I just picked up what appears to be a pretty nice 1940 DOM LC Smith 16ga Field gun. I have several other 16ga SxS's most of which are pre-1930 guns. They have the 2 9/16" chambers, and I only shoot RST 2.5's out of them. This new gun has 2 3/4" chambers and would have been made after the intrduction of super X loads, etc.

So, that said should this gun be safe to shoot most, if not all modern 16ga loads?

As soon as it gets in, it's going to gunsmith to have the lock mortise acraglas'd, and the gun overall checked out. Also going to have Josten's recoil pad added to the gun, as the butt plate is not in good condition, and I'd like the extra almost inch of LOP.

I was under the impression that all pre-WWI French Saint-Etienne shotguns were chambered for 6.5 cm (65mm or 2 1/2). I was wrong since I found a 16 gauge 1906 with a 7cm chamber as measured by a chamber gauge and so stamped on the barrel So I copied this post from another board to help try to date guns by their chambers. It might help on the pressure issue.

The first smokeless powder for shotgun shells was Wood powder introduced in 1876. Shotgunners being a hidebound lot were rather slow to embrace smokeless powder, but by the 1890s it was coming on strong. In 1890, Captain A.W. Money came to America from England, and established the American E.C. and Schultze Powder Company in Oakland Park, Bergen County, New Jersey, with offices on Broadway in New York City, to manufacture smokeless shotgun powders.

By their July 20, 1891 price list, Union Metallic Cartridge Co. was offering American Wood or Schultze smokeless powder shotshells.

In 1893, Winchester was providing smokeless powder shells to selected shooters with Winchester offering them to the general public in 1894.

The American ammunition companies held their smokeless powder loads offered in the 2 5/8 inch 12-gauge shells lower than those offered in the 2 3/4 inch and longer shells. The very heaviest 2 5/8 inch shells I find offered were 3 1/4 drams of bulk smokeless powder or 26 grains of dense smokeless powders such as Ballistite or Infallible with 1 1/4 ounces of shot in the early 1900s.

Before 1910, according to the ammunition company catalogues I have, the companies backed off on the 2 5/8 inch 12-gauge shells to nothing heavier than 1 1/8 ounce, and one needed to go to the 2 3/4 inch or longer 12-gauge shells to get 1 1/4 ounce payloads. In 2 3/4 inch and longer shells they offered up to 3 1/2 drams of bulk smokeless powders or 28 grains of Ballistite or Infallible dense smokeless powders with the same 1 1/4 ounce of shot.

These loads were very high pressure according to a DuPont Smokeless Shotgun Powders (1933) book I have. It shows the 3 1/2 drams of DuPont bulk smokeless powder pushing 1 1/4 ounces of shot as being 11,700 pounds; 3 1/2 drams of Schultze bulk smokeless powders pushing 1 1/4 ounces of shot being 11,800 pounds and the 28-grains of Ballistite pushing the 1 1/4 ounces of shot being 12,600 pounds!!!

There were plenty of lighter loads being offered, but American shotgunners being what they are, I'm sure many were opting for the heaviest loads available. The same situation held with the 20-gauge shells. The "standard" 2 1/2 inch 20-gauge shells carried slightly milder loads than the extra cost longer shells in 2 3/4, 2 7/8, and 3-inch lengths.

Many folks believe that the "modern" shotshells loaded with progressive burning smokeless powders, introduced in the early 1920s, Western Cartridge Company's Super-X loads leading the way, were higher pressure than the old bulk and dense smokeless powder loads. Reading period literature, this is not the case. With progressive burning smokeless powders they were able to move out equal shot loads at higher velocity or a heavier shot load at equal velocity, but at lower pressure than the old style bulk or dense smokeless powders.

In reviewing old Union Metallic Cartridge Co. catalogues and price lists, the first time I see mention of paper shotshell lengths is in

1895 catalogue on offer:
— 10-gauge: 2 5/8” and 2 7/8”
— 12-gauge: 2 5/8” and 2 3/4”
— 16-gauge: 2 9/16”
— 20-gauge: 2 1/2”

Sep 1896 catalogue
— 12-gauge: paper "Smokeless" shell in lengths up to 3”.
— 10- and 12-gauge: All brass NPEs in 3 1/4” length.

April 1899 UMC Catalogue:
— 12 guage: added 3 1/4” "Trap" shell.
— 16 Guage: added 2 3/4” and 2 7/8”
— 20 Guage: added 2 3/4” and 2 7/8”

May 1900 UMC catalogue
— 16 Guage: added 3” salmon colored "Smokeless" shell and green colored "Trap" shell.
— 20 Gauge: added 3” salmon colored "Smokeless" shell and green colored "Trap" shell.

So, by 1900 we had
— 12-gauge: paper shells in 2 5/8”; 2 3/4”; 2 7/8”; 3”; and 3 1/4” lengths;
— 16-gauge: paper shells in 2 9/16”; 2 3/4”; 2 7/8”; and 3” lengths;
— 20-gauge: paper shells in 2 1/2”; 2 3/4”; 2 7/8” and 3” lengths.

Have you looked this over Joe?
http://www.lcsmith.org/faq/faqhome.html

Esp. http://www.lcsmith.org/faq/loads.html
The Western Super-X 2 9/16 inch 16 gauge with 1 1/8 oz of shot was introduced in 1923.

A correction is pending regarding vintage 16g load pressures:
1 oz. 2 1/2 Dr. Eq. BULK Smokeless (1165 fps) was about 7000 psi;
2 3/4 Dr. Eq. (1220 fps) about 8500 psi.

BTW: Hunter Arms began correcting the stock design deficiency by 1940 and thickened the head strips for more surface area in contact with the action. This is a 1945 16g FW.



The cracks at the apex of the lock inlet start at the head of the stock; both strips cracked and stock split down the middle

1921 16g FW



More information regarding 1940s 16g loads here mostly courtesy of David Noreen
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=341122&page=all

Argo44,
You "discovered" a 7cm bore? What is a 7cm bore? Bore would have nothing to do with chamber length.
I have seen 76mm chambers on French guns. This is a 3" chamber, but, I'm, pretty sure that any gun proofed at this chamber length PRIOR to 1923 wouldn't have a higher level of proof just because of the chamber length. Level of proof was specified without regard to chamber length at that time.

I am also curious as to how you came up with such an exact date on a French gun?

Post 1964, French proof was the same for 2 3/4" and 3" Darne shotguns. Triple proof would have been applied to guns with either chamber length, and, it is more than adequate for either. One thing that did change was the steel used in the guns at the Darne factory, 2 3/4" guns got French forgings of XT, 3" guns got forgings of XTC, a higher chrome content tool steel. Either version is a tough steel.

I am relatively certain the American powder facts you have listed above, while very interesting, have little relevance when the subject is French shotguns of the same era. Damascus barrels were pretty much a thing of the past by about 1880 in France. It was the French who taught American industry how do produce steel tubes.

Since I neglected to do so in a previous post, I do want to take a moment to thank you for the time you took to put up all the different French gun making terms, and clear English definitions. That will be very helpful to all non French language speakers who are interested in French guns or gun literature.


Best,
Ted

Ted: Remington produced decarbonized (Bessemer) steel barrels for North & Savage of Middletown, Connecticut and for the Ames Manufacturing Co. of Chicopee, Massachusetts, as early as 1846.
Remington, Winchester and Marlin all produced "cold rolled" decarbonized barrels until the introduction of Winchester Nickel Steel (by Bethlehem and Midvale Steel) for the Model 1894 rifle about 1896, Marlin “Special Smokeless Steel” introduced for the Model 1893 rifle in 1897, and Remington Ordnance Steel in 1897.
The other U.S. double gun makers sourced their fluid steel "rough forged tubes" from Belgium. Hunter Arms Crown steel appeared in 1893 on the Pigeon Gun.
Was there a relationship between Remington and the French steel makers?

I shoot mine with standard modern 16 gauge shells, built in 1935. And your LC Smith is a lot stronger than mine.

Since I wrote that chronology that ARGO44 posted, I've found an 1885 UMC catalog, from before they were even offering loaded shotgun shells, but they were offering their First Quality 10- and 12-gauge paper NPEs in lengths from 2 5/8 to 3 1/4 inch.

I recall reading in some of Nash Buckingham's writings his Father having a Greener 12ga hammer gun with 3¼" chambers. While the gun itself was British he was getting his shells from an American maker. I will have to look this up but they were the favorite load of a noted shooter of the day. As I recall they were only loaded with an ounce of shot. Nash admitted to "Borrowing" a good many of these shells & using them in his gun which did not have 3¼" chambers. This as I recall was all prior to 1900.
Info I have read on the 1894 Winchester is that it was introduced with a Nickel Steel Barrel along with the .30WCF (.30-30) cartridge in 1895. The .30WCF was introduced as a Smokeless cartridge & never carried 30 grains of black as is so often mis-stated. Most seem to think that Marlin was likely to be the first to call it the .30-30 simply because they did not want to mark that "WCF" (Winchester Central Fire) on one of their rifles.

Researcher, that was an excellent post and had I known it was you who wrote it, I'd have given credit. It certainly makes historical research easier. And Dr, Haus, your forum post is excellent.

My problem now comes with trying to understand what was going in Saint-Etienne about the same time....what cartridges were available a what were the guns being chambered for. In fact, I was going to translate part of it into French, post it on http://www.passionlachasse.com/forum and see what Neltir and company will say.

I'll explain my post about dating a French gun and its chambering in a separate post.

No, it isn't. Start by looking at the stock picture Drew put up.

Drew,
There was a French Doctorate, involved with the French steel industry, that came to the US in the late 1870s to demonstrate producing ingots and tube to American industries. I thought I got the information, which, I don't have at hand, from you!

Best,
Ted

Mind is expiring Ted

The Iron Age, April 1902
https://books.google.com/books?id=xqM-AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA9-PA65&lpg
The first electric arc furnace was developed by Paul Héroult, of France, in 1900. Héroult came to the U.S. in 1905 and Halcomb Steel Co. installed the first electric arc furnace in the U.S. in 1906.
Sanderson Brothers Steel Co. installed an arc furnace in 1907, and the furnace is on display at Station Square, Pittsburgh.

The Horseless Age, Dec. 14 1910
https://books.google.com/books?id=DKONYWNYDqIC&pg=PA813&lpg

C.H. Halcomb, former president of Crucible, formed Halcomb Steel Company in Syracuse in 1902, with L.C. Smith as Chairman of the Board of Directors.
Crucible bought Halcomb in 1911, but the company continued to market many tradename steels and steel alloys including ‘Dreadnought High Speed Steel’, ‘Ketos Oil Hardening Steel’, and ‘Halectralloy Brand’ Chrome Vanadium and Chrome Nickel steels. In 1917, Halcomb was merged with Syracuse Crucible Steel Co.
John Houchins states that Halcomb supplied London steel for 0 grades and Royal steel for the hammer guns starting in 1907, and in his L.C. Smith “The Legend Lives” p. 385 has a copy of the 1907 Halcomb catalog with a listing for “Machine Gun And Smokeless Rifle Barrel, Revolver Cylinder Steel, and Shot Gun Barrel...furnished in both Carbon and Alloy grades.”
The 1913 edition of “Halcomb Steel Co. Catalogue and Hints on Steel” however contains no mention of steel for gun barrels, nor Royal or London steel.

We have lots of Smiths with London and Royal steel barrels that carry the mark of ‘LLH’ (Laurent Lochet-Habran) & ‘ACL’ (Acier Cockerill Liege) however.

BTW: The J. Stevens Arms & Tool Co. No. 105, 107 & 115 singles were listed with “Electro Steel” in 1901; post-1916 No. 105 had “Compressed Forged Steel”.
The No. 165 singles in 1912 also had “Electro Steel”.

Hunter - Trader - Trapper , 1908
https://books.google.com/books?id=USTOAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA11&lpg

In 1902 the No. 180 hammerless single had “Special Pyro-Electro Steel”.

The metal in a good condition vintage LC Smith will probably handle modern loads. Shooting them particularly in a light 16 G is another matter. So few factory 16 G loads out there choices are limited most are loaded like light 12s and intended to cycle autos. RSTs are intended for SxS guns and work well, others kick too hard and generally have shot loads heavier than needed for Clays or upland birds.

I shoot Herters 1 oz 16 g shells in a pump the reload the hullls 3/4 or 7/8 oz depending on the gun. Lighter older Parker Hammer 16 stick with the 3/4. Newer Parker Trojan 3/4 for close range clays with some 7/8s in the pouch for longer shots.

Much easier on my shoulder and old wood. I am pretty sure a steady high volume diet of factory 16 g shells would cause stock problems in My Hammer Gun Your Smith likely the same

Others may see it different.

Boats

I have read some copies of letters written by one of the arms factories set up by the Confederacy during the 1861-65 era for the purpose of making revolvers. As I recall this was one of the factories making Copies of the Colt model 1851. They were Begging for "Steel". They were they said prepared to make revolvers in some quantity. They could make the barrels & frames from iron, but "Had" to have Steel for the cylinders. They had tried Twisted Iron & it would still not contain the pressures But they Has to have Steel for the cylinders.
Apparently steel has been in existence in some form for at least that long. Problem was there was simply none to be obtained "In The South"
I believe that Genuine Colts of this period did have Steel Cylinders.
In "The Gun" 1834 W Greener mentions both Twist & Damascus barrels being made of a mixture of steel & iron so steel itself had been around for awhile prior to "Steel Shotgun Barrels" being made.

Huntsman hot-rolled crucible steel process was introduced in 1742. To form a barrel, a sheet was folded over a mandrel and the long edge hammer welded.
Everything changed when the Bessemer process was patented in 1856, and when William Siemens established the “Sample Steelworks” to develop the Siemens-Martin “Open Hearth” process in 1865.
And that would be Ted's friend Monsieur Pierre-Émile Martin

Thanks all a lot of good information being posted.

Didn't realize LC Smith had changed the stock in later guns. Thanks Drew..

I have plans to use this on pheasants, it has F/XF chokes so I would think a 1oz rst load of copper plated 6's would work pretty good for that purpose.

The wood on the gun appears to be in very good shape, actually the whole gun appears to be in pretty good shape.

I wouldn't worry about it at all. Sweet Elsie!!!

My 2 3/4 16's love the shells that herters makes. 2 1/2 are still great to shoot out of it. An ounce of 8's is an ounce of 8's

What you'll find with the Elsie 16's factory chambered at 2 3/4" is that they're heavier in general than the earlier short-chambered 16's. (Hunter was the last of the American makers to switch to 2 3/4" standard chamber length in the 16ga.) I would not worry about modern 16ga ammo in an Elsie 16 with factory 2 3/4" chambers . . . except maybe the Federal 1 1/4 oz "magnums". Those might not hurt the gun, but they can be nasty on the shooter's shoulder.

The guy I bought it from, said the gun has 2 3/4" chambers, I am going to verify that when it comes in. I have read conflicting information on when exactly LC Smith went to 2 3/4" for 16ga guns.... I have read some guys saying they have mid 30's era guns that have 2 3/4, and some saying the shorter chambers...

Is there any "firm date" when this occured?

Firm for 20s; a moving target for 16s
http://www.lcsmith.org/faq/lengthen2016.html

BTW: you are fortunate to be near Buck Hamlin in Pevely, MO 636-479-4304

Did more looking and it does not appear that Pierre-Émile Martin ever made it to the U.S.

What is this??? It doesn't look like any L.C. Smith I've ever seen. A picture of a hockey stick might be more appropriate.

YA, once I get the gun, if it's something I intend to keep long term, I may call him. Talked to him a while back, seems like one heck of a nice guy.

Looking at that from the LC Smith site, a 1940 16ga "should" have a 2 3/4" chamber.... :-)

Looks like a Sterlingworth, that someone has blued the action on..... I have a 1927 16ga SW, but only shoot RST's from it. Definitely a 2 9/16" chamber on my Fox.

Treb's gun is a Nitro Special, that he had redone at some point. I'm not sure why he would think a 'Smith would be stronger than a Nitro, especially after the horrifying stock to action LC Smith wood pictures that Drew posted. You can't really glass bed what isn't there to begin with.

Drew,
One of those French steel guys did make it to the US. I will see what I can do to dig it up. But, it will wait until after my son, the dog, and I launch those bottle rockets I get that make NORAD sit up and take notice.

My dog loves fireworks.


Best,
Ted

You have a good memory Ted!!

Just an old barn gun that's as ugly as they get and as tough as nails, when used for what it was designed to do and that is hunt.

Opinion worth what it cost here's another.

OP did not mention Phesants at first. Game should be shot with adequate loads. Around here Phesant shooting would be low volume and that Smith may handle couple of boxes a year OK. I would pattern it, tight chokes don't need as much shot to produce killing patterns. You may find 7/8 is all it needs.

High volume modern 1 oz load I would not trust it not to crack.

Boats.

the ".30-30" came from: NBD od .308 (same as later .30-'06 Govt. caliber circa- 1906- go figure- the second "30" me from the dram equivalent of 30 grains of black powder in the newer smokeless power configuration. Load a spent .30-30 casing with 30 grains of a current nitro smokeless powder and you will exceed greatly the 45,000 psi chamber pressure rating of the 1894 Winchester--