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

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.