doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com 12 shell is a little loose in the chamber

Monty, please say you are pulling my leg, right
Mike

Just joking

RELAX ! You have been eating too much moose meat.

JDW

The 13 for the bore would not be marked on the receiver, but thr bbls. If the bbls are marked 13 then in 1892 this would mean that a plug gage (Ground or polished steel bar) of .710" diameter would enter the bore, but one of .719" (13/1) would not enter. It could not be stated exactly what it measured originally, other than it would have been within those limits. If the bore is subsequently enlarged to the point it will accept the .719" gage then it has become out of proof.

Maybe Larry can weigh in on this he's always good for a loose chamber...or two

Miller, thanks for the interpretation. I had originally thought the bores were .710 and now know they could have been up to .719.
I will recheck them to the 9" from breech as you stated to see what they now read. I can't remember at what length I read the other numbers, but I'm sure the barrels were honed somewhat.

Thanks again.

JDW, if your 1892 date is correct on your Greener, it would currently be out of proof as a 13. As Miller stated earlier, subdivisions to the gauges were added under the 1887 rules of proof. Standard bore size for a 13 was .710, but it could have been as large as .718. .719 was standard bore diameter for a gun marked 13/1. Yours is almost out of proof for a 13/1, with standard bore diameter for the 12 starting at .729.

However . . . "out of proof" due to an oversized bore is not necessarily a safety issue. It does indicate that your bores have seen some honing. But your gun may have started life with very thick barrel walls, and even as overbored as it now is, you may still retain sufficient thickness so that you don't really need to worry about your gun, at least not from a minimum barrel wall thickness standpoint. But if your gun were to be submitted for reproof and your measurements are correct, it would be remarked as 13/1.

Thanks Larry. I have shot it with low pressure, low velocity reloads, 7,000 psi with 1050 fps.
Tough to get used to a safety mounted on the side for walk-up upland bird hunting. I can see for driven birds no problem.

Correction to the above: under current proof rules, it would not be marked as a 13/1. Rather, each barrel flat would be stamped with the bore diameter in millimeters.

I tentatively date my JB Warrilow Damascus barreled hammerless around that time period, I too find that modern shells are looser in the chamber than more modern guns. Makes for easy extraction and no problems with any splitting hulls.