So all of Drew's posts from contemporary sources providing the ORIGINAL service loads for vintage guns are of no value? Wow.
There's a whole lot of understanding to be gained from BOTH original proof AND original service loads, Ted. For example, I expect a whole bunch of folks posting here now likely understand (maybe even YOU do, although I'm wondering based on the apparent thickness of your skull) that a reference to "psi" in 1900 isn't the same as a reference to "psi" currently. Has to do with crusher vs piezo-electronic measurements, which are not the same. If you don't understand that, you don't understand either proof or service pressure data from historical references.
Exactly how do you think we determine just how low the pressures should be on our current "low pressure loads"? Even relatively modern references to proof can be confusing. Confused me when I wrote an article on the subject for Shooting Sportsman. Turns out that 850 bar isn't really 850 bar as measured by transducers. Nope, it's a lead crusher measurement. (Or at least it was for the Brits.) Which means that what we thought we knew about appropriate pressures for 850 bar guns was wrong. Thanks to a response from the Birmingham Proof House, we got that one straightened out.
No one is suggesting using century-old powder in current loads. But it's certainly valuable--to some of us if not to you (and certainly not to you if you're only worried about your Silver Snipe)--to know the characteristics--shot charge, velocity, pressure--of the service loads that were used in those vintage French guns with a PJ proofmark. If we can find that data, what better guidance can there be for us to use in working up loads using modern components?
But hey, Ted . . . just go on shooting your triple proofed Darnes and your Silver Snipe. No worries, mate. And do your best to tell us that any references to "period" literature is of no value, since those are just old loads. And after all, we're using plastic hulls and plastic wads and modern powder, so who the hell cares anyhow?
Well, some of us do, even if you don't. So if you have nothing constructive to contribute, why don't you just . . . not contribute to the particular discussion in question? I'd say "butt out" but I'm working on being polite.
Larry,
Calm down. If you want to study service loads that were available to hunters in France, circa 1900 or so, you may feel free. But, Joe average, with a cool old French double, still working 40-60 hours a week, simply doesn't have to do that. He can simply pick a load out of a catalog, that runs about 30% less than proof pressure, 12,000 PSI in the case of single proof with powder J (any variety of powder J, by the way) and he is golden. He can consult a current reloading catalog, and load the same loads up for himself, if he is so inclined. Further, it is quite common to find arms that were double or triple proofed with powder J, making the excercise of wringing ones hands over what load to use a bit redundant.
Welcome to France, Larry.
When it comes to actually shooting the gun, today, study of what was won't get you too far. The good duck load you mentioned, above, isn't legal to use anymore. The proofhouse in St. Etienne gave you the information you needed to know, right on the flats.
Worried the gun may have been honed out of proof? Measure it, and compare it to what the proofhouse said it measured, the day it was proofed. See what level of proof it passed, and run it below that. Easy.
You are correct, all of my own guns can be used without regard to pressure of the ammunition, a feature that has come in handy more times than I care to remember. A triple proof Darne, proofed at 18,000 psi, eliminates any non sense about what ammunition I will be using that day.
The study of antique ammunition is an interesting one,
I'll grant you that. But, it won't help you too much in finding or developing a load for a similarly aged gun, with the components and powder we use today.
In no way did I suggest that the study of "Any" (your writing, above) period literature was of no use, Larry. Don't put your words on the board and credit them to my keyboard.
Gene,
I always assumed that little mark you are seeking information about was a barrel makers mark. I have seen it a few times, but, never had a manufacturer to associate it with. There were likely dozens of barrel makers in France in that era.
I have no firm information on that mark, however. I, also, doubt the proofhouse would have stamped it on the rib.
Best,
Ted
