doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Black Powder Proofs Question

Can anyone tell me if a gun w/ black powder proofs and fluid steel barrels can shoot modern light smokeless shells? (I would, of course, first have it checked by a gunsmith, but thought I'd ask here first before taking it further.) Thanks.

First, I would look at the country of origin of the proofmarks and the length of the shotshell. Then see at what charge the tubes were proved. And then try to generally equate(lean toward the lower values) the pressures of blackpowder and smokeless. Sometimes light smokeless shotshells have a pressure issue.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Yes, BUT---The barrels are not the only consideration. Please have a SxS gunsmith that knows what he is doing pass judgment on the whole gun.
Even in the most extreme case, a gun that was proved for black powder , if in good condition, can shoot 5000 PSI Nitro loads and most up to 8000/9000 PSI.
This precludes any run of the mill Saami shells.
Hope this is helpful.
Best,
John

Depending on the country of origin, the original "black powder" proofs, may be plenty high enough to meet modern CIP standards, which are in the 9000-10,000 PSI range and usually explicitly marked on the box.

On the other hand, current American SAAMI standard shells run to 11,000 PSI Maximum Average, with statistical gusts to around 14,000 PSI. As John suggests, avoid any American shell that is not explicitly marked "low pressure", because if not so designated they will likely run at higher pressures, although no one can say specifically.

Rio "Top Trap" 12g 28 gram, for instance, meets CIP standard, and the published pressure is 575 kg/cm^2, or 8176 psi. I would have no concern about using such a shell in a sound black powder proved gun.

Good Luck and have fun.

Regards

GKT

If by "light smokeless" loads you mean factory designated "light loads, you need to find out what pressure they produce. That's the important part. Factory "light" or "low-brass" loads are not necessarily or even likely to be low pressure.

The question is dangerous in that broad generalizations are required to answer it. I believe the best answer is the gun would, if in proper repair, digest loads which replicate the loads it was originally built to shoot. So first, is the gun in proper repair? Then what was it's original intended load? Last, how do you make sure you are getting ammo that approximates it's original load standards. If you are shooting anything over the original load (pressure, velocity and weight of ejecta all considered) the answer is you are not proceeding cautiously.

AMtrico,

Jerry and every one else responding are correct. The problem lies in the fact that proof law was not static. The "standards" were not created across national boundaries for some time.

The British had proof standards in 1813. While the French had their own standards. We can be pretty sure that they were not in harmony at this point in history.

In 1910 the Austro-Hungarian Empire decided that the Belgian proofs they had been accepting since 1893 were no longer safe. The Belgians were besides themselves over this. After much negotiation, the proof house of Liege changed their methods, loads and powder.

In Germany in 1939 a new set of Black Powder standards was introduced.

This list could go on decade by decade, country by country.

You asked about "fluid steel" barrels. Well then the date and country of manufacture become even more important. For a long time, only the most expensive steel could handle greater pressures than damascus barrels. For a recent discussion here about steel barrels. http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...;gonew=1#UNREAD

A better approach woud be for you could to post photos of your gun. Be sure to take pictures of all the proof marks. State as much as you know about the maker and the gun's current condition. It is just easier. I understand you are trying to be safe, as we all are.

Pete

Thanks very much for everyone's input. The gun was made in London, 1891 by William Evans. Any more thoughts?