doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Can You Use High Brass Shells in Ithaca NID 1927 ?

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.