doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com OT: Proof for Winchester 1887 Shotgun?

Howdy

Long time no see. Sorry to come back with a question about a shotgun that is specifically not a SXS, but I thought there was probably a pretty good knowledge base over here.

I am looking for information about how Winchester proofed the original 1887 lever action shotguns. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe these were designed for Black Powder, not Nitro powder.

I am looking for any specific information anybody can provide regarding how these shotguns were proofed. Proof loads, pressure levels, etc. The only information I can find on the Web regarding proofing is mostly about English and European standards. I cannot find any information about what kinds of standards American manufacturers used.

Any information is appreciated, including pointers to other information sources.

Thanks

During the era in question, the US industry standards, according to most published reports, were essentially in-house duplication of the Birmingham Proof House Rules.

According to "Proof Tests and Proof Marks", Part IV: Practices of Manufacturers in the United States" by LTC Calvin Goddard, and published in the May-June 1934 issue of Army Ordnance magazine, Winchester stated: "... the standard laid down for the British proof regulations adopted by the Guardians of the Birmingham Proof House dated 1925 is followed".

The 1934 quote doesnt address your 1887 question directly, but in absence of information to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that it was merely a continuation of previous practice. In 1887, Winchester was likely following the Birmingham Rules of 1887, or a close approximation. They would have had to do so, at least as a performance standard, or Winchester arms proofed in England would possibly fail proof, which would be, of course, an embarassment to Winchester.

Good luck

Regards

GKT

Driftwood:

There's a thread around here somewhere recently where in the U.S. the date for semi-smokeless or smokeless was around 1890. And from a 1931 "Winchester Quality Products" publication, Winchester notes that their longarms are stamped w/ a proofmark of a "w" stamped over a "P" in an oval noted as the "Winchester Definitive Proof test". As late as 1931 Winchester was offering Staynless shotshells(non-corrosive primer w/ smokeless) in red in 2 5/8"(also trap load in 2 3/4") as well as Nublack(yellow in color) w/ backpowder for 12 bore in 2 5/8". Also, the dram equivalent is defined here by: "By an agreement between the loading companies of this country, the dram in cartridge loading was equivalent to 0.115 cubic inches." In 1887, I believe blackpowder would have been used but I'm not sure of the load as of yet.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

See Drew's post here for load info in the 1893 trials: http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...age=5#Post85216 .

According to Greener in the 9th edition(p.301) at the turn of the 20th Century, a provisional proof load for a 12 bore was 9 3/4 drams(266 grains) of T.P. Powder w/ 547 grains of shot. T.P. was Tower Proof which was supposed to equate Waltham Abbey, R.F.G.2 and vary in grain size between 4 & 5.

The definitive proof load was 6 1/2 drams(178 grains) of T.P. powder w/ a 738 grain shot charge.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Thanks to all for the information. I'm still trying to wade through the Birmingham information.

I'm a bit confused between a provisional proof load and a definitive proof load. It looks like one has more shot and less powder, the other has less shot and more powder?

Is there any crusher data available on any of this, or was that simply not done?

Driftwod;
Provisional/Temporary proof was for the bbl blank only. This was applied to the rough tube prior to final configuration & was for the purpose of weeding out faulty blanks before putting a lot of work in them. Was often described as the "Gunmaker's Proof".
Definitive/Final proof was for the gun complete except for final polishing/finishing ( no substantial metal left to be removed). This was considered the "Shooter's Proof".

Driftwood:

2-piper is correct. I don't think they knew what non-destructive testing was at the time and regarding the mark "Nitro Proof Oz Maximum", if a semi-smokeless powder was to be used, it had to develope a pressure between 80% and 100% over the service load. The Prussians for instance, for the provisional proof had a powder charge 3 times the service charge. The definitive proof had a powder charge 2 times the service load.

I think I recall that around 1937 Gutezeke(?) developed a piezoelectric device and I also think this technology was either developed between WWI & WWII or during the "ramp-up" time for WWII. It would be a quasi-direct method to measure applied stress where the Crusher Gauge was an indirect calculation of the realized force from the reduction in thickness of the plug or disc. I do not know if any used a piezoelectric device.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

friends:

The 1933 Dupont "Smokeless Shotgun Powders- Their Development, Composition and Ballistic Characteristics ", by Wallace E. Cox, cites "piezo-electric" gauge data. The data was collected, according to the handbook, as early as the mid 1920's.

Regards

GKT

Hello!

Those heavy provisional and definitive proofs make me ask if there has become more confidence in modern barrels than in early Damascus and twist and fluid steel barrels? I understand that proofing from early 1900s seldom used definitive proofs much more than 150% of service pressures, certainly not 200%. Am I missing something or perciving something?

Thanks,
Niklas

Thank you Greg!! I am going to pen that down.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse