slower. But then, just as now, American ammo makers pushed the heavier and faster stuff . . . because, obviously, that's the best stuff.

And again, no doubt the Webley is a better gun . . . as reflected by the fact that it costs 3X as much. But it's not a stronger gun. Whether you think the NID needs to be that strong or I do is immaterial. It's a fact. Not even an alternative one.

Larry,
ALL Darnes built post 1964 came with the highest level of proof, regardless of chamber length. I've seen that movie, Larry. But, a 3" chamber Italian gun is ALWAYS going to have superior proof. Period.
No, I'm not over looking anything. However, superior proof doesn't seem to have been a feature of the old Snipe guns, likely a decision made by the importer. I would have seen a few by now, if they had been, I would imagine.
What anyone is pushing as far as ammunition goes is irrelevant to most guys with doubles, in my experience. The heavier and faster stuff the best?
I guess I missed that memo. I have a pump or two I could feed the 3" stuff to, were I to need to do that. I don't.
The Webley is as strong as it needs to be, Larry. Neither of us, in the years we have left to hunt, would be able to hurt it, even with a 1 1/4oz Pheasants Forever load chambered on a -5 degree day every now and then. With a spreader loaded in the full choke barrel, it could pass for a grouse gun, not the highest evolution of that class of gun, perhaps, but, one hell of a lot closer than the NID you sold.
The Webley is a typical, late 20th century English boxlock, built for the rest of us. The NID was a late 20th century American boxlock, built for the home market. I'm not sure how it would have faired had it been exported to England, or, Europe, but, I wouldn't have tried that on my dime.
The Webley is a higher quality gun, in any way you want to compare them, finish, engraving, ejector mechanism, wood, whatever, which, is kind of what I stated 4-5 pages ago, or so. You keep prattling about how the NID can handle those big, hot, loads, which, you also noted, you don't use so much anymore. True, the Webley will eat up more of your pension money, but, it will sell for more, should you decide to do that.
There is no alternative to those facts.

Best,
Ted

Well Ted . . . thanks for remembering the Darnes and higher levels of proof. I've also seen other French guns with double and triple proof (but not many with the latter). And of course a 3" gun from any CIP country is always going to have superior proof. But so are some 2 3/4" guns from CIP countries. Like Darnes.

Ted, take a look at the history of American doubles back in the 20's. The NID replaces the Flues; the Super Fox makes its appearance, as does the LC Smith Long Range Wildfowl. Those were all changes made because of what was happening with the ammo makers.

I'm mostly in agreement with you on what's needed to kill a pheasant. But Ted, we're in a minority. Look at what the ammo makers are promoting today as "premium" pheasant loads. Not stuff for which the Webley was built. Might it handle a few of them? Sure. And although I'm not particularly recoil sensitive, I wouldn't want to put very many through it. Way too light for 1 1/4 oz of shot at 1500 fps. That's a whole bunch more recoil than the same load @ 1330 fps.

You keep trying to compare the NID and the Webley. Doesn't work for a very simple reason: In this country, our doublegun makers never turned out 12ga guns built on "game gun" principles. They were all heavier than Brit 12ga game guns. But never fear . . . they didn't ignore the people who figured they could kill a pheasant (or a duck) with something less than a heavy 12ga load. Brit game guns compare nicely, in terms of weight and of the loads for which they were designed, to American 16's. Of course we didn't make as many 16's as we did 12's . . . mainly because the 12 is a more versatile gun. But more than enough of them were made to satisfy the needs of the guy who wanted a lighter pheasant/duck gun, and one that would also work for grouse and woodcock.

A NID 12ga, IMO, is a fine choice for someone who wants an American classic for trap and sporting clays. Find one with 30" barrels, and most SC shooters would prefer it to the Webley, simply based on the additional weight. And if you don't mind the weight--and a lot of people don't--it's fine for pheasants too.

Horses for courses, as they say. And the Webley was designed for different courses than a NID 12ga . . . but pretty much the same courses as a 16ga NID. More expensive than a 12, but a fine gun for general upland use . . . and at most, if we're talking Field Grade, only half the price of a Webley.

You gents are going to hurst yourselves with them "Golden Pheasants" and "Prairie Storm" loads. The English versions are called Tall Pheasant or Supreme Pheasant depending on who loads them. The 16ga with 1oz at about 1200fps it the way to go. While I had little good to say about the 16 in the past interestingly that is the double gauge gun actually I bought.

The Pheasants Forever Federal load I have been using for about three seasons is 1 1/4 oz at 1300fps, and it is TOO much.

Unless, it is below zero degrees. Then, it is just right.

I have fed them to a pimple bulged Darne, (out of proof, but, about .090 wall where the mishap occured, before my time with the gun) the Silver Snipe, and, several pumps and autos, not so much as a second though on the last two classes of guns, and not much more on the first two.

I'm sure 1500fps ammunition exists out there, somewhere, for some reason.

But, I don't buy any.

I have an old box of Winchester 2 3/4" high brass 5s that are 1 1/4oz and 1200fps, and, I honestly would be content with them the rest of my life, but, I'm down to about 6 rounds, and I would guess they are from about 1971.

Actual hunting ammunition lasts a long time for me.


Best,
Ted

Back when we had a lot of pheasants in Iowa and I was spending a lot of time chasing them, I'm positive that I never fired a flat at ringnecks over the course of the season. But I went past half a flat several times. And that's just pheasant hunting . . . although lighter loads are appropriate for prairie grouse, ruffs, woodcock and quail.

Lighter loads are very often appropriate for pheasants, too, Larry. The oz and a quarter loads were pretty much a change in the weather thing for me.
Never shot a box of them in a season. Shot a lot of the Federal 1 1/8 oz 6s and 7 1/2s game loads when the skys were blue and the temps pleasant.
I shot A LOT of pheasants with a 20 gauge Darne loaded with 1 oz of 6s, and usually used the same damn load for grouse.
I think they were high brass Federals, but, I can't be sure from here, some 30 seasons later. I do wish I'd never sold that gun.


Best,
Ted

You have some regrets like that too, Ted?

Lighter loads can indeed be appropriate for pheasants. It's just that they're not very popular. The "premium" stuff has gotten either faster or heavier, or both. We're swimming against the tide. I'm sure that I've shot more pheasants with a 16 than I ever will with a 12, and in many cases my 12's were Brit guns and my heavy load (only in the L barrel) was a 1 1/8 oz reload at about 7,000 psi and mid-1100 range velocity. But I've been unable to convince the masses that anything less than 1 1/4 oz makes sense. I'm pretty sure McIntosh felt the same way. But the best he could do when it came to a blanket recommendation for a pheasant load--on which subject both Brister and Hill agreed with him--was the old 1 1/4 oz Super Pigeon load. 100 fps slower than the Super X, but still 1 1/4 oz shot. A very good load, but hard to find in top quality factory shells.