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

I noticed the shell is loose in the chambers of my 12 gauge hammer.I have shot it and it shot well.Is this common?Someone mentioned brass shells maybe they made them thicker? It also has a 13 stamped on the barrels. What's that all about?
Monty

Who made the gun? What was the year of production?

I believe the 13 stamp is for bore which would be .710.

JDW is correct on the standard bore size for a gun marked 13. However, that shouldn't make any difference as far as chamber size goes. Wonder if maybe some honing was done at some point?

It's a W C Scott 1887 Damascus black powder prof. I will measure today the diameter of the chamber for the shell if I get some time. I measured the bores and by my measurement it's .735 which I assume means it's been honed.But what I I guess I don't understand about the 13 is what was the theory of the 13 gauge.More metal to hone?It also has a tiny 13 over a 14m which I think means choke but it goes from .735 to wider when it gets to the the end of the breach.

The 13 is bore diameter, the 14 is muzzle diameter. It was the early way mark a choked barrel.
As stated earlier a 13 bore would be .710 originally. If you are at .735 the the barrels have had 25 thou honed out. In countries with Proof Houses, anything greater than 8 thou (used to be 10) is out of proof and cannot be sold until reproved.
The USA has no such rules.
Here, if the walls are thick enough (most of us think 20 thou is the go, no-go thickness), we bang away with low pressure shells. 20 thou brings up much debate that can be located on previous threads about wall thickness.
Back to your question. If the bores were honed out 25 thou, it is safe to assume the chambers got some "cleaning up" as well which would account for the looseness.
Does it split hulls?

Joe

I've never heard of "cleaning up" chambers.....

If the gun functions fine then you are worried over nothing as far as the loose feeling shell.

Homeless
I think you are right.This is new to me and I have never paid attention to how loose shell go into the chamber but they all are loose in the chamber. It measures .080 which is what another newer gun I shoot measures. I guess I am trying to make sure I'm safe. The shells do not split. I think I am worrying about nothing as long as I shoot black powder.
Monty

"As long as I shoot black powder"....I'm not following you ?

Well it indicates to me that the bores and chamber may have had metal removed to clean up the pitting.
I'd have the barrel walls measured for thickness.
Just me, though.
Mike

Russ used to use a 10 bore brass shell to make a 12 bore chamber in a 10 gauge gun. How loose is that chamber???
bill

I think you meant to write .800 not .080. That would be about right, as some early 1900 chambers were .811 tapering to .797 in 2 3/4". For shorter chambers I still believe it would be a .014 taper.

HOmeless

It's black powder proff

sorry yo you are correct .800 or .810

I was overhearing a pawnbroker some years ago trying to sell a wall-hanger hammer SXS 12 ga to a customer:

"It'll be fine if you just shoot skeet shells in this gun" !
Yeah, really.

So jeweller thinks he is safe shooting black powder shells in this possibly unsafe gun, because it has black powder proff?

Yeah, really

Mike

I would have wall thicknesses measured before I shot it. Particularly at the end of the chamber and the 10" beyone that.

If you don't have a wall thickness gauge I recommend you find a gunsmith with one.

I hope Larry Brown doesn't read this thread.

Best,

Mike

Note that the 13 mark does not say it had a .710" bore. It says it would accept a .710" diameter plug gauge to a depth of 9" from the breech, but would not accept the next larger gauge to that depth. Prior to 1887 this would have been the 12 @ .729", After 1887 it would have been a 13/1 @ .719". The bore dia could thus have been anywhere betwee the two measurements. With the 13B/14M marks it may well have been proffed prior to the new rules adding the between sises were enacted. It could have been very close to a 12ga bore, but not accept the .729" plug & still be proofed as a 13.
It was many years after this before actual bore diameters began to be marked, rather that the "Range".

Miller, I have a WW Greener, circa 1892 that has 13 on the receiver. Am I correct in your saying that it was not a .710 bore, as there are no other numbers there?

The right bore is .727 and the left is .728. I hope that is the case as it would make me feel better about the bores.
The chokes measure .009 in right and .034 in left.
It is kind of scary looking at the muzzle end.

The barrels measure 27 1/8" and the gun weighs 6 lbs. even.

Mike
You missed my earlier thread but the gun is black powder proffed. Not nitro.I had previously measured the barrels and came up with app .050 thickness eight inches from the breach which seemed incorrect to me.Today I recieved a Brownells barrel thickness gauge. The thinnest I can get out of the gauge it .025 getting thicker near the breach but I am going to have to lock the gauge to a wall to be a little more exact.I didn't have much of a chance to work with it. In the mean time I'll take your advise and just shoot skeet shot.
Monty

NO! Monty do not shoot skeet shells in it!!
I just gave the pawnbroker illustration that the pawnbroker thought the skeet shells were "low pressure" as opposed to Canuck 2 3/4" high brass hunting loads and would be safe to shoot on the clapped out hammer gun. NOT SO!
Good heavens, someone chip in here and help me out please!
Mike

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.