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

Submitted for your consideration, and without editorial comment, by CC/dt

LC Smith

Too bad there ISN'T some editorial comment or pertinent facts included. Like if there was a 20 ga. shell dropped in ahead of the 12 ga. shell? Why it has an unfinished stock attached? Why the edges of the blow-out appear to have been painted gold? Some detail about what really happened? I don't believe is was a normal, properly loaded 2-3/4" cartridge, fired in a normal, healthy 2-1/2" chamber. Where's Paul Harvey when we need him? There has to be more to the story than a 2-3/4" shell in a 2-1/2"
chamber!
I'm not suggesting that anyone fire 2-3/4" shells in chambers shorter than 2-3/4". I don't give a rat's recoil pad what others do. Parker, in their own literature, said best performance would be obtained by firing 2-3/4" shells in 2-5/8" chambers, but what did Parker know? We've got people who worry about the wisdom of firing 2-3/4" shells in 3" chambers, fercrysake! Truth is, I lengthen my chambers to 2-3/4" because I can. Wall thickness permitting, of course.

Dogfox is 100% right.

I have to laugh at the way so many shooters flock to Sherman Bell as if he's the Second Coming.

I won't comment as to whether or not his 'findings' are ultimately valid or not - that's because I don't know. Neither does he.

I assume all the guys who take Bell's articles as hard fact have no background in mathematics, statistics, engineering, science, or production. 'Cuz if they did they would immediately spot that his work is meaningless as it ignores the basic rules of statistics and science.

I'd type more but I'm too busy; I'm in the process of writing a new set of rules for physics that will be very popular as they are a lot more forgiving than the current ones.

Just up from the Workshop...Feeding time for the Dirty-Hands Brigade!!Thanks to Dr.Drew for posting my Pic'I did'nt give himm all the 'Gen' on the Photo,, That one is of course is what was left of a 'Trap' LCSmith that had a 2.3/4" Re-Load that had had a DB load of shot stuffed into it for Indiana 'Turki' shootin' The Pic'I dont seem to be able to locate is 'Bloody Spectacular', Peter Nelson, Formerly of Purdeys Now 'Supremo Number 1 in the London Gun Trade(He is so Old now) sent me a photo of a 'Mint Condition Boss 12 bore c late 1930s,2.1/2"chamber, 1.1/8th oz Proof..it has just as much of the Breech Blown away!!!!If memory serves...A Spanish Chappie was Merrily stuffing 2.3/4" High-Brass Cartridges into the Breech for a 'Couple of Days'..Ducking in Spain...Costly"Error". I would think that if you have a Gun that is Chambered & Proofed for 2.1/2"x1.1/8oz and the weight is from 5,12, to 6.8oz...WHY shoot 2.3/4" I always like to see the look of Suprise on the face of a 'Shooter that has just Proofed their gun, and it 'Failed"....cc

Laughing is good for all of us. I don't take Sherman Bell as the "second coming" at all. I'm not sure I believe there was a "first coming". I DO however, give him a lot of credit for doing what the titles of his articles state: "Finding out for Myself". He's not simply a parrot, as most gun writers are, repeating "conventional wisdom" blindly, without ever testing anything for themselves. I'll be content to accept his findings, being just an ignorant mechanic, who spent my adult career making the creations of engineers, work.
BTW, "Conventional Wisdom" is not wisdom at all, it's on the same level as "old wives tales" and "urban legends". Often repeated BS is still BS.

I give him credit for experimenting - we all like to tinker. It's all the people who accept his results as fact that I question.

Here's the problem with Bell's research. He's using a sample group that is considered statistically insignificant. That's the death knell for any scientific 'fact'. Also, I haven't read his articles in a long time but I don't recall any of his means of measurement as being calibrated.

So, he's not measuring enough guns and he's using (probably) gauges and whatnot that may or may not be accurate.

Bell isn't blindly accepting conventional wisdom? If you are blindly accepting Bell's results then I guess I don't see the difference?

I put his articles in the 'interesting but anecdotal' column.

The picture posted by Revdocdrew, is also shown on page 89 of "Shotgun Technicana" and is, as David said, of an L. C. Smith that was blown up by a faulty reload containing a "double" load of shot? In any case, it has nothing to do with the topic of long shells in short chambers.

To further remind those who may need reminding, Sherman's conclusion was that firing a 2-3/4" shell in a 2-1/2" chamber, WHEN THE SHELL WAS OF A PRESSURE LEVEL THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE IN THE GUN AT HAND, would not likely be danger. Firing shells producing much higher pressures than what would be appropriate for the gun at hand is of course, dangerous, but not because of the shorter chamber length. We all are reminded to keep pressures lower for our older guns, regardless of chamber match or mismatch. That is the really important thing, here. Be safe.
Lots of room between being reasonable/safe and being paranoid.

Dogfox and GregSY continue to parrot the 'conventional wisdom'.

The funny thing is that this 'wisdom' is backed up by nothing other than people/gunwriters/shooters repeating a lot of faulty information for 5+ decades.

I have a series of articles published in the American Rifleman in the 1930's during the establishment of the SAAMI standards. Many comments concerning chamber length, all saying it was basically irrelevant. PRESSURE is important and case length only if it has an affect on PRESSURE.

The reason for those warning on shell boxes is that with the establishment of SAMMI standards the service pressure for shotshells was increased dramatically compared to earlier shotshells.

GregSY, I don't think you are referring to the same Sherman Bell testing that the rest of us are. We are referring to the testing he did on the pressure readings of various lengths of shells in identified chambers. You are apparently referring to his articles on blowing up guns. That is not what is being discussed here.

As far as statistics go,how many samples does one need? A match factory wanted to sell very good matches. So,before a match could leave the factory, it had to light off. 100% test; no customers. Looking down the barrel of a loaded .357 and pulling the trigger generally only needs one sample to be significant. So, instead of saying statistics, how about mentioning degrees of freedom etc. and all that one wants before dismissing an experiment?