I seem to stumble across these heavy Grade 2 10s in twos and threes. I have another one here, SN 31597 weighs 10lb so also an 8ga action, with 32" damascus bbls that measure .790 id and .865 od min, with no choke in r and about 15 thou in left. The min wall at the forcing cone/chamber junction is roughly .400!

It has the wildest stock repair I have every seen. A full 3" section of wood was cut from the wrist (from just behind the guard to just in front of the pg cap) and a new piece of wood was transplanted (I can't say spliced because they are butt joints.) There is an angled screw through the PG cap going up into the new piece of wood. Haven't taken it apart yet to see what holds the other end in place, aside from the trigger gaurd tang.

I bought this thing cheap so I am thinking of shooting steel through it and if the ends of the bbls fly off, so be it. If it can't take it then it's just a boat anchor as who the heck wants a 10 lb gun for anything other than waterfowl. I figure with about 30 thou plus of min wall and lots of room for the steel shot exiting the muzzles, this old gun might get through a season or two.

Has anyone actually written anything scientific about shooting steel in lightly choked damascus bbls? It's supposed to be as good or better than early steel bbls, in terms of rupture. How about anecdotal evidence?

I have no issues with shooting sound Damascus but the popular steel loads generate some very very high pressures. That is the real problem to be concerned about.

Are the pressures publicized anywhere? If that's the only issue, I can get around it by reloading. I thought the main problem was bulging/stretching and eventual separation at the chokes.

Shoot those big duck loads through a Smith and you'll likely split what's left of the stock head. Hope you have a parts gun handy.

In any old gun with damascus barrels the consenses seems to be not to go higher than 8,000 psi. The steel loads are a lot higher, and IMO I wouldn't take the chance on my well being on shooting steel through it. Definetly wasn't made for it.

Shoot Bismuth and save the gun for the long haul. A few short 10 reloads would make that gun a long range killer that will open up eyes for those who think that the 10 is dead.

I would not shoot modern steel in it. I like all my parts where they are and see no need to temp fate. Fingers, eyes and nose. Current factory pressures are too close to twice the pressure that gun was made to shoot and it is about 100 years old. Lot to ask of 100 year old steel to handle that much pressure. If it fails, you will be real close to the failure. Like most of us you still like your fingers, eyes and nose, right? Shoot lower pressure loads and you will enjoy it more and so will your gun.

I agree with the bismuth recommendation. That's what I use in my heavy Scott 10. I use two wraps of watercolor paper to make a shot cup that tightens the pattern considerably in my cylinder bore gun.

For that matter, use black powder as well and shoot it like it deserves to be shot. It is way more fun than anything else you can do with it.

Brent

You may wish to pass such gun on to someone who is more likely to restore it for use in it's designed pressure range, with projectiles suited to it's very soft bbls.

What you are proposing is sort of a demolition derby, with you on the recieving end of the flying parts.

Ten pounds is not actually a 'heavy' Ten. The heavies, designed for all day pounding with modern 3 1/2" Nitro's, are of at least twelve pounds, and can go up to fifteen in some Euro-specimens. These specimens have 'modern' steel recievers and bbls, engineered to withstand the repeated firings -- and weighted enuff for a gunner to withstand the cumulative recoil.

Now, there are GREAT modern Big Tens that weigh a very well balanced ten pounds that have the all the strength needed to take the pressures [which are actually moderate, compared to say..a 3 1/2" twelve Roman candle]. The Berretta Ten's, the Neumann's of the 1960's[marked imported by Silvers and Sons, San Francisco], the AYA Light Ten [they also made a twelve pounder], the Ugartechea Ten, quite a few light Euro's of lesser known Continental makers, and English guns -- all can be had in the 3 1/2" Ten chambering.

These are generally delightful guns, well stocked and well made of modern material. While it was not uncommon to pick them up for 400-600 dollars, or as low as 200$ for a good Spanish make back in the Days of Doublegun Ignorance, it ain't so bluidy likely now, myte. But those prices allowed me to play with them and pass them on, so I was able to form an opinion or two. I don't have time to relate all that now, but if you can ressurect my past posts there is prolly more than one screed on the subject.

I know y'r having fun with the Tens, so am encouraging you to continue, to handload to the gun, to find the Doublegun Magazine Articles on the loads and chambers and suitable guns for them, and to continue delving into the great satisfactions of the Grand Morning Booms rolling out over the River and Marsh.

However, even if the vintage and abused Damascus guns are there for the owners wishes, someday the doublegun masses will decide that a vintage Ten is a MUST!!! Then the restorations and resurrections and PRICES will cause one to reflect on past actions with some wish, to have done otherwise than one did. At the least, load or buy low pressure Bismuth for the old-timers.

I used to shoot up my leftover factory Ten steel shells on the Clays and skeet at the end of the season. I will assure you that such activity is tolerable and kinda fun in a modern ten pound gun. However, I also kinda regret the misuse. There are good alternative loads or alternative guns for such activity. It's easy enuff to track down an inexpensive used American Arms [Spanish] 26" bbl'd Ten in a camo or phosphate 'Parkerized' finish pretty cheaply.

Now THERE is a beater utility double that will happily gobble the cheapest, hardest economy steel load you can toss thru it. Happy hunting.

You've gotten some great advice above!

To directly answer your question, there IS evidence showing that SOME, SOUND Damascus and steel barrels of the era had very comparable strengths. Oscar Gaddy and Harry Collins donated Damascus and steel Parker barrels for testing to destruction, by Sherman Bell and Tom Armbrust. Both bbl sets were made in the same year, in the late 1890s.

The result astonished just about everyone: Both digested increasingly higher pressure loads, finally failing at nearly equal gas pressures -- about 30,000 psi! Both have been almost-fully analyzed by Zircon for the vintage barrel strength project (one final test is still underway).

Full info will be published when the project is finished. I will comment now that: 1) observable cyclic fatigue damage began at much lower gas pressure than 30,000 psi, but nonetheless each bbl was plenty strong. 2) Metallurgical failure mechanisms were different; this documents and explains some long-held opinions.

Importantly, these were exactly two cases, one of each, and CANNOT be extrapolated to broader conclusions.

The "common denamenator" seems to be proof >=1200bar, gradually tapering choke of <= Mod, and brazed barrels. Chrome plating of bore also comes in handy. Using guns with ammo they were never designed for is IMO , but it's your call.

Bismuth would be great if a case of shells didn't cost more than the gun. I do load for my Boss 10 but I only shoot lead through that, or 20 ga loads with gauge mates. What I need here is a no-hassle duck killing machine, as we are expecting good things this season on OR. I used to have a Centaure but that one sold, so it seems the conclusion is to find a AYA or similar per the useful suggestions above.

I have yet to see any published PSI figures for steel shot. I very much doubt it's much higher than the typical 12000 psi lead load. The steel shot mfgs would not create that liability for themselves, there are plenty of guys out there shooting steel in modern and not-so-modern guns. In any case, standard min chamber wall is 80 thou and this gun is 400 thou. Even if damascus is half as strong as fluid steel, there is plenty of meat to compensate.

I do know that steel shot does not compress going through the chokes causing bulging and stretching at the start of the choke constriction, esp if tightly choked. However, 15 thou in a 10 ga is hardly any choke at all.

What I don't buy is that modern steel shells have tremendous recoil and will break a stock. They are actually quite mild due to the low shot mass and the plastic wad column. I don't think the powder charge is any heavier, although both shot and gases are going faster when they exit the muzzle.

The shot is fully encased in a thick plastic wad so there is no contact with the bores. Thus no scoring (another theory I have heard).

In any case, I think this Elsie will also be going back whence it came. It's not worth restoring, just a barrel pretty job (polish and rebrown) and a dash with the checkering tools will cost more than the gun will sell for even in today's market (seems 10s are still languishing in the market of the 80s).

I HAVE A PAIR OF SHORT TENS AND HAVE READ SHERMAN BELL'S ARTICLES UNTIL THEY ARE DOG-EARRED. I HAVE TAKEN SOME OF HIS LOAD RECOMMENDATIONS AND SHARED THEM WITH REPUBLIC CARTRIDGE COMPANY. THEY HAVE LOADED SHORT TENS FOR ME IN BOTH STEEL AND BISMUTH. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU GO THIS ROUTE....I ALSO SPECIFICALLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO NOT REPEAT DO NOT SHOOT MODERN TEN GAUGE SMOKELESS STEEL THRU YOUR OLD CANNON! LOOK FOR SHERMAN BELL'S ARTICLES IN DGJ.
TOM

I'd load the ol'Elssie up and let her rip...if she rips open you still have your Boss 10 to fall back on.
L.F.

friends:

I will try this again.

From ANSI/SAAMI Z299.2-1992, namely the current SAAMI Standard Pressures are as follows for 12g:

Max Average psi is 11,500 psi.

That is for shells loaded with lead shot, steel shot, bismuth shot, tin shot, plastic shot, slugs, and moose manure.

It is for 2-3/4", and 3".

So - unless you have a 3-1/2"12g , the magic number is now has been, and forever will be, 11,500 psi.

11,500 psi may be hard on older guns. It is downright foolish to use standard American shells in older damascus guns. Others may disagree. They simply were not designed for it. Will they blow up? Not likely. But they may bend and stretch and wear pretty bad, and then you merely have a piece of junk, rather than an old shotgun.

Steel shot is great in a Model 870. When the shot scores the barrel, you throw the barrel away and buy a new barrel. LC Smith barrels are hard to find.

Steel shot is a crappy projectile. So the makers load bigger pellets, to get the mass up. Then, they need more pellets to get the same number of pellets in the pattern. This leads to LONG shot columns. Since the pellets are now bigger, but still not "massy", they need to be boosted at teeth rattling velocities, beacsue they are big, and consequently have a good deal of drag, so that at 40 yards they retain some killing power.

The calculations are simple, and I have presented them before - the reason steel loads seem to kick the snot out of you is that, well, they kick the snot out of you.

Use Bismith. 7 pounds costs about 90 bucks including shipping. Thats $1.10 a shot for a 1-3/8 oz waterfowl load ( you may find that 1-1/4 oz kills just as well). For a day of ducking with 8 birds bagged, and say 16 shots taken, thats only $17.60. You paid more than that when you fueled the Ford Expedition for the trip to the water.

Spend your money on what you wish, but if you use bismuth shot, there are lots more things you can economize upon.

End soapbox speech.

Regards

GKT

Last time I went duck hunting with Keith Kearcher, he used a damascus Parker and he was shooting steel. Now Keith knows a thing or two about damascus bbls. This gun did not have tight chokes.

Back to my original question, IS THERE ANY SCIENTIFIC DATA or even empirical evidence that steel shot will ruin a set of damascus bbls with light chokes? Any gauge, I don't care. If so, what is the mechanism? Greg up above has confirmed what I thought about pressures...commercial steel ammo is loaded to the same pressure as lead. And the DGJ study showed that even the humble Parker damascus was able to digest huge overloads. As far as scoring, I don't buy that, the plastic shot cups are very tough and contain the steel. As far as recoil, I have shot this stuff through my Centaure and it doesn't seem to kick any harder than a 12 with lead shot.

Or is this whole thing just a commercial ploy on the part of gun makers to get us to all go out and buy modern shotguns?

We are not talking about some dainty English gun here that has been bored out and restruck five times. It has 3" chambers and .400 chamber walls.

We await the results from your testing.
L.F.


Ps..Grt I agree with you 100 %
How's the moose manure pattern ?

For whatever this is worth, some years ago when my ignorance equated to bliss; I took an early A Grade Fox (no original finish and with rough bored, but a solid lock-up), had the chambers lengthened to 3" and the chokes opened to improved cylinder for the specific purpose of using the gun as my "water-fowler". At that time, steel for ducks was the only option; so I purchased the heaviest 3" steel loads I could buy (which I recall were 1 3/8 oz loads), and headed to the swamps. Like everyone else, I had read that steel shot would score grooves in the barrels; but, with rough bores anyway, I could care less. I was also ignorant as to chamber pressures generated by steel loads at the time; but those using such shells during these early days with steel will recall that all the hype concerned bore damage from the hard steel shot; there was no press on pressures these shells generated, nor did ANY maker post pressures on any of their shell boxes at that time. The bottom line was that that the steel shot in those shells was so well protected by an extra thick wad there was never any visible additional damage observed to the bores of the old Fox. Further, I was amazed that there seemed to be so little recoil from those loads; it was if I were shooting skeet loads. That said, I've never tried steel in Damascus barrels and don't intend to; further, I don't recommend anyone duplicate my experiment with the Fox or any other vintage gun. And by the way, many of those old 10 pound, 10-bore Smith guns were used for target and live-bird shooting. I am working on an aritcle at this moment about just such a 10-bore Smith gun that, among other feats, was used to win a B Grade Parker hammerless (the grand prize) in a large 1893 Ohio competition.

DGHQ, I have reloaded steel for both 12 and 10 ga. for a number of years.I do this in order to keep the pressures at approx. 8000 psi.so they can be used in several of my older doubles,some with damascus barrels.I load 1 oz. loads in 2 3/4" 12ga. and 1 3/8 oz. loads in 3 1/2"10 ga. The velocities are in the 1400 ft/sec. range. The max. size I load in 12 ga. are #2's and in the 10's #1's. I have shot several hundred rounds through a Scott 12 ga.SLE circa 1890 with damascus barrels and 15 and 20 thou of choke. These loads are deadly to 40 yds and there has been no scoring of barrels or any visible or measurable bulging of choke. I have shot a similar number of rounds through a heavy Greener single 10 with a 38 1/2" barrel and 20 thou of choke and observe the same result.I have also observed the demise of several dozen snow geese and a few Canadas at ranges to 50 plus yds. I would not shoot factory loads through these guns because of the excessive pressure,nor use steel in guns with more than 20 thou of choke,nor use the larger sizes of steel,ie. BB and up.plus I would recommend long forcing cones when shooting steel. BTW, the Scott SLE is 2 3/4" recent nitro re-proof and the Greener has a massive action and serious barrel wall etc.I'm not suggesting you do what I do, just relating my experiences in this area.which I believe is the info you were inquiring about.

TL...You should share your 8000 psi, 1400 feet for second load with us.
It's ashamed to see these old guns modified and abused. I guess I'll live out the rest of my life in 'ignorant bliss' because I'll never put steel shot through a Damascus tube...I don't care who says it's okay.
L.F.

With Mod choke or less and paying attention to 'stacking of shot' ie using shot size 2s, 1s, or smaller I would expect zero damage using high quality US-made ammo in your gigantisch LCS.

Just for clarification,I also load Bismuth in these two gauges for my guns that have a lot of original choke.ie over 20 thou,and would not remove choke for the sake of shooting steel from a sound original gun. The lower pressure/high velocity steel loads can be achieved using Alliant "Steel" powder and Sam 1 wads by Reloading Specialities and Federal cases.The recipies are published by them.

Terry, thank you for finally providing some FACTS, albeit empirical. I am going to put old Elsie to the test shortly and will keep shooting til she blows.

Topgun, you are are pioneer! I agree, there is no recoil issue, nor a scoring issue. I think the real issue is just bridging/stacking through the chokes.

Gents:

The recoil issue is from the high velocities. If you throw the shot at moderate velocities, then , using m1v1=m2v2, solving for v2, and then subbing back into Ke = 1/2 Mv^2, you will not have any more recoil than if you shoot lead.

I have handled on 3 different occasions 870 barrels with deep parallel scores in them. Someone was either shooting rocks in them, or steel. Which one is anybody's guess, but I bet it was steel shot.

I have in my closet, as we speak, and as I type, a very nice Le Shootsgun Belgique, a J. Saive Armes, Liege, 3-1/2" 10 gauge mag. The gun bears the date code of a lower case Greek lamda, meaning proof date of 1958. It is meaty, massive, heavy, and modern.

The barrels are gently bulged at the choke, and the barrels exhibit faint parallel scoring for about 20 inches. I am going to have them polished by Orlen to remove the scoring ( I hope) and intend to reduce the bulges with some judicious peening , as I have in the past.

To the meat of the matter, though - the bulge and scoring came from somewhere. I would hazard the guess that it came from firing steel shot.

Maybe steel 7-1/2 's will work just fine in a damascus barrel. If Keith Kearcher uses steel in damascus he must feel at least somewhat comfortable with it. More power to him- he has the skills to fix the damage, if any should occur. I would question either the wisdom or ballistic efficiency of steel 2's and larger in a damascus gun.

I guess thats 'nuff said.

Regards

GKT

GKT I don't think anything that's been said will ever soAk in.

DG...The shot cup will not protect a barrel from the steel shot.

Old L.C.Smiths deserve respect just like your Boss. After surviving for all these years it seems you are determined to destroy it.
If it's true old SxS's have a soul maybe the soul of the Elsie will prevail...

Hope she doesn't commit suicied...good luck with your fingers pioneer.
L.F.

Personal anecdote is not considered to be a 'study'. The parameters for conclusive studies, that set standards of testing specified variables, are well known to engineer and science types, so they may wish to comment.

What we hobbiests tend to accept as conclusive proof, is far from 'testing'. I suppose that therein lies the problem of human behavior, in that we all like to think we're pretty smart observant guys, capable of 'dealing'. Consequently, we tend to select answers that reinforce our original intent, since we could hardly be wrong in our assesments. Women, cars, horses, dogs, cards, guns and whiskey -- whose opinion is better than that of our own, eh?

My contribution is this. I know that studies and the conclusions accepted for publication regarding conservation procedures, require rigorous peer review. Said reviews may even be genteely hostile, should there be a real conflict of conclusions. No knife cuts so deep and keenly as that of an academic affronted. ;~`)However, the ground rules are pretty clear for 'proving' ones discoveries.

On one thing I will agree. The casual 'using up' of originals has pretty much ceased among the muzzleloading rifleman and shotgunners. For good reason: it became difficult to find good shooters. In fact collectors began paying good money for a plain shooter in good condition. As well, many of us began to have a bit of remorse at so cheerfully having used up a good bit of a non-renewable resource. Old wood and old steel -- where ya gonna finds it, when ya rilly need it?

Good point GKT. Comparing lead to steel requires that we consider both the velocity and the mass of the ejecta.

I think the relevant recoil metric here is the force of the shoulder applied to the gun via the stock to decelerate the gun from v2. That is pretty much the same as the force of the stock head pressing against the action, since most of the gun's mass is in the metal. Since we don't know the time-pressure curve that's hard to calc . I suppose v2 (the final velocity of the gun) is a reasonable proxy. As you rightly point out, this is proportional to the mass and velocity of the ejecta but inversely proportional to the gun's weight. So while we have high velocity of the steel shot working against us, we have the lower mass of a given volume of steel shot (low density), and the higher mass of the gun to help us (in this case the gun is a heavy one even for a 10). So I am not worried about stock failure, if it does fail it would have failed with "regular" loads. I'll put a thick removeable pad on it, that will further reduce the stock head pulse. (taken to an extreme, if we had a 100 lb gun and a one ft recoil pad, the gun would hardly move and any movement would be stopped very gradually, so the stock head would hardly experience any force pulse.)

I don't like Ke as a measure of recoil. But if you use this paradigm, the gun is coming at your shoulder with a certain energy that is proportional to the square of it's recoil velocity, which in turn depends on the mass and velo of the ejecta divided the gun's weight. To stop it, you must apply a force inversely proportional to the distance the gun moves before coming to rest, assuming the force is uniform. So a heavy gun won't be coming very fast, and if you use a recoil pad, you need to apply less force because you have more recoil distance to work with. Standing up has the same effect.. your shoulder can move backward with the gun.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I think what GKT is saying is the same thing I have been saying, steel doesn't recoil very hard unless there is enough extra shot in the cup to offset the lower density of steel (ie about 1.5x the amount of shot to get almost the same weight of shot as lead in the same shell).

Good point GKT. Comparing lead to steel requires that we consider both the velocity and the mass of the ejecta.

I think the relevant recoil metric here is the force of the shoulder applied to the gun via the stock to decelerate the gun from v2. That is pretty much the same as the force of the stock head pressing against the action, since most of the gun's mass is in the metal. Since we don't know the time-pressure curve that's hard to calc . I suppose v2 (the final velocity of the gun) is a reasonable proxy. As you rightly point out, this is proportional to the mass and velocity of the ejecta but inversely proportional to the gun's weight. So while we have high velocity of the steel shot working against us, we have the lower mass of a given volume of steel shot (low density), and the higher mass of the gun to help us (in this case the gun is a heavy one even for a 10). So I am not worried about stock failure, if it does fail it would have failed with "regular" loads. I'll put a thick removeable pad on it, that will further reduce the stock head pulse. (taken to an extreme, if we had a 100 lb gun and a one ft recoil pad, the gun would hardly move and any movement would be stopped very gradually, so the stock head would hardly experience any force pulse.)

I don't like Ke as a measure of recoil. But if you use this paradigm, the gun is coming at your shoulder with a certain energy that is proportional to the square of it's recoil velocity, which in turn depends on the mass and velo of the ejecta divided the gun's weight. To stop it, you must apply a force inversely proportional to the distance the gun moves before coming to rest, assuming the force is uniform. So a heavy gun won't be coming very fast, and if you use a recoil pad, you need to apply less force because you have more recoil distance to work with. Standing up has the same effect.. your shoulder can move backward with the gun.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I think what GKT is saying is the same thing I have been saying, steel doesn't recoil very hard unless there is enough extra shot in the cup to offset the lower density of steel (ie about 1.5x the amount of shot to get almost the same weight of shot as lead in the same shell).

If the Smiths poor soul survives do you plan on telling the next owner of the L.C.Smith that you shot steel shot through it ?
L.F.

I won't sell a gun that has issues without disclosing them LF. And every gun I sell has a 3 day inspection period.

Let's think about your question. If shooting steel causes scoring, bulges, or looseness, that would be obvious and disclosed. If it doesn't cause any of those things, then there is nothing to disclose, other than perhaps the gun has been "proven" on steel shot, making it somewhat useful. If you are suggesting that shooting steel somehow damages the gun in ways that cannot be detected, then I would be interested to hear more about that theory. Could you be more specific?

This gun is living on borrowed time. It has had the entire wrist section cut out and replaced. The bores have been honed out to .790. The chokes have been taken out to nothing in the right, about .015 in the left. The extractor is currently not working (although I plan to fix that). The forend hook has been resoldered by an idiot. I plan to fix that too. The gun is tight, has some engraving, and is not pitted (the bbls, near the muzzles, have been sanded by another idiot (maybe the same one) probably to remove rust, leaving 180 grit sanding marks in the metal), that's about all in the positive column. It's not practical for anything but pass shooting, due to its weight and nearly 4" of drop. I plan to shoot the gun, and someday, yes, I may sell it on, if it is still shootable and if I can't hit well with it. If not, I will sell it for parts. If this were a high grade gun or a gun in excellent shape, or if I thought it worth restoring, would I take it out in Oregon weather and shoot steel with it? No. It's a $500 gun with no future. I plan to enjoy it and perhaps learn something in the meanwhile (that I will be happy to share with the bb).

If you would like to "rescue" this gun, do so soon because the ducks are in the valley! I can always use my Ithaca Mag 10, but I do like having a choice of chokes and that sxs sight picture.

"Bores honed out to 0.790?" I understand that the chambers are very thick-walled. How are barrel wall thicknesses out to about 16" from breech?

I don't have a proper gauge but judging from the OD-ID/2 formula, the thinnest wall is over 35 thou and that's way out toward the muzzle.