doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Long Range Hyperbole

Miller, I realize you mentioned the felt wad use in the fifties Lyman book. I have been loading with Herco since the felt wad days but I wouldn't put 37 grains of Herco under 1 3/8 ounces of lead no matter what kind of wads were used. On another point you mentioned, the reason that Hercules didn't put low velocity Unique 1 1/8 ounce target loads in their book is because they are very temperature sensitive as well as sensitive to minor air space in the powder charge area. The added pressure of the 1 1/4 ounces of shot should have made them reliable. Even similar Green Dot 1 1/8 ounce target loads create the occasional blooper in cold weather. The extra 1/4 ounce of shot should eliminate this problem. On your last paragraph, maybe some day I will break open Nash's last case of Super-X Lubaloy 1 3/8 ounce loads and shoot some patterns. I kind of know what they are going to look like on the pattern board, though. I have loaded similar loads with non plated #4s and shot incredible 60 yard patterns out of an overchoked Fox shotgun, a Sterlingworth, not a Super Fox. I have never shot patterns out of a Super Fox and now I am out of my old #4 lead reloads.

From Lyman's I had copied a fairly low pressure load using a 3" Winchester hull. I had purchased the hulls from either Grafs or Ballistics Products and they came with Wincherster 209 primers in them. The recipe is from Lyman"s 5th Edition, using a Win 209 primer, 41.5 grns. of Blue Dot, 1 3/8 ozs shot, Win. WAA12SL wad, velocity is 1331 and the PSI is 7800. (pg. 126)

The Longrange I have has .730 bores and the choke contriction is .688 (.042) in both barrels.

This test won't be close to the original load, but to get an idea, if someone has a longrange double gun from any maker and has the componants to load the same, I wonder if this would be a good comparison? Your thoughts.

Something to keep in mind, when trying to duplicate the old loads, is that the Super-X or whatever, didn't burst on the scene full grown. First it was just a progressive burning powder load in Western's Field shell for 2 3/4 inch 12- and 20-gauge and 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge, and the heavier 12-gauge 1 3/8 ounce load in the 3-inch 12-gauge Record case. Then by July 1929, you got Nash's beloved Lubaloy (Copperized) shot. Then circa 1931 Non-corrosive priming was added. Between April and September 1932, the Seal-Tite wad was introduced. By March 1934, the one-piece box. By March 1935, the Super-X was in its own steel-locked shell with a Super-X headstamp rather than the Field headstamp. By 1947 Western has added the Seal-tite base wad and replaced the over powder card wad with the Super-Seal Cup Wad. By 1948 the Super-X has the Super-Seal crimp.

As an aside, up into 1930 Western was still giving drams of bulk smokeless powder or grains of dense smokeless powder in their regular Field and Record shells. By April 1932 they are using drams equiv. The December 1936 price list states their New Chief black powder shells are no longer manufactured and are available subject to stock on hand. By 1939/40 they introduce the super-seal crimp on their skeet and trap loads, but these don't get applied to the Super-X hunting loads until a few years after WW-II.

JDW, your load should duplicate the old loads just fine on the pattern board. The only difference is that we have found over the years that 1300 plus velocities don't do the pattern any good and don't decrease the air time to the target much either. However, they do shake up the gun and increase the recoil quite a bit. With big shot, I am content with 1200 to 1225 fps, which patterns better than the fast loads and gets to the target at about the same time as faster loads. The reason that the load you mentioned has such a friendly pressure figure is that it is not a particularly well balanced load as far as powder selection is concerned. This load would be better if Herco were used to raise the pressure to the 8000 plus level and make a better cold weather load. Blue Dot is just a bit slow for the load you post. If you are going to hunt ducks in the winter and store your shells in the trunk of your car, you should avoid loads with 7000 range pressure figures.

So if someone is looking for REAL high V / big payload long range loads the answer is just way simple - use steel data and components and load lead. A payload is a payload and the gun will never know if it is steel or lead that you're driving at 1500/1600fps. Crank that baby outta a modern gas gun and you'll see what would have to be about the max long range load ever.

I only ref gas guns for the 3 1/2" things of course. I'd bet there are all kinds a 3" steel (sub lead) loads that would be just fine in healthy fixed breech guns.

but since it actually don't mean squat to me someone else will have to pursue that pearl.

have a day

Dr.WtS

Many thanks to 2-piper for explaining my oversight in not putting DRAM EQUIVALENT on my previous post. When most people I know speak of loads, they always mean equivalent... out of the manual. I was foolish to recommend even a starting point for experimentation. But, I notice that Wonko managed to ignore my use of the terms light load and square load. I personally try to shoot 1160 fps with one ounce, even for long range work. I never cease to be amazed with the fact that some people draw pleasure from riduculing minute points while ignoring the larger question. In this case it is pattern effectiveness.

Certainly, I respect the expertise of Darryl Hallquist. I will humbly admit to being surprised by the previous measurement of production run Lefevers. I must say, however, that I think the fact that he has two tapered guns proves that they do exist. I was not referring to a specific model, but the fundamental design. The gun that I shot was actually a Savage made Stevens, built when Harry Pope ran the gunshop, and almost identical to the Lefever Nitro and Ithaca Field. If Darryl can untangle the conflicting patent overlaps of Savage/Lefever/Ithaca in this era, he will have done something fantastic, which I have not been able to accomplish.

Regarding, my ridicule for comparing a shotgun barrel to a violin, and why it has escaped all the great industialists, I will point to the existing science of cryogenic steel alignment which is offered to improve the patterns of competition shotguns and accuracy of long range rifles. It is based on principles of vibration, i.e. harmonics.

Regarding my riducule for stating that a long slow barrel taper increased pattern effectiveness, one must go no further than the makers of MODERN screw-in chokes to read their statements on shot deformation, and regulating choke to bore diameter.

Regarding my ridicule for stating that Ithaca choked the barrels of English best guns, and similar incredulous wonder at how such stupidity arises, I will point to one man. Frank Knickerbocker was the shop supervisor for Ithaca during a generation when the question of how a gun shot was not conjecture but money on the line. More than a century ago, the British magazine THE FIELD organized an international competition to judge the tightness of choke boring. Frank Knickerbocker bored guns won that competion more times and more times consecutively than any other gun in the world. To the best of my memory, it was almost two decades of total domination.


In spite of the previous criticism of my comments, I hope that a few people will manage to take my statements at face value and realize that not every possible iota of information can be discussed in a post. The most important thing that I have learned in years of listening to skilled shooters is that IDENTICAL guns will perform differently. There is indeed some magical relationship between the steel and the bore which makes one gun perform better than another.

"Regarding, my ridicule for comparing a shotgun barrel to a violin, and why it has escaped all the great industialists, I will point to the existing science of cryogenic steel alignment which is offered to improve the patterns of competition shotguns and accuracy of long range rifles. It is based on principles of vibration, i.e. harmonics.

Regarding my riducule for stating that a long slow barrel taper increased pattern effectiveness, one must go no further than the makers of MODERN screw-in chokes to read their statements on shot deformation, and regulating choke to bore diameter."

I can only refer you to my first post. I have never seen ANY substantiated data to support ANY barrel mods or chokes that purport improvement. Any and all just ooze snake oil by the gallon.

Again - if any of that crap actually worked to do anything but lighten wallets then the factories would be on it like stink on shit. Right now we're looking at over a hundred year's worth of tinkering and the bbls still look pretty much like what Greener cobbled together in the late 19th Century. I wonder why? Well, actually I don't.

It's a shotgun.

Get over it.

have a day

Dr.WtS

+1...finally someone on here with a brain....

Volleyfire, you just have to understand that Wonko and I like "simple" and love to tease those who drink the shotgun barrel kool aid. I was shooting 90% patterns before plastic wads were being loaded by the big three. As Wonko states, there is nothing new under the sun about shotguns that will do us a bit of good in normal hunting situations. I am very familiar with Daryl's illustration of the occasional Lefever barrel that is truly tapered. However, we Lefever collectors found out long ago that their catalog claim was apparently a reference to the choke area and only by a rhetorical shell game interpreted as "tapered barrels" by the readers of the catalogs. Wonko, thanks for carrying my water.

I have never seen anything about defining that reference. Do you have a link because I am really interested in boring. Thanks Bill.

I was hoping someone would pipe in with the same information Dary posted for a Becker Fox HE.


Best,


Mike