Can you use high brass shells, in an old Ithaca NID made in 1927. I had read somewhere, that the Ithaca, was made pretty stout, at that time. Or would it have to much pressure, for the old barrels?

I wouldn't do it....the NID was as cheaply made as possible.

That doesn't equal stout in my oppinion.

The NID was purposely introduced to handle SAAMI spec ammunition, something the earlier Flues was marginal for. On the other hand, no one can tell you over the internet what ammo is safe in what gun. Only a qualified double gun smith, with the gun in hand, can do that.

On the other hand a qualified gunsmith can't even tell you.

Price does not necessarily relate to Stoutness. An NID will undoubtably stand up to a lot more heavy loads than would a
Purdey Game Gun. Compared prices on the pair lately??

jOe is confused, again. The Western Arms Long Range of the same era, produced by the same company, was cheaply made, much more so than the NID. Cheap, in this case, doesn't mean not able to handle modern ammunition, however. As Miller pointed out, the NID, and, in fact, either of the Ithaca guns will handle a steady diet of SAAMI spec ammunition better than English guns costing, shall we say, a bit more.
You can call the Ithaca ugly, but, many of them are out there still doing what they were intended to do, handling modern ammunition loaded to pressure levels outside the scope of operation of the Flues, without second thought by their owners.
My first concern on a NID would be the wood. If it were mine, a high brass load would be a very occasional thing, launched at a pheasant with his late season afterburner engaged. Do have a good double gun 'smith go through the thing, but, more than likely, there simply won't be any surprises.

Best,
Ted

Joe: Nobody's addressed the other half of your question ... "high brass" shells. That's a term most often used to suggest a heavier-than-average load with presumably higher pressures. The term is also falling out of favor because there is no longer a real correlation between the height of the brass and the make up or performance of the load. The bottom line is that there are all kinds of "low brass" shells that can quickly beat up a fragile antique gun, and we need to look more carefully into the properties of our ammo choices. The good news for you is that few would describe a typical NID as fragile. TT

My 1925 Scott is holding pretty good to steady diet of factory ammo.....give a NID a steady diet of 2&3/4" high powered pheasant and turkey loads and get back with me.

People have done just that for 85 years, jOe.

Where' ya been?


Best,
Ted

More loose Scotts than NID's out there. NID aint no sissy gun, its a tough mo-fo, built like a tank with that mid 20's & 30's gangster style. Looks at home either sitting next to a brace of birds or sitting next to a tiffany lamp.

Dustin

The term "high brass shells" is pretty much meaningless now-a- days. Pay attention to the payload and published pressure for the load you plan to use, not the how high the brass is.

The Ithaca N.I.D. was designed for modern shells and depending on the weight of the particular gun, you can shoot any modern lead or appropriate non-toxic loads in it (not steel). If the ugly part bothers you too much spring for a high grade and you'll forget all about ugly...Geo.

I'd say we've gone too far in both directions in this thread.

Yes, the NID is a strong gun. That being said, "modern" in the mid-1920's does not equal "modern" 85 years later. The Winchester Super-X caused Ithaca to switch to a stronger design. Someone here (with old Ithaca catalogs)--or maybe Walt--would probably know. If Ithaca went to 2 3/4" chambers, standard, when the gun first appeared--in 12ga--then all NID 12's should be able to handle anything up to and including a 3 1/4 DE-1 1/4 oz load, which is essentially what the old Super-X 12 was.

However, I know for a fact that the NID 16's, and I think the 20's as well, did not originally appear with 2 3/4" chambers. And the old 2 1/2" 20's and 2 9/16" 16's were not the equivalents, in terms of pressure, of some modern 2 3/4" shells. I'm sure a lot of NID's have held up shooting modern factory shells, even if they started life with short chambers. But it's not something I'd recommend.

And Joe, if you're shooting American factory 2 3/4" field loads in a 1925 Scott, you're almost certainly subjecting it to pressures for which it was not designed--even if it's a waterfowl or pigeon gun. The current standard CIP proof of 850 bars equates to a service pressure about 1,000 psi lower than the modern SAAMI standard. You could well have been lucky, but you're not doing your gun any favors.

Then Larry can you explain the difference in "strength" between an Ithaca NID 16/20 gauge, A. H. Fox 16/20 ga and LC Smith 16/20 gauge guns with 2 9/16th/2 1/2 inch chamber lengths and the same guns with 2 3/4 inch chambers when the materials and dimensions of receivers and barrels are identical?

Larry, I think your wrong, for the same reason that TwiceBarrel said. The steel that the NIDs were made of were not changed for the 16&20 gauges when the chambers were changed to 2 3/4".

Well . . . to start with, you're talking apples and oranges when you throw Fox and Elsie into the mix with NID. Fox and Elsie were making short-chambered 20's and 16's prior to WWI, and they were sourcing at least some of their barrel blanks from Europe. There was indeed a change in the steel used in those guns, pre-war to post-war. However, I can't tell you how much of a difference that made in strength, comparatively.

NID's, of course, were all post-WWI guns, so you don't have quite the same factors at work. However, are you sure that the materials and dimensions were identical? Obviously, one dimension was not: chamber length. And what I do know is this: After the Super-X appeared, 2 3/4" shells were manufactured to a higher service pressure level than were the old, short shells.

And I also know--per an article by LTC Calvin Goddard, American Rifleman 1934--that American manufacturers proofed their 2 3/4" guns to higher levels than their short-chambered guns, because SAAMI standards were different: 13,700 psi mean proof pressure for the 2 5/8" 12ga; 15,900 psi for the 2 3/4" 12ga. Service pressures for the guns, respectively, were 9,500 and 10,500 psi. (I think those are actually LUP values, which back then were incorrectly expressed as psi.)

All that taken into account, it's also true that Savage, after they acquired Fox, would routinely lengthen short chambers on Fox guns sent to them for repair work. So you have "evidence" pointing in both directions. Prior to WWII, none of that was a problem, because there were in fact more short shells being manufactured in this country than there were 2 3/4" shells. But if it were my gun, I'd exercise greater caution in ammunition selection if it originally had short chambers than if it came straight from the factory at 2 3/4".

Fact is the NID is a cheap made gun not made to last 85 years. I'm sure if the designers were alive today they'd be shocked that people are still shooting them.

Brown could you please explain this American manufacturer proof process you speak of ?

Larry you haven't convinced me.

After WWI Ithaca was receiving their barrels from the same Belgium sources as Fox, LC Smith and Parker and did so until production of barrels was halted at the beginning of WWII. But that is of little importance to this discussion. Merely lengthening the chambers by an 1/8th of an inch in the case of a 12 gauge or 3/16th of an inch for a 16 gauge may at most reduce chamber pressures by 400-500 psi and as most knowledgeable loaders know that is less than significant. I guess the point you are missing is that these "old" guns were well designed and built of quality materials that can and do withstand SAAMI pressure loads quite well. You might say they were over built for the pre SAMMI loads that were kept low to keep from blowing up the cheap Belgium imports of the day. Notice I didn't include quality Damascus cause you know they can also withstand "Modern" ammuntion as Sherman Bell demonstrated.

Winchester didn't introduce the Super-X type shell, Western Cartridge Co. did, a decade befor the Olins bought the defunct Winchester Repeating Arms Co. Then through the 1930s the Winchester Cartridge line evolved to essentially equal the Western line -- Super-Speed the equal of the Super-X, Ranger the equal of the Xpert, etc. as the older Leader and Repeater disappeared. Shell length doesn't/didn't have anything to do with pressure or really anything to do with load up until the early 1920s when the Super-X type shells loaded with progressive burning powders came along. Back in the early days American 12-gauge paper shells were offered in 2 5/8, 2 3/4, 2 7/8, 3 and 3 1/4 inch lengths; 16-gauge paper shells were offered in 2 9/16, 2 3/4, 2 7/8 and 3-inch lengths; and 20-gauge shells were offered in 2 1/2, 2 3/4, 2 7/8, and 3-inch lengths. These longer shells did not carry a heavier payload, they carried more and better wadding for a better gas seal, which many competitive shooters believed to be desireable. These pages are from 1915-16 Remington Arms-Union Metallic Cartridge Co. catalogue. The 3 1/4 inch shells had disappeared by then.



While the 2 5/8 inch 12-gauge shell and the 2 1/2 inch 20-gauge shell were considered "standard" by the loading companies, several popular loadings were only offered in the 2 3/4 inch case (or longer). Note the loads marked with *





When Remington Arms Co. introduced their John M. Browning designed Remington Autoloading Gun in 1905, it was made for 2 3/4 inch shells right from the beginning. Same with their John D. Pedersen designed Remington Repeating Shotgun in 1908.

The NID 20-gauge chambers were 2 3/4 inch from the get go. The Ithaca NID 16-gauge chambers weren't changed from 2 9/16 inch to 2 3/4 inch, according to the Ithaca catalogues, until 1934.

When Western Cartridge Co. introduced the Super-X in 1922, the 12- and 20-gauge Super-X was put up in a 2 3/4 inch case. The next year when the 16-gauge Super-X came out it was in the old "standard" 2 9/16 inch case. Then in 1931, Remington Arms Co., Inc. introduced their Model 11 and The Sportsman in 16-gauge and they were chambered for a 2 3/4 inch shell. While the regular Remington Nitro Express 16-gauge shell, like the Western Super-X, was put up in a 2 9/16 inch shell carrying a load of 3 drams equiv. behind 1 1/8 ounce of shot, they added a Remington Auto-Express 2 3/4 inch 16-gauge shell carrying a load of 3 1/4 drams equiv. and 1 1/8 ounces of shot.

Researcher;
Did the original Super-X 12ga loads carry a Dram Equiv marking? I have long been of the opinion they were introduced as the 3 3/4de-1¼oz load with "Progressive" powder. As noted in the Arrow loadings 3¼-1¼ even (3½-1¼) had long been on the market with bulk (& other) powder.

The 1913 Lefever Arms Co catalog states all 12ga guns unless otherwise ordered will be supplied with 2 3/4" chambers. Their recommended 12ga loadings show up to 3½-1¼ using several available powders, both bulk & dense smokeless. I do not know how long that had been in effect, but 2 3/4" chambers were certainly nothing new. L C Smith had standardized on 12 = 2 3/4",; 16 = 2 9/16" & 20 = 2 1/2" rather early.

I have an H grade 16ga Levefer made after 1907 which carries 3" chambers. I cannot prove it, but highly suspect it left LAC that way, as it would have been more likely to have received that length of chamber at time of build, than to be rechambered to an essentially un-available shell at a later date. 3" shells would have been available on order for at least a few years after it was built. At this point though it likely carried no more than 1oz of shot, even in the longer shell. At least most, if not all, of my post 1900 12ga Lefevers carry 2 3/4" chambers though an early 1890's one has 2 5/8". My only other non-12 Lefever is a pre 1890 10ga which also has a 3" chamber.
""ALL"" older US guns did "NOT" come with the "Short" chambers. Most of the "Imported" ones did.

In a 1927 Western Cartridge Co. flyer "Super-X The Long Range Load" by Capt. Chas. Askins, the 12 gauge duck load is described as 38 1/2 grains or 3 1/2 dram with a muzzle velocity of 1400 fps (modern numbers are measured 3 feet from the muzzle) and a breech pressure of 3 3/4 tons.

Actually TB, they weren't all receiving their barrels from Belgium. Krupp, of course, was German. I think Chromox was British. But even if they were, the blanks were bored in this country. That could make a significant difference, from one maker to the next. And it explains why, for example, that Fox offered 4 different barrel weights for each gauge gun they made. So obviously, they weren't all the same--even from the same manufacturer.

SAAMI did not come along until the mid-1920's either. But once they did, the pressure standards they established were different for guns with short chambers vs long.

Joe, you must not have read the famous story about John Olin having something like a couple thousand proof loads fed to a Win 21 without harm. American manufacturers went through essentially the same proof procedures as the Europeans. The only difference was, the standards were overseen by SAAMI which was an industry organization, rather than a govt entity running the proofhouses like in Europe. You'll find a VP on 21's, standing for "violent proof"; an HP on Elsies, standing for "Hunter Proof", etc.

And your nonsense about the NID being a "cheap made gun" . . . have you been into the controlled substances again, Joe? The NID and Elsie Field Grades and the Fox Sterlingworth all cost virtually the same. Plenty of NID's still shooting, 80 years later. And guess what company John Olin went to with a request to build a double for his 3 1/2" 10ga shell? He didn't do it with his own Model 21, but rather asked Lou Smith at Ithaca to do it with the NID.

Thanks for the post, Larry. I didn't know any of that stuff.

Even after we correct jOe, he's still usually confused.
Best,
Ted

Larry you will be hard pressed to find a US made gun made between the big wars that have Krupp or English made barrels. Both countries lost most of their skilled workers in combat. Chromox was a Fox marketing name to highlight the fact that the barrels had a high chromium content, kind of like Winchesters "Nickle Steel". You really need to read McIntosh again on Fox barrel weights and why the were segregated in weight groups 1 through 4.

Not the the 21 wouldn't stand up to the big 10. Ithaca already had a 10 gauge size frame to work with, so it was easier to use it than to make another Model 21 frame size.

Well, there were plenty of Krupp smallbore tubes floating around after WWI in the coffers of Ithaca and Fox. Ithaca had different frame sizes, prior to the the NID, even a lightweight 10.
The thickness of their side walls(any Flues) tells the story.
Good luck with the NID.

Dad, brought an old hammer's, on the side double back from WWII, just a nice old 16ga, we shot regular shells, at pheasant, squirrels, rabits. It was made in Beligum, had an engraveing of a night, on his horse. They use, to go into a town over there, they hit the bank first, they went to everybody's homes, took all their guns. Built a big fire, in the middle of the street, burned, duelling pistols, in velvet cases, high powered rifles, real high price stuff. At the war's end, they found out, they could box, those guns up and send them home. The 16ga, was one of the few items, he had left.

[quote=TwiceBarrel

You really need to read McIntosh again on Fox barrel weights and why the were segregated in weight groups 1 through 4. [/quote]

TB, given your previous argument about all dimensions on American barrels being the same, the "why" is not the key question. Rather, it is the fact that there was a very significant weight difference between a set of Fox #1 vs #4 barrels . . . which, in turn, means that the dimensions are also significantly different.

To get back to the original question, most American doubles were somewhat overbuilt compared to British or European "game guns". Most of them--if we exclude the Flues, and even there the problem is mainly with very light smallbores--can withstand a diet of current American factory loads. However, if they were made with short chambers, then they were made to be used with short shells, which remained readily available in this country, at least up through the start of WWII. And which (at least after SAAMI standards were established) produced lower pressures--by about 1,000 psi--than did 2 3/4" shells of that same era. It's obviously an individual decision as to whether you use current American factory ammo in those guns. I cannot recall ever hearing of a catastrophic failure in an NID as a result of modern ammo, as have been reported with some Flues guns here. So while you'd probably be safe, if the gun is (or originally was) short-chambered, you are likely exceeding the service pressure for which the gun was originally proofed.

You got the floor...Tell us how it was " originally proofed" ?

The 2 3/4 inch 12-gauge Super-X, Nitro Express, etc. boxes were marked as 3 3/4 drams equiv. 1 1/4 ounce of shot. Prior to the introduction of the Super-X loaded with progressive burning powders such as DuPont Oval or DuPont 93, the heaviest loads with bulk or dense smokeless powders the manufacturers regularly offered was 3 1/2 drams equiv. and 1 1/4 ounces of shot. However, it seems from my reading of the sporting press of the day, the 3 1/4 - 1 1/4 was considered a more "balanced" load.

Barrel names like Sterlingworth Fluid Compressed Steel, Chromox Fluid Compressed Steel, Nitro, Pigeon Nitro, Crown, Homo-Tensile, Flui-Tempered, Trojan, Vulcan, Parker, Parker Special, Titanic, Acme, Peerless, etc. were pretty much fanciful names made up by the shotgun manufacturers. I've examined Fox barrels marked Chromox on top with four different tube suppliers marks on the bottom -- LLH, SB&Co., a D with a three-lobed crown over it, and a couple from the early 1920s with vestiges of the Fluid Steel Krupp Essen marking!

TB, given your previous argument about all dimensions on American barrels being the same, the "why" is not the key question. Rather, it is the fact that there was a very significant weight difference between a set of Fox #1 vs #4 barrels . . . which, in turn, means that the dimensions are also significantly different.

[/quote]

Larry it is always important to know why. You obviously didn't read the reference I recommend or you should know that the barrel weight markings on the raw Fox barrel sets is only significant for unfinished barrel sets. After the barrels are struck and polished a set of #4 weight barrels could actually weigh more than a set of #3 weight barrels.

Now back to my first comments dimensions between guns and the materials used for the same make and model did not change (within manufacturers tolerance) when manufacturers finally got around to adopting the longer chamber length, therefore, for all practical purposes a NID built on the first day of production after they fixed the self opening problem of the NID is just as strong and able to withstand any chamber pressure differentiation between the "short" ammuntion and the new standard length ammunition as an NID built the day the factory first used the new reamer that cut the first 2 3/4 inch chamber. The same is true for all grades of Foxes, L C Smith and Parkers or any other quality built American gun (have to include the Winchester Model 12s and 97s too).

This has been a fun discussion but Larry you really need to quit looking at things so literally and hit the books once in a while.

Unfortunately, McIntosh is still packed away somewhere--we're waiting for the basement to be finished before unpacking completely. But your above post still contradicts what you're trying to say. If #4 barrels "could" weigh more than #3 barrels, that also means that they "could"--and likely DID--weigh less. Which, again, means that the dimensions are not all the same.

Same story with all other American doubles. How about all those different frame sizes Parker used? If you're going to get the gun to balance properly--something to which Parker paid pretty significant attention--then you cannot slap the same set of barrels on an O frame 16 as you do a 1 frame 16. Which means, once again, different dimensions. I'll have to try one of these days, if I can find one of the fairly rare #1 frame Parker 12's, but I'm guessing my #2 frame barrels wouldn't even come close to fitting--because of different dimensions.

And while I agree that any NID probably CAN withstand the pressure of modern ammo, the fact remains that the PROOF to which they were subjected, if they were built with short chambers, was lower than the proof for 2 3/4" guns. Hence, if there were any that might have failed higher proof, there's no way of knowing that--because they were not subjected to that higher proof.

I take it you either don't have an answer or don't want to answer ?

Joe, I answered you quite some time back. Above not clear? Proof in this country was essentially the same as proof in a European country, except done by the individual manufacturers to SAAMI standards. If the gun passed--and the procedure was basically the same, firing high pressure proof loads (look back farther and you'll find the exact proof pressures required by SAAMI, for 2 5/8" and 2 3/4" 12ga guns) and then looking for measurable changes as a result--they were marked, at least in some cases, with the company's own proofmark. You'll also note that the American proof standards for American short-chambered 12's are approximately the same as the current CIP "standard" proof of 850 bars. Proof pressures for 2 3/4" guns were higher, although not as high as the current CIP "magnum" proof (1200 bars). Thus, a short-chambered American gun from that era is certainly no weaker than your Scott from the same era, especially if your Scott is also short-chambered. Of course if your Scott had remained in British hands and the old American classic in American hands, chances are good that the former never would have seen modern American factory ammo, while the latter might well have been fed a steady diet of the heavier loads for decades.