doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Choke and Muzzleloaders

A friend came home with a French 16 ga double barrel muzzleoader (c. 1860) the other day. It doesn't seem to have any choke but, in looking at it, I began to wonder if the concept of choke (I believe first patented by W.R. Pape in about 1866) was predicated on the widespread acceptance of breechloading in our firearms. From a practical standpoint, it might not be readily feasible to achieve a good gas seal if the wads have to be first jammed DOWN a constricted muzzle. Dunno.....

I totally agree Gil, chokes and muzzleloaders don�t mix. I�ve read that the old timers built the pattern either restricted or spread into the load.

Pape's original 'choke device' was a screw-on thing wasn't it?

Perfect for a front stuffing one shooter.

Black powder and tiny threads don't go too well together.

Skeptics about m/l chokes should look into V. M. Starr's little book, "The Muzzle Loading Shotgun, It's [sic] Care and Use". The book is reproduced on several websites.

Starr was a master of the jug choke. 85% patterns at 40 yards were not unheard of.

Jug-choked muzzle loading shotgun barrels are exceptionally easy to load because the choke's constriction is relative to the choke's recess. The only "shooting problems" that jug-choked barrels routinely have that I know about are that they very often do not group round ball loads consistently and that they do not always accomodate shot bandages and one-piece plastic wads well.

I think that treblig is referring to the old adage: "Much powder, little lead; shoots fast, much spead. Little powder, much lead; shoots far, kills dead." There is a lot to this adage, and not just with muzzle loaders.

I recommend that anyone who is even remotely interested in m/l shotguns look up a copy of V. M. Starr's book. The book contains a fair amount of good information and Starr's writing hearkens back to a time and a breed of men that are now (sadly) long gone.

It was Roper I was thinking of, not Pape.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=C7kAAAA...p;q&f=false

That gizmo there.

A long time ago, I machined an aluminum block that greatly facilitated the loading of a friend's ML shotgun with choke - a modern gun the brand of which I don't remember. The block was bored, based on this gun's measurements/dimensions, such that the block slipped over the barrels aand aligned bored chambers with the muzzles. The bored chambers were cyl tapering to the choke at muzzle. Thus, the wads were easily pushed into the muzzle and were correctly aligned with the bore. This gun shot well and kicked my butt two of three years in a ML Skeet competition. Not hard to do, but requires custom machining.

I tried, for a time, to construct some tighter shooting loads for my 16 ga. Manton, but never had much luck. I knew that I could do it with plastic shot cups, but just refused to use them in a m/l.

I sure would like to know the old-timers' secrets for this. I may try to locate Starr's book, myself.

SRH

In several vintage muzzleloaders I tried everything Starr said the results just left me wondering.

You might make this inquiry with the guys who regularly shoot trap and skeet with muzzleloaders in the NMLRA shoots. They certainly get decent performance there. I know some only use a card over blackpowder, then shot and a thin over shot card. Others use just a thin fiber wad over the powder or a card with half a fiber wad over the powder. All of this indicates considerable experimentation to determine the best load for a specific barrel. I learned a flintlock double 16ga sure makes skeet a whole new game. Have to know ALL about follow through!

If you don't need any choke to shoot skeet with a breechloader, why would you need it to shoot skeet with a muzzleloader?? Trap, of course, would be a different story.

Dingelfutz, is dead on and that's the exact passage I was thinking of but couldn't recall at the time. But I�ve tried it and saw some results of a tightening and spreading of the loads, but only slightly. However I was using limited components and limited time. Additional testing could have produced better results. That particular 12 gauge Pedersoli I was using may have been slightly or very particular on the combination or configuration of the powder/shot wadding I was using. I may get back to it sometime.

I've heard references to V M Starr's "pamphlet" many times so I ordered one earlier today for 9 bucks. I think I should have held off. I just "speed read" the whole thing on another site. Several times Old VM sounds like he doesn't know much about muzzleloaders, sometimes he even sounds like nothing but a big Dupa, to quote everyone from the neighborhood I grew up in. If there's any reference to arcane knowledge about squeezing out good patterns from essentially cylinder bored shotguns I completely missed it. Now I've just got a hadache from reading so much off a silly computer screen. How can people these days advocate reading entire books from such a thing? Strictly printed matter for this old coot when it comes to reading anything of length and/or substance.

Now you see what I was wondering about.

"Big Dupa" and "old coot"?! Let's show some respect! For those of us who had any contact with V.M., "courtly old gentleman" came closer to the truth. For example, I can't imagine V.M. making cracks like KK made.

To the point, however: "Not know much about muzzleloaders...?" The guy was ONLY primarily responsible for the renaissance of m/l shotgunning AND he was able to tune m/l shotguns to performance levels that have only been attainable in recent years with high-tech guns and loads AND he shot m/l shotguns about as well as anyone ever has AND a match is named after him at Friendship. Nope, the old boy sure didn't know much!

Now, V.M. did do some things that are not recommended today, like load powder directly from a flask and spitting down loaded shotgun barrels, but such were done "in the day". The rest of what V. M. recommends holds up pretty well, however.

"Arcane" knowledge is just that, i.e. "hidden"...and you guys missed it.

Please refer to V.M.'s recommendation of "bulk for bulk" loads with Fg powder. Such loads are equivalent to a LESS than a "b. for b." load with Ffg powder, which is now the most common recommendation. With such loads, denser and more even patterns can be (but not always will be) achievable with cylinder bore guns. Such patterns might not be full choke patterns by any means but they generally will be better.

Please also refer to the fact that V. M. recommends Fg powder. (V. M. assumed that the powder would be the long-lamented DuPont version.) My much more limited experience reflects V. M.'s. Fg may be dirtier-burning than Ffg and its synthetic equivalents and it generally requires larger powder charges for given velocity levels but it tends to burn "smooth" with lower levels of shot deformation and shot charge disruption, which is why I suspect that V. M. was able to use the kind of minimal wad columns that he used.

"How can people advocate reading entire books"...because the information is there, that's why! (I'll bet your teachers just LOVED you!)

KK, if the price you paid for the book is too much then send it to me. I'll reimburse your #@&*^!! nine bucks!

OK, Ding, calm down. Your reading comprehension skills are either surely lacking or your rage towards me blinded you. Speaking of "hidden" your ignorance of syntax would fit the word neatly.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and will kindly assume that it was your rancor and rage which tripped you up. It's been known to happen.

If I must explain, I must explain. "This old coot" was a reference to me, not your hero. You also didn't finish the sentence "How can people advocate reading entire books FROM SUCH A THING". This is a reference to the complaint I made about lengthy reading, or indeed reading entire books ON A COMPUTER SCREEN. What did you think I meant by the following mention of "printed matter"? I'm praising the traditional form of books, articles, essays and the like on PAPER, yes, PRINTED PAPER. To take it further, DOWN WITH KINDLE!

Your hero may have been knowledgeable about muzzleloaders, but he doesn't share the wealth of that knowledge. He merely suggests loads to try and dubious loading and cleaning tips. And, at least in his writing, he gives one absolutely NO impression of being a "courtly old gentleman". He comes off like a big windbag, a know-it-all spouting off who at times seems like the kind of person that "people in the neighborhood I grew up in" would dismiss as a BIG DUPA" (capitalization of letters added for emphasis).

Finally, I can't let this statement of yours pass without comment: "For example, I can't imagine V.M. making cracks like KK made."

Are you insane or just "over the moon" in love with this man? The only "crack" I made about him was the aforementioned name that people I knew my whole life would label him as. You honestly can't imagine him referring to someone similarly, or worse? Especially someone who perhaps differed in opinion from him? Come on!

Look, V.M. Starr obviously did A LOT FOR muzzleloading AND WITH this form of shooting. For this he is to be, and has been, lauded. But I cannot for the life of me discern any direct sharing of his knowledge in his writing regarding A WAY TO GET GOOD PATTERNS FROM A CYLINDER BORED MUZZLELOADER which, by the way, was/is the impetus for this thread in the first place.

If I remember correctly, I believe the guy even extolls the virtues of jug-choking.

For all the accomplishments this man attained in his lifetime, good, concise writing was not one of them.

And I hope I'm wrong, but good reading comprehension seems not to be one of yours.

Calm down.

Best Regards, Krakow Kid, THE RECOGNIZED LORD AND MASTER OF ALL THINGS.

I shoot a modern 12 gauge Pedersoli double ML which is choked IC and Light Mod. I use a .135 card wad over powder, 3/8" fibre wad, and a thin over shot wad made by slicing an over powder wad in to thirds with a razor blade. I honestly experience no problems getting everything past the chokes, and my theory is that the wads spring back to bore diameter once past the constriction. I get no blown patterns indicating blow-by, and the charge in the unfired barrel stays tight through several discharges of the other one. (I check the load for shifting when reloading the other barrel as a matter of course.) Patterns are nice and even, and dispersion is in keeping with the choke designations. Evidently I'm doing something wrong (or right).

All of my muzzleloading shotguns are cyl. bored. There are NO chokes of and sort of description in them. Getting good patterns is not that hard, if you are willing to go to the range and pattern them. Remember, every gun and even every barrel on that gun, sets it's own rules, but after you have worked on patterning them, you will see some similarities. Many people,at least in my experience, try to get a more filled in pattern, by increasing their shot load. Maybe I am recoil shy, but I just never went that route. All of my shotguns range from 10ga. to 20ga. and it does seem as if the "usual" load of shot that is "store" bought for a modern gun, seems to be pretty close. Like a 12ga. uses 1 1/8oz. of shot and a 20ga. uses 7/8oz. of shot. It is the components that make the difference and of course the amount and F size of powder. I use nothing but 2F. For dove shooting and trap, I use an over powder card, a fiber cushion that is cut to 1/4" or less and over the shot an over shot card. The cushion for me, is only there to carry the olive oil I prefer to use for a lube. If I want tighter patterns and I won't be reloading very often if at all, like for turkey hunting. I use no cushion at all. My experience for me (may not be for you) is that holes in the pattern are caused be either the cushion blowing through the shot column or that the powder load is too stout and blowing components through the column. If you are worried about the strength of the load crunching bone, use a good solid tin can like a tuna can. Shoot at that at the furthest range you intend to take game and if it blows through both sides of the can, you have enough power for breaking bones. No, I can't get the range that a choked gun gets, but a turkey in front of me at 30yds. give or take, with my cyl. bored guns, has just experienced his last sunrise. This is all JMHO and information I gathered by spending time at the shooting bench and patterning board. Your mileage may vary.....

Mr. Kid- You are correct that Mr. Starr extolled the virtues of the jug choke (he was apparently well-known for his ability to cut these into cylinder barrels). In fact he states that his method is meant for choked barrels, and I agree will not likely perform magic in a cylinder bore. Some shooters are experimenting with oiled cloth "shot cups" in cylinder bore guns and may be finding denser patterns with these; I am not sure about this but the oiled cloth does cut out any barrel leading for sure. My own results so far with an unchoked muzzleloader lead me to believe that a modest powder charge with a somewhat larger-in-volume shot charge will give best the results in a traditional cylinder bored muzzleloading shotgun.

Mr Katt and Mr Golfswithwolves - I definitely agree with using less powder than shot (volume-wise). Do either of you, or anyone else for that matter, put a small hole in your overpowder cards? I've read that can cut down on blowing the shot's pattern apart, but haven't tried it. I'm not new to muzzleloading rifles, single and double, but relatively new to shotguns, even though I seem to have been accumulating original English doubles obsessively. I've still not gotten patterns to the point of satisfaction. I've been waiting for Spring (when it's REALLY here)to get more range time with all of them.

KK, I am and have been an admirer of V. M. for a long time. I corresponded with him until just before he died. I regret that I never got to meet him, face-to-face. "In love...."; I dunno. Very much respect, yes.

I'll let the observations about syntax and reading comprehension pass. I'll just put the responsibility on myself. I very much regret any unfairness and any "heartburn" that might have come from my comments.

"Windbag"; I guess, being a Midwesterner, I just don't see his style as indicating that. A good bit of it is humor. I suppose that this might be a cultural thing. (I still think that DUPA is a bit much...especially based on the "take" on the term that I have derived from "Buffalo Polish".)

Dave Katt makes a couple of good points. First, the primary role of fiber wads in m/l shotguns is as a carrier of lubricant. Secondarily, the role can also be as an obturator where bore conditions requre it, e.g. when a gun has a "burnt breech". From what I can tell, protection from shot deformation is usually distinctly secondary, possibly due in part to BP's comparatively gentle pressure curve. One of the "knocks" on Fffg powder (see Fadala) as a shotgun powder is that it allegedly "tears up" wad columns more than Ffg and Fg powders do.

One approach to compensating for reduced shot velocities is to "go up" one shot size from what is used with more standard-velocity loads. This might be one reason why larger shot charges are recommended; to increase pellet count with the larger shot.

Golfs" makes an intersting observation. What he seems to be talking about is what were called "shot concentrators", some of which were pretty elaborate. Oiled cloth most certainly would work. However, I have had my best results, though not with jug choked barrels, with "concentrators" that are made from "cereal box cardboard". The devices are simple "crosses" that have their "arms" just long enough to almost completely encase the desired powder charge and just wide enough to cover the circumference of the bore when they are "put together". The "crosses" are "pre-formed" by pushing them through a bore size hole in a piece of board, which "breaks" the carboard slightly and which forms the "cross" into a "cup". I have found such "cups" to load more easily than shot protectors that are made of "softer" materials. I am not sure how much lubrication of these cups would help if there is other wad lubrication present. However, I suppose that such lubrication most likely would not hurt anything.

"Golfs" also makes a good point about V. M.'s loads. Some (though not nearly all) of V. M.'s loads apparently were intended for choke-bored barrels. However, his "base" volume-for-volume load does seem to have more general applications.

KK asks a good question about modifying OP wads. It is not at all uncommon to have tight-fitting OP wads try to "back out" due to trapped air in the bore. The purpose of the hole is to allow this air to escape during loading. Holes can work but I have had my best luck with making a small "notch" on one side of my card OP wads. This practice can ease loading effort quite a bit. Of course, being a bit on the compusive Teutonic side, I have always preferred to use two OP wads, making sure that the notches do not line up. (One can't be too carful, you know!) I understand that one of the tools that often came with "original" guns was a device that would be used to "notch" wads.

OK, Mr. Moderator! I'm ready for my "star dock", now.

I do not place a hole or notch in my cards. I like to hear the "hiss" coming through the vent or nipple, as the compressed air escapes. I feel that the compressed air helps to get the powder into the vent or the nipple for faster ignition and it also blows the vent or nipple clean. I just hold the ram rod down a little as I prepare for the next item to go down the barrel. I have not had a problem. It is just something that after awhile, you get used to and do it. I have tried all kinds of homemade and modern shotgun wad or cups to try yo get a tighter pattern. None, seemed to work for me consistently. Some shots would go to the patterning board in the form of a slug and then some shots would work beautiful. But, I never got repeatable patterns. I am not a scientist, so I can only report what works for me. It seems as if shot cups, need a constriction in the muzzle, to "pull" them out of the shot stream, to get consistent patterns. I feel if you want to get consistent patterns, you have to forget to a degree, what you know about modern guns with restriction chokes. You want your components to be light and able to flutter out of the shot stream very rapidly. I have no knowledge using a jug choke.

The vents were added to cap locks because the flintlock people claimed that the flintlock shot harder because of it's more open system because the powder could breath better...thus vents were added to cap locks so they would shoot as hard (it was later found to be hogwash).

I tried every loading combination Starr talked about and had my best results with a thick Nitro card, lubed fiber cushion wad and thin over shot card. The 3 vintage muzzleloading shotguns I had (a 9, 10 and 13 bore) all shot better with full power loads.

I hunt with the guns I own and after realizing that a muzzle loading shotgun is a 30 yard gun I sold all mine and converted to vintage cartridge guns with choke.

So I looked at most of what Starr wrote as hogwash with the exception of jug choking.

Just to be clear. When I talked of vents, I was referring to the vents used on a flint gun to ignite the main powder charge, just as a nipple is used on a percussion gun.

They are both percussion guns and both flint and cap locks have vents.

Now this, THIS is great stuff and a major reason why this board is so good. KNOWLEDGEABLE members with a wealth of experience all pitching in trying to reach a common goal. Gary D, Dingelfutz, Dave Katt, Homeless Joe and Golfswithwolves, thank you for sharing your takes on the question at hand.

Ding, I had no personal beef with Mr Starr or YOU, for that matter. Being a personal correspondent with the man definitely gave you more background on his contributions than could be gleaned, at least by me, from his booklet. I apologize if my comments raised your hackles, but from my perspective I didn't see what you have been privy to.

At any rate, I just took delivery of a box from TOW about 20 minutes ago. I haven't opened it yet, but inside are the "guts" of shotgun muzzleloading loads: cards, fiber wads, lubricated felt wads and the like. I plan on using them in an array of guns in the upcoming weeks.

Joe, I found your comment interesting reagarding the use of heavier loads. Just a few days ago I acquired an absolutely beautifully made, and cared for, 10 bore caplock shotgun from nineteenth century American gunmaker (although he came from Ireland)Patrick Mullin. I purchased it from a gentleman and fellow board member.

In speaking to him I learned that he got the best patterns by using 4 drams of powder and 1 1/4 ozs of shot. I guess I can't say if over 100 grains of powder in a 10 bore would be considered "heavy", but it struck me as not being light. He also emphasized that he used lubricated wads. I'm anxious to try that load to see for myself.

Again, many thanks to all of you for contributing your own experiences and findings. It's to everyone's benefit, but you don't need me to point that out!

Marc, but what powder was he using, powder that is not made any more? And what granulation of powder are you going to use now 2fg 3fg, Goex, Swiss?

KK, uh oh! You've gone and done it, now! You are exposing youself to a "bug" that does not respond well to antibiotics! Your other guns might well become lonely! (V. M. warned about this, incidentally!)

FWIW, my hackles are down and my feathers are smoothed out. Thank you for your kind comments. They are appreciated.

I suspect that you might find that the m/l shotgun comes closest to being "the essential gun". Properly loaded, there are very few jobs that it can't do reasonably well. The gun is easy to maintain and use. Components are relatively easy to get or, worst possible case, to improvise. (Push coming to shove, wads, shot, and even powder and caps can be made by individuals who have the requisite skills.) I can think of no better long-term "bug out/survival gun".

You might be surprised, too, at just how much fun these old "smokers" are to shoot...and how well you do shooting it. "Handicapped" by using a "front feeder"? I have never thought so.

Smooth bores of all types, but especially d/bs, have largely been treated like stepchildren by the "buckskin and long rifle crowd". I suppose that it has been more "romantic" to think if our hardy pioneers, mountain men, etc. using rifles instead of the smooth bores that so many of those folks actually used. Perhaps the Double Gun Crowd can rectify this and give these old guns the honor and respect that they deserve.

It sounds like you have acquired a fine old piece. Please keep us updated about your progress and adventures with her.

Well not exactly, definitely not in the same sense.
A cap lock ignites from the hammer hitting a cap containing percussion powder. It thus ignites from the percussion.
A Flint lock does not ignite the powder from percussion. It strikes a spark of red hot steel which ignites the priming powder.

Some cap locks were drilled with vents, others were not. The onky "Vent" any of my cap locks have is through the nipple. As the hammer stays down on the fired cap, which is not blown off, there is little if any escape here.

Your right about the other guns getting lonely. I haven't used a "modern" shotgun in years, once the ml'ing shotgun bug took a bite. Sure, I suffer against modern guns in a game of trap, with my old cyl. bores, but I don't when it comes to game. I will wait till they are a little closer, or be more conservative on what I call a shootable target. But another plus side to me, is the debris I leave behind when done hunting. I have no hulls that I missed to find and I have no plastic wads laying out in the field. I have even been told by a landowner how much he appreciates the "no litte" left over from a day of dove hunting. But, for an afternoon with the boys shooting trap, it is hard to fault the modern guns.

Reading this thread made a lightbulb go off in my head about an article I remember reading in the DGJ a long time ago. I had the good fortune to find the article written in the Spring 2000 issue (volume 11 issue 1). In the article titled "Joseph Tonks-Boston" The author, William O. Achtermeier, stated that in preparing for the article he examined 15 Tonks shotguns, including 3 single barrel percussion trap guns and 9 were choked guns. He also references a 19th century outdoors writer named Joseph W. Long who wrote, in the 1879 edition of "American Wild-fowl Shooting" a whole chapter on choke bores and relates several stories about choke bored muzzleloaders made by Joseph Tonks of Boston. This quote is from the article: "In chapter 21 Long describes the invention of the choke bore as the most valuable aid to sportsmen since the appearance ofthe percussion lock. While giving a nod to W. Papes claim as the inventor, he notes that the Englishman "...is not the original inventor..."

He goes on to state that a gunsmith named Jeremiah Smith of Smithfield, Rhode Island had been producing choke bored muzzleloaders since 1827. He goes on to speculate that Tonks may have aquired the technology either directly from Smith or indirecly as a result of his involvement in the gun trade in the region and that the techniques involved may have become common knowledge by then in hte area.

It is a long article. Those with a reference library of back issues of the DGJ will no doubt enjoy going back to read it. I certainly did.

My bad on the term percussion....all 3 English cap-lock guns I owned had vented platinum blow out plugs. Not sure where the term "blow out plugs" came from because I later found they were not designed to blow out.

Joe - you say all 3 of your BP guns shot better with "full power loads". Do you remember what they were or has it been too long ago? I've got a 10, 14, 16 and a 12 that'll eventually be shipped. Reckon the 9,10 & 13 are pretty close(?)

trelig - he used 2 f, goex. I'll experiment with others. My 18 bore double rifle LOVES swiss 1.5

ROMAC - I vaguely recall that article. I'll look it up again.

Ding & Dave - too late. I'm WAY hooked.

Joe - All my hunting for birds is within 30 yards, if not 30 FEET! For some reason I think of you as more of a waterfowler. Is that correct? Maybe because you love WC Scott guns and for some wacky reason I always associate Scotts with waterfowling. Don't ask me why.

Yes. tell us about these full power loads. I remember trying somewhere around 3 1/2 dr.2F powder loads with matching amount of shot. I found it to be a terribly unpleasant recoil. But, I maybe a little recoil shy as well. 3 dr. of 2F loads (Schuetzen powder) is enough for me as I am a wuzz.

My 10 and 9 bore shot best with 1 & 5/8oz of #4 shot and 4 & 1/2 drams of Goex 2f. I tried lots of shot and powder combinations...ranging from 1 & 1/4 oz up to 2 oz of shot. With Goex and Schuetzen powder....contrary to what you hear I thought the Goex shot cleaner out of a shotgun than the Schuetzen did.
I stopped shooting black...once the fascination wore off I quickly tired of the cleaning. After a long cold day in the winter woods gun cleaning is the last thing I want to do at dark.

(I'm more of a turkey hunter than a waterfowl hunter)

I agree Joe, give me a breechloader anytime. While a lot of fun and easy to clean I just don't have the energy anymore. But there is nothing like the sense of accomplishment you get after you've taking game with a muzzleloader!!

I find a classic Brit BP double is perfect for a drive-by!






By the way, Many Thanks for the load info, Joe.

Mr. Katt- I re-read the Starr "book" again and noted that Mr. Starr always liked 1F powder in his larger bore loads. Also, when I did the measuring and calculating (drams vs. grains is confusing to me) it seems that almost all of his loads closely match the Equal Volume of Powder and Shot theory. So, I will try this old idea soon, as I have previously used 2F powder and it did give pretty noticeable recoil when paired equal volumes with bigger shot charges. The 1F might possibly also give better shot patterns due to lower pressure than 2F; maybe this is why I've had better luck with less volume of powder than shot when using the 2F granulation powder. Lots of fun experimenting to come!

I can certainly agree with the use of a slower powder like 1F. I have always used 2F not because it is better for me than 1F, as I have never used 1F as it is not as readily available to me as 2F. I have tried 3F, and my guns and I just didn't like it all. I too have better luck with less powder than shot as well. I have become so used to drams or dram equiv. as all my old powder flasks and of course modern shot shell boxes, always talk in dram equiv. I just got used to it. Now I have to do the math to convert to grains.

Yesterday, I was patterning a 20ga. fowler for turkey season. In this gun yesterday, it appears as if 68gr. or 2 1/2dr. of 2F BP and 1 1/8 oz. looks to be the load for this gun. You can see here that the use of more shot per volume, than powder seemed to work well for this gun. I was using one over powder card, no cushion and one over shot card.

While realizing it will vary some according to brand, granulation & individual lot of the powder as well as size & alloy (hardness) of the shot an approximate equal volume is found at 2� drams-1oz. For other shot wts simply mltiply the wt by 2� to get the drams of the equal volume load. In looking over several old combo shot & powder dippers I often find them marked in � dram & 1/8oz increments.

This means that if you double the size of the cavity to go from one oz up to a whopping 2oz for the big 8ga, the powder should also be doubled to 5 drams. The dipper however will only read it to 4� drams for it has those 8 graduations marked in � dram steps. On the ones I have actually measured I have found the shot wts to be pretty close to what they say. I have always used the equal volume method for the powder charge so just set the dipper to the desired shot wt.

I do have one old dipper incidently which goes up to that 2oz of shot. Industry standard set the volume for a dram of BP as .115 CuIn many years ago, shot goes about .288 CuIn per oz. .115 x 2.5 = .2875 so the 2�-1 combo is sbout as close as you can get it without weighing out individual loads which is fine if one has nothing better to do. The volume measure is quite sufficient for my use. The bird doesn't really know, or care, if that 2� dram load contained an exact 68.359 grains or if it was just somewhere between 62 & 75.

Miller, you once again dazzle and amaze with another pragmatic post. Great information to have in one's back pocket.

Many Thanks

KK;
Thanks for the compliment, but this info all came from others. The industry standard for Black Powder measures was given some yrs back in the American Rifleman, back when they had a lot of great info. It was reprinted in their first Handloaders Guide (may be their last one, not sure) & I kept it. The shot volume came from older Hercules/Alliant handloader guides where for years they showed the length of a 1oz shot column in the standard bores of 10, 12, 16, 20 & 28 Gauges as well as the .410 bore. It was a simplr matter to calculate from the dia & length what the CuIn's would be & they all hoovered around that .288 which was virtually identical to the 2� dram BP volume.

Starr jug choked my 10 bore Dewson (brought to ND by the cook at Teddy Roosevelt's ranch) and I had good luck with it on ducks while lead was still legal.

Mr. Hal- You are a fortunate shooter to have a gun like the one you describe! Mr. Starr wrote that he could get guns to pattern at 80%, which is better than modern shotguns can do. If you can, please elaborate as to your methods of loading with your gun as I have no doubt this would be real instructive to all. Have you used bismuth shot or other soft non-toxic shot at all as a substitute for lead for ducks? Thanks GWW

Mr Hal - I echo Golfswithwolves sentiments AND request!

I have used only lead in my Dewson 10. As I remember, my waterfowl load was 4dr fG, 1.5 oz Lubaloy 4's over two 1/8" in-the-mouth lubricated cards and a 1/2" fiber cushion. V.M. also jug-choked my Russell 12, but I have not shot it much.