doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Non-corrosive shotgun primer introduction

It took some looking, and this appears to be the best (unverified) information from a Forum post
https://www.mdshooters.com/threads/dating-winchester-western-non-corrosive-primer-boxes.178168/

Reminton acquired the technology for non-corrosive lead styphanate primers from RWS (Rheinisch Westfälische Sprengstoff-Actien-Gesellschaft) in 1926 and introduced the Klean-Bore shells sometime thereafter

This is a 1936 ad specifically mentioning the non-corrosive priming



I found mention of a Winchester 'NF' non-fulminate primer possibly developed c. 23' or 24' but couldn't confirm, or if these were for shotshells.

The Staynless non-mercuric non-corrosive primers were introduced for shotshells c. 28' - 29'

1939 ad mentioning the non-corrosive primers



I've owned 4 pre-1913 Smiths; a 06' No. 00 12g and No. 0E 16g Smith, a 07' No. 2E 16g, and a 08' No. 00E 20g; and c. 1920s Ithaca, Fox and Parker doubles. All were certainly using guns, but not abused and by the bore size and wall thicknesses appeared to have non-modified barrels. They all had "frosting" and superficial pitting, and one gun had to my eye and bore scope significant ragged pits.

Syracuse Arms Co. barrel cleaned but no attempt to polish; breech left and you can see the transition line from the forcing cone



Looking toward the breech of another gun with typical superficial pitting



Worse forcing cone pitting, looking toward the muzzle



Post-1913 Smith chamber pitting




SO it continues to be MHO that any pre-mid-1920s shotgun that had much use is very unlikely to have a 'mirror bore', but I could be wrong. And pics thereof would be great.
Safe queens, and those owned by someone with OCD maybe not

Way earlier than those ads Drew.

The July 1931, Winchester catalog shows their LEADER, REPEATER, Speed Loads & RANGER shotgun shells with their new STAYNLESS primers.

This 1931 Western Cartridge Co. Super-X ad states "All Western shells now have Non-Corrosive primers."



I don't have anything Remington dated 1931, but this June 21, 1932, price list is all over KLEANBORE priming --

Thanks Dave.

A neat 1928 Western ad with no mention of the non-corrosive primers



1931 Kleanbore ad

Center fire and rimfire rifle & pistol ammunition got non-corrosive priming several years ahead of shotgun ammunition.

Remington introduced their KLEANBORE priming to their .410-bore shotgun shells by 1930. From the January 1, 1930 jobbers price list --



and a 1930 catalog --

Peters introduced the "Rustless" primers and shells about 1930.

This is a 1930 ad without the "Rustless"



January 1932 magazine ad with "Rustless" new Trap & Skeet loads

A collection of barrel segments



This is the point. Pretty "mirror" bore, honed to .739" with wall thickness .018"

Just like Remington, Western Cartridge Co. introduced non-corrosive priming to their .410-bore cartridges in 1930 and the larger sizes in 1931. The April 1, 1930, Western Ammunition for Rifle, Revolver and Shotgun lists the .410-bore with non-corrosive priming and the March 1, 1931, Western Ammunition for Rifle, Revolver and Shotgun --



There were only a couple of years for non-corrosive primers in the two-piece boxes. A box of Super-X from 1931 or 2 --



By 1933, both Western and Remington went to the one-piece boxes.

20g Smith obstructional burst



Model 12 Nickel Steel obstructional burst



Austrian Bernard I burst

It appears that I have once again triggered the Preacher into another hysterical response to a comment I made. Several days ago, in the "Boyd and Tyler 16 Gauge" Thread, the Preacher said this:


I responded to that sheer conjecture with this:


Apparently, my observation has been festering and causing a measure of distress that resulted in this insane little "Show-and-Tell" Thread full of old ammo ads from his vast gun picture and vintage advertising collection. And more unfounded conjecture with zero valid evidence.

Time to deal in some facts instead of fear mongering for a change. Even before another Preacher named Rev. Alexander Forsythe invented percussion caps that relied upon a fulminate compound, there was this stuff called Black Powder, that left a very corrosive residue in the barrels of guns. Shooters soon learned to either clean their guns after shooting, or faced the consequences of severe barrel rusting and pitting. Early corrosive primers and percussion caps, in conjunction with black powder, continued the very real need for maintenance. The development of smokeless powders helped somewhat, but the mercury fulminate or potassium chlorate primers still left a corrosive residue that needed prompt cleaning... or else!

The development of non-corrosive priming compound such as lead styphnate was a real advance that permitted shooters to be less obsessive about maintenance. But routine gun cleaning is still needed, and is hardly OCD behavior as the Preacher seems to think. Perhaps the Preacher thinks that everyone here who has asked about bore cleaning, bore lubes, etc. is OCD, just because they wish to keep their guns in good condition. Gun cleaning is no more OCD than flushing the toilet after taking a crap.

Another hard and verifiable fact is that corrosive primed ammunition continued to be used long after non-corrosive priming was introduced. There is still a great deal of corrosive surplus military ammo available that is safely used so long as you don't forget to promptly clean your gun. I have a few SKS 7.62 x 39 rifles that no doubt saw use with corrosive military ammo, yet have very nice bores. I also had a Yugoslavian SKS that had a bore that looked like a sewer pipe. It shot patterns instead of groups, so I sold it cheap. If the Preacher took a good hard look at vintage advertisements from shooting magazines of the past, he would see lots of ads for gun cleaning kits, cleaning rods, bore cleaning solvents, gun oils, innovative bore mops and bore brushes, etc. But he would NOT see many ads selling barrel honing equipment, or services to do barrel honing. I am NOT saying barrel honing was never done. It just wasn't done nearly as often as the Preacher wants us all to believe.

A good many shooters engaged in regular cleaning and maintenance, and as a result, there are still plenty of vintage shotguns, rifles, and handguns that have nice shiny barrels... in spite of never being honed, lapped, or aggressively subjected to significant removal of metal. It seems apparent from the small number of vintage shotguns the Preacher has owned, that they were mostly low grade doubles that saw hard use and obvious neglect. His one and only Damascus barreled gun is a OE Grade L.C. Smith that has pitted barrels that he has told us measure .016" thick at 14" from the breech. When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And when you pretend to be a shotgun barrel expert, but own nothing but a few low grade guns that saw hard use and neglect, I suppose it becomes easy to think all old guns are either pitted, or must surely have been honed. I have a Stan Baker bore gauge, and have measured quite a few guns with nice shiny bores that are standard bore diameter. And guess what... most of them were Syracuse Lefever doubles which were produced decades before non-corrosive priming was introduced!

I have noticed that an inordinate number of small bore Lefever DS Grade guns have pitted bores, and believe KYJon has mentioned the same. That may mean the Dura Steel fluid steel barrels were an alloy more prone to corrosion, or they were simply neglected. Or both. I cannot say that I have inspected or measured the bores of a statistically significant number of DS Lefever guns. But I also own some with perfect shiny bores that measure right on the money, and overall condition suggests they were used, but well maintained. Routine bore cleaning and oiling works wonders.

I laughed out loud when I saw the Preacher's pile of frosted and pitted barrel segments. He presumably solicited them when he was doing metallurgical testing... which showed us very little except the composition of those particular segments. That pile of segments proves exactly nothing... except that the guys who donated them were not stupid enough to cut segments off of perfectly good and shiny barrels. What a sad pathetic joke! And the photo of one double that was honed out to .739" looks very alarming. But the burst was almost certainly mainly due to an obstruction like snow or mud in the bore. This "evidence" is the same hysterical Chicken Little sky-is-falling behavior that led him to mislead people about some big scary frame cracking issue with small bore Ithaca Flues guns. It's hogwash, pure and simple.

That Model 12 barrel with the obstructional burst looks fairly thin. But what evidence of honing is there? What is the bore diameter near the burst? Was this tube honed thin, or simply struck thin on the outside by the factory or during refinishing?

And the Austrian Bernard Damascus burst is centered in the forcing cone area. The chamber and barrel pitting is minimal, and again, there is zero evidence of either pitting or honing being any factor or root cause.

So what is the point, other than obsessive hysteria, and an attempt to demonstrate a lack of knowledge? If jumping to conclusions was an Olympic sport, this "evidence" presented thus far to support honing in most vintage doubles with shiny bores would win the Gold Medal.