I have not seen this question on this board before but im sure that its a old topic. Is there any benefits to modern plastic wads in old shotguns that the chockes are intergrated into almost the entire length of the barrel? Or are they manley beneficial to modern shotguns where the chokes are in the last few inches of the firearms? Will a old shotgun pattern better with the plastic wads or the old fiber wads?

I believe you may have a misconception of the chokes in older guns. While some barrels may have some taper from breach to muzzle, the choke in all the barrels I've seen was still in the last few inches.

I shoot plastic wads in old guns. A modern plastic wad with a shotcup will provide a tighter pattern in general. A modern plastic wad without a shotcup will have a pattern not much different than a felt wad.

"Better" is just a question of tighter versus looser, IMO.

All my doubles were made in the past 30 years or so; some very recently and all have fixed chokes and all the chokes are in the last few inches of barrel (that's how chokes work) and I shoot modern shells with plastic shotcups all the time.

I think some very few guns were made with full-taper barrels but I'm sure more knowledgeable people can comment on that.

I have looked for and talked about tapered bore guns for 50 years. Stories of Parkers and LeFever tapered bore guns are out there but I have never seen one. Even had a friend in PA who was going to bore a sleeve job with a full taper but never finished the project.

bill

I'd like to hear from someone that has such a gun in hand. I don't mean one that has .002 - .005 taper which could just be incidental, but one that has a lot of taper that was obviously intended to impart a choke effect.

As Chuck H. indicates, "better" can be in the eye of the beholder.

If "better" involves relative pattern density, then the nod most often will go to loads that use modern plastic wads. This will be due to the wads' ability to seal powder gasses and in their ability to reduce shot deformation. However, this ability can come at the cost of "hot" pattern cores and "overchoked" shot counts. "Better" can also come at the cost of plastic fouling even though lead fouling is usually reduced.

The "magic" tends to be more the result of wad design than of wad materials. Greener describes a very "modernistic" one-piece paper wad, "The Swedish Wad", that delivered some very impressive results. Years ago, an article in "The American Rifleman" described simple light cardboard "shot concentrators" (shot cups). I have made these devices and I have used them to good effect.

Greener describes a tapered barrel (page 254) and illustrates it (page 261, barrel #3)

However, he distinguishes such a barrel from a "choked" one and refers to it as a type of "cylinder" barrel.

Here are a couple of Lefever crossbolt guns with "tapered bores". The first one is a Grade 5B and the second is an Optimus. Not all of the crossbolts I have measured have tapered bores, but some do. Measurements are taken at 2 inch intervals from the muzzle.

We're probably about due for a new thread here. But, dismissing that, Daryl - what thought have you given to that step that occurs in the first set of barrels at about 10-12 inches?

5E, I see there is an Increasing Decrease in diameter from about 16" to 10" from the muzzle. I am no expert at all on this. Maybe they were trying to get the bore diameter smaller as they approached the choke area so they could use choking tools made for more "normal" diameters. What do you and others think ?

Daryl,
Thanks for posting this. I recall some data posted long ago on this, either from you or another LeFever owner.

It appears to me that these barrels were honed out by some partially hand operated method where the hone dwell and depth was controlled by operator input/movement. This would explain the somewhat irregular rate of taper. It also appears that there was a target diameter at approx 2" from the muzzle, then the choke.

Cleaning is usually much easier with plastic wads, that being said some forcing cones and chokes do accumulate plastic...depends on the wad too.

Chuck, I really don't know the tools available and used in those periods, but if they could make beautiful guns like those, they must have had some "ideas" on honing, too. Some years ago I passed on a sideplate Optimus that had bores .020" oversized at or near the breech. I fear I was "too smart" for my own good. Actually on the first barrel bore report, especially, I am kind of amazed how close they were. May have been closer than my figures, but I only have a Skeet's gauge and -------well, I won't start that.

I've seen two Parkers who's internal tapering began 6-7 inches from the muzzle. Many orders for shotguns, in the early years of the 20th century, specified certain pattern percentages, with certain size shot and sometimes with specific loading data.
Could very well be that in order to achieve such specifications, a certain amount of hand honing black magic was employed to get there. That could mean that what appear to be tapered chokes are really honed out bores.

Why wouldn't such tapers be attributed to some after market work done to cleanup bores which had been pitted by firing blackpowder and/or corrosive priming? It still appears the choking was accomplished in the last couple inches at the muzzle.

Jerry, Lefever commonly advertised Tapered Bores. Given we don't see them that often, but the gun's conditions don't seem to reflect the need to take out .020 " [that's a lot] in the bore diameter. I think the Crossbolt Lefevers were in a period beyond black powder and corrosive priming. Even if the guns had been aftermarket altered, I would assume they would not have been altered in a tapered way as I measured.

#1 advantage of plastic wads (with shotcups, of course) is, in my opinion, that they eliminate lead fouling in the barrel.

#2 advantage is tightening the patterns and cutting down on the number of flyers. Of course, tightening the patterns may, or may not, be considered an advantage, depending on your intended use.

I've only ever seen bad plastic fouling when I started reloading and, being extra cautious, loaded waaaay light and got a significant number of bloopers or burners that left stalactites in the bores. With properly loaded shells there will be some level of plastic fouling, but that's a lot easier to clean than lead.

All Lefever guns LACA or crossbolts were built prior to non-corosive priming. The bad affect of corrosive primers didn't really show up until the use of smokeless powders became common. Water was a common cleaner for black powder & it also took care of the primer residue. This was particularly noticable on early smokeless .22 RFs as the priming charge was high in proportion to the powder charge.
The American Rifleman ran an extensive report on this some years back & if I am remembering correctly non-sorrosive priming didn't really take place until up in the 1930's. Remington was a major contributor to the NC priming with their "Kleen-Bore" primers. The Army did not switch even then as the NC primers were not as long lifed as the older ones in storage. I believe that Julian Hatcher discusses this also in his "Notebook".
The general conclusion seemed to be from these accounts that more bores became pitted & ruined with the combination of corrosive primers with smokeless powder than were ever damaged by the use of black powder.

I have fired a lot of shotgun shells, all since the 1960's with plastic wads, and have never had a problem with plastic fouling, either with factory shells or reloads in fixed choke guns. I have seen plastic fouling in barrels with screw in chokes, though.
As for tapered bores, could this have been done in an attempt to increase velocity? I know that target rifle makers lapped their bores to a taper, and there was some experimentation with taper bores in the military around the time of WWI.