doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lengthening 2 9/16" chambers

Hello,

I have a question concerning value of lengthening chambers on an original 16 ga with 2 9/16" to 2.75". I intend to use this gun explicitly for hunting and use RST and Polywad vintagers. Th gun in question is an LC Smith FW. Will longer chambers have any benefits given I will never really have the need to shoot off the shelf mass produced loads?

Thank you,
jmc

I see no benefit to extending the chambers in your gun. If you are shooting 2.5" ammo in it you are already getting any benefit extended chambers might provide...Geo

Thanks George.. I appreciate the perspective as that is exactly why I stick to appropriate loads and if no other net gain, I'm reluctant to remove metal.

Jerry

jmc,
In addition, I'm told , by people that generally don't discourage lengthening chambers, that LC Smith FW barrels are too thin in critical areas to safely extend the chambers. BTW, I'm not an expert in the matter.
Mike

Thoughts here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZIo0y746UsSRZIgRuuxwAbZjSBHitO_EanvwLYc-kGA/edit

Short version. The critical area is the end of the chamber and forcing cone. In heavy barreled turn-of-the-century U.S. maker 12g doubles, the angle of the forcing cone is usually greater than the taper of the exterior of the barrel, so it is not uncommon that the forcing cone WT is the same or greater than the end of the chamber WT. THIS MAY NOT APPLY to small gauge American (nothing special about a Smith FW) or lightweight British doubles.

No reason to do it, I have done it before and wish I had not

Well, this all started with a desire to lengthen forcing cones and open up chokes on a tightly constricted set of FW 16 ga. bbls and work to be done by a knowledgeable Elsie 'smith... I've followed the general logic of pressure vs recoil and, shot deformation impacts on patterns.. I found a nice lightweight and solid gun for grouse/wc and committed to opening up the chokes. The forcing cone request got overshadowed by short chambers which I already address by using appropriate ammunition. Turns out that the work got moved up in the queue overnight and the chambers are now 2.75". Oh well... I just wish more folks would recognize that when it comes to hunting, the extra $5/box for appropriate shells is immaterial when you add it all up. Live and learn...

some say there would be a reduction in recoil resulting from a reduction in peak pressure...if so, that would be better for gun and shooter...

and then there is the pattern uniformity issue...if patterns are not to shooters satisfaction, then lengthening chambers and forcing cones may improve patterns...

Back in the day, when Western Cartridge Co. first brought us high velocity, progressive burning powder loads, and upped the 16-gauge payload to 1 1/8ounce and the 20-gauge to one ounce, they put up their 12- and 20-gauge Super-X loads in their 2 3/4 inch FIELD shell. But, for the 16-gauge Super-X load they went with the "standard" 2 9/16 inch FIELD shell. The 2 3/4 inch 16-gauge shell really started to get some traction when Remington Arms Co., Inc. brought out their Model 11 and "Sportsman" autoloaders in 16-gauge made for 2 3/4 inch shells. While the high velocity, progressive burning powder load, like the Remington Nitro-Express, in the 2 9/16 inch shell was 3 drams equiv. pushing 1 1/8 ounce of shot, for their new autoloaders they introduced their 2 3/4 inch Auto-Express 16-gauge shell with 3 1/4 drams equiv. pushing the 1 1/8 ounce of shot. Winchester had such a load in their July 1931 catalog. I don't have anything Peters between 1932 which doesn't have such a load and 1935 which does. In that they already had it in the Winchester brand, the Olin's didn't get around to adding such a load to their Western Super-X line until 1938.

one ounce loads in 16 ga seem right...if one wants to shoot 1 1/8 ounce of shot, then perhaps its time to switch to a stout 12 bore gun...