doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Short chambers and recoil?

I did that very thing with an A grade Fox a few years ago at the Southern Side by Side and a couple of smaller shoots. (Over 200 subjects shot a 26" cut barrels cyl and cyl gun with only one forcing cone lengthened.) I never managed to sell the story but the results were interesting. I'm sure I still have the results somewhere in my computer. The short story is that there wasn't statistical evidence that there was a percieved difference. On the reporting sheet, I asked the vollunteers if they believed it made a difference and caught a few trying to look in the chambers.

Trust me, you could run the results on 20/20 and it wouldn't end the discussions.

Dick;
I absolutely believe your results. Had I seen them on 20/20 I likely would "NOT" have. I lost total confidence in it & all similar shows years ago, as nothing but "Headline/Rating" seekers. It is known fact they have not always aired reliable results.
Ted;
Prior to having that work done, do a statistically signicicant chronograph test for velocity on the shells you are & will be using. Have enough of them to run a like test after the work is accomplished. I will state up front, "IF" you do not get a significant change of ballistics you will likewise not get a "Feelable" change of recoil.

Though not one to place every cent of emphasis on recoil formulas, I think one should use a chronograph to verify equivalent velocities between short/long chamber guns before concluding that differences in perceived recoil have anything to do with the chambers.

Sam

I'll bite.........again. I can testify that recoil was brutal shooting AA 2 3/4" 7/8 oz. target loads in a 20g 1922 Trojan with chambers measuring very close to 2 3/8." The gun literally jumped out of my hands, and it was obvious to the others on the squad. I do wish that I had paid more attention to the case mouth, but was a bit (more than usual) discombobulated at the time, and never tried that experiment again

Several years ago Kent gave me various 12 guage Tung. Matrix duck loads to test (before Katrina) when Destry and I were still shooting ducks at Delacroix LA (soon to suffer again with a dose of BP's oil). To compare the 2 3/4-inch Kent TM Waterfowl loads I bought several boxes of 2 3/4-inch Bismuth; some of the boxes of Bismuth were loaded in Winchester-marked shells while other Bismuth boxes held shells marked Eley. All shells, Kent and Bismuth were clearly marked 2 3/4-inch on the boxes and the shell casings. I was shooting my 1928 Parker GH F&F...

When the gun doubled and the recoil was severe! I don't recall whether I got the duck...but when I tried to open the "Old Reliable" it was stuck shut. I intuited that the shells were swollen and the extractor rods would not push the shells and, thus, the extractor rods were holding the gun closed. I removed the fore-end to release the push rods and the gun opened, albeit with the Bismuth/Eley shells firmly stuck. Destry cut a rod from the blind brush and we were able to push the shells out. The Parker Gun--to its credit--suffered no damage.

The Bismuth/Eley shells, however, were destroyed with mouths stretched and shredded and brass bases swollen, distorted, and cracked. Each Bismuth/Eley shell was clearly stamped 2 3/4-inch, but measured over 3-inches open!

So there it is: 3-inch shells in 2 3/4-inch chambers are not good. I stopped shooting the Bismuth. When I got home I did some forensic research by deconstructing some of the loaded shells: The Bismuth-Winchester shells were all 2 3/4-inch as marked; the Bismuth/Eley shells all opened to 3-inches even though they were marked 2 3/4-inch both on the box and shell casing.

I called Ken Levine at Bismuth and he blew me off; I wrote an article praising Kent and blasting Bismuth...R. E. Petersen passed away and I heard from a source that the widow's lawyers advised her not to sell the Bismuth brand for the liability, but I believe that someone is still making the stuff. I hope they measure their powder and shot loads better than they measured their shells.

I sold the remainder of those bogus Bismuth/Eley mis-marked accident-waiting-to-happen shells (about 15 boxes) to none other than Doug Turnbull last year. We marked each box "3-inches" with a black magic marker.

And the point of all this is that over-long shells can produce great recoil causing a gun to double.

Fortunately the gun was not damaged, probably due to the manufacturing date coincidental with Lindbergh flying solo across the Atlantic versus a turn of the century gun reflecting the technology and metallurgy which preceded the Wright brothers barely getting off the ground. EDM

I personally have noticed a difference. My 2 3/4" low pressure loads (7/8 oz. @5200 psi @ 1150 fps) have alot LESS recoil than the 2.5" Nobel Sports, Gamebores, and B&P's I was shooting in my short chambered guns. I would like to note too that my handloads produce significantly less pressure than most factory loaded 2.5" shells, especially when compared to the Italian offerings. RST's are just about as soft shooting and have almost as low pressures as the handloads, but way more expensive. I've shot thousands of 2 3/4" shells in my vintage guns and have never had a cracked stock or blown barrel. The only stock I had crack was on a Darne and I was shooting my last box of 2.5" fibre wad Noble Sports. Those puppies had some bite. All of Sherman Bells articles over the years concerning this very topic has convinced me that if you keep your pressures down, shot charge light, and velocities within reason, you should never have a problem.

Dustin

Miller,
True 'dat, but, I'm not typically the guy who can best utillize a gun with .019 and .039 points of choke. The gun is also under bore, at .725.
I scratch my head at the pattern board, wondering what in heavens name I should do with a gun that throws lovely, 45 yard patterns of, 1 1/4 oz loads of #4s. That also leave my vision fuzzy for a few seconds after the shot. Normal 1 1/8 oz loads of shot any smaller are actually un-even and, sort of clumpy, for lack of a better term.
It is a somewhat light 12 gauge, 6lbs 12 ozs, I think, and I shudder to think of pulling the trigger on a 3" round, although the gun was proofed for that.
If a guy used a tight choked gun his whole life, well, maybe. But, I haven't.

Still pondering what I should do. I like guns "in proof" but, I like guns I can shoot comfortably, and hit the more common 25-35 yard shots with, a little better.

I think.


Best,
Ted

Like a lot of other folks, i have been shooting 2 3/4 shells in short chambers with no problems. Caveat that they are low pressure loads (mine) using one of Joe Woods recipes. BUT the lil 16 hammer gun I just picked up will NOT allow a 2 3/4 inch shell to be chambered, without a great deal of force being applied...It will shoot short RST's as long as I have it...

That sounds more like a Diameter problem than a length one. Assuming the 2 3/4" shells are fold crimped & the gun has 2 9/16" (65mm) chambers there should be absolutely no problem encountered from the length in chambering them.
Have you already tried the RST's, unles they are a little slimmer you may well encounter the same problem.
Chamber itself may have been reamed under present minimum size.
PS; You did mention you used reloaded shells. Were those hulls possibly fird in a "Loose" chambered gun. They may be running oversized. I have encountered this in using hulls I had picked up which were fired from an Auto-loader. Some of these seem to have "Generous" Chamber dimensions.

I think I'm confused here. I thought this post was about shooting 2 3/4" shells in guns originally chambered for 2 1/2, 2 5/8 shells ect. Obviously different loads will make a marked difference. I was assuming we were talking the same shot and powder charge.

My experience was with identical ammunition and different chambers. When you change loads, all bets are off.