doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com TOM ROSTER'S COLUMN

Tom Roster's column in the latest Shooting Sportsman, titled "Worries" left me disappointed and wondering if someone else had written the column for him. I've been a long-time fan of Tom's writings and opinions but this one left me wondering. He starts off with the blanket statement that firing a 2-3/4" 12 ga. shell in a 2-1/2" chamber will cause "at least a 1500 psi" increase in pressure. Doesn't say how he determined this, though. It doesn't jibe with Sherman Bell's real testing, as we know. He goes on to state positively that this increase in pressure will automatically cause increased recoil. He doesn't say it increases velocity and I'm sure he doesn't know that, either. However, if the velocity doesn't increase, recoil will not. Pressure doesn't cause recoil and therefore can't increase it unless it also causes increased velocity. All but the most hard-headed among us knows that. I don't know if Tom ever looks in on this fine board but I am still a fan and still respect MOST of what he says. This one let me down.

"It doesn't jibe with Sherman Bell's real testing, as we know."

Yep, and Bell's writings doen't jive with the warning statements that reputable ammo makers put on their boxes... don't fire these shells in guns that aren't chambered for them.

All this long shell in short chamber stuff reminds me of the farmer who walked in back of his contrary mule 1000 times, no problem. Then one day the mule kicked him and broke his leg. Farmer says afterwards, gee, he never did that before.

Roster's column may have been edited, and the content spoiled or made to read poorly.
Roster normally talks sense.
There is a reason to not shoot cases longer than the chamber length.
I think there are more people heeding this advice than those following Sherman's theory.
'The other board' is well fired up debating Roster at the moment.

Dogfox, Bell doesn't say "Shoot 'em". He merely presents hard technical results of real pressure testing. He allows us to draw our own conclusions based on his test results. The "ammo makers" have never presented us with any test results beyond velocity figures. So, in reality, Bell's articles are not in conflict with the ammo companies preach, just a presentation of interesting information and research.

The majority of people are non-scientific sorts. They'll skim through an article, read a sentence here and there and make conclusions from limited data. Most also want to hear what they already believe right or wrong. Check out the comments, in effect that Roster is screwed up, on a few of the gun web sites.

It never ceases to amaze me. The big cartridge companies put warnings on the box not to shoot the shells if your gun isn't chambered for them. But people with nothing more than a high school education or maybe a liberal arts degree think they know more than the ballisticians and engineers at Winchester, Federal, etc. As far as sharing test results yesterday I used some muriatic acid to clean up masonry. The bottle had a warning on it not to spill on the skin, consume it, etc. No test results were shown by the supplier. Do you think I should heed the warning, make my own conclusions, or blow it off?

Bell does give extensive test results in his articles but I don't know if they follow an accepted scientific methodology, SAAMI procedures, etc. Until someone reconciles the different messages sent by Bell as compared with SAAMI, shell companies and Roster, I think I'll use caution and follow the latters' warnings.

Hi,
I don't disagree with either Jim or Dog, but don't think for 1 NY minute that the ballisticians & engineers at Winchester decide what warnings are listed on the box. It is the legal department trying to avoid any legal exdposure possible, it does not really matter if the facts show elevated risk or not.

Jeff G.

Yep. You are right. The legal department wants to avoid getting sued by dimwits who have not been warned about shooting long shells in short chambers.

What is the "other board"?

From a Peters 16 gauge shotgun shell box circa when they converted from roll to crimped shells (1950's ?). The situation back then was not like today when litigation is the norm.

'These shotgun shells MUST NOT BE USED in guns with chambers shorter than 2-3/4", guns with Damascus or Twist Steel barrels'

Hey guys. It isn't the Depression years when money was tight. You're not in a survival situation in the wilderness and you have to shoot whatever shell you have. Why not load or buy 2.5" shells if you have a short chamber? Why take the risk.

It is always a little amazing how impervious conventional wisdom is to even reasonably analytical work like Sherman's. I can't speak with much direct knowledge about the UK, but 2.5's are virtually unobtainable in Germany and Austria. Based on my experiences, I would suspect a third to a quarter of the guns on any given drive hunt are 67mm sxs's or drillings. They are all now, and have been for a generation, happily digesting 2 3/4 field loads. Don't even know a war story about one giving way.

Sure, it is "better" to use 2.5's in a 2.5 chamber, but the real thing to pay attention to is pressure and, hence, load.