Jump to content

Older Browning's and Steel Shot


Bear68
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm tempted by a Browning B25 built in 1977. It's choked 1/4 and 3/4. Browning's website advises not to use steel shot in any of their older fixed choke guns. Is this merely because many are tighter than the recommended maximum of 1/2 choke, or is more to do with other issues (choke profile etc.)? It's a nice looking gun but I'd be happier knowing that opening the tighter choke would futureproof it. Any advice would be appreciated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just be aware that is you ask advice from a manufacturer they will take a very risk averse position. Even if they are 99.99% sure the barrels would handle standard steel, they don't know what has happened to the gun since sold and would be opening them selves to huge liability. I'll give you my data point of one. 2003 Miroku MK60 taken out from 1/4 & 3/4 to 1/4 & 3/8. Many standard steel pro ecowad no3s zero issues. I would also say there is no point in reproofing even if teague keep insisting. You already own the gun so you already own the risk of damage = pointless £150.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Bear68 said:

I'm tempted by a Browning B25 built in 1977. It's choked 1/4 and 3/4. Browning's website advises not to use steel shot in any of their older fixed choke guns. Is this merely because many are tighter than the recommended maximum of 1/2 choke, or is more to do with other issues (choke profile etc.)? It's a nice looking gun but I'd be happier knowing that opening the tighter choke would futureproof it. Any advice would be appreciated. 

If you open the 3/4 to 1/2 Standard steel fine if u like the Gun buy it My friend opened a older browning to 1/2 1/2 for ducks steel shot fine in it 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bigroomboy said:

Just be aware that is you ask advice from a manufacturer they will take a very risk averse position. Even if they are 99.99% sure the barrels would handle standard steel, they don't know what has happened to the gun since sold and would be opening them selves to huge liability. I'll give you my data point of one. 2003 Miroku MK60 taken out from 1/4 & 3/4 to 1/4 & 3/8. Many standard steel pro ecowad no3s zero issues. I would also say there is no point in reproofing even if teague keep insisting. You already own the gun so you already own the risk of damage = pointless £150.

Just to say, Teague will not accept a gun for Teaguing or opening of chokes without submitting for reproofing, as their insurers won’t allow them to do so.
I know this because I’ve asked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Scully said:

Just to say, Teague will not accept a gun for Teaguing or opening of chokes without submitting for reproofing, as their insurers won’t allow them to do so.
I know this because I’ve asked. 

Scully, they did mine but it took some convincing. Multi choking requires reproof by law. Opening up a choke does not and in the case of opening to use steel shot serves no purpose as I said above and Teague should be providing better advise to their customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bigroomboy said:

Scully, they did mine but it took some convincing. Multi choking requires reproof by law. Opening up a choke does not and in the case of opening to use steel shot serves no purpose as I said above and Teague should be providing better advise to their customers.

I’ll have to enquire then, because I asked them to chop and replace the bead on one of my shotguns, stating I wouldn’t require it reproofing as I had no intention of selling it, and that if I ever changed my mind I could always either submit it then or simply ‘gift’ it. 
I was told their insurers insisted on reproofing. I didn’t bother. 
Given that the proofing process consists of proofing at the chamber, with nothing more than powder, and nothing more than burning residue passes through the muzzles, one can only consider this to be a money making exercise. 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scully said:


Given that the proofing process consists of proofing at the chamber, with nothing more than powder, and nothing more than burning residue passes through the muzzles, one can only consider this to be a money making exercise. 🤷‍♂️

Interesting.
If the process uses only powder and no weight in front of it then how is the pressure generated? 
I assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the heap of sand which I noticed in the proof chamber during my visit to the proof house was to stop the shot. 
Dunno?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, London Best said:

Interesting.
If the process uses only powder and no weight in front of it then how is the pressure generated? 
I assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the heap of sand which I noticed in the proof chamber during my visit to the proof house was to stop the shot. 
Dunno?

It was my understanding that a 'load' was also used, but I'm not 100% sure and can't find any description covering 'proof load', but I did find this re black powder proof;

The British used the “service” proof for both Military (in House) and also commercial ( Proof Houses…London and Birmingham, for those guns “in trade”; Over-proof testing was done statistically on Military rifles in House. (in later years).

As to Black powder barrel proofing, two methods were used, often in combination…finer grain Powder charges, instead of the standard, coarser charge, and heavier (or several) Lead projectiles (for the Muzzle loaders, and also for cartridge Guns.)

I also don't see how pressure (of the correct magnitude for proof) is attained with no load?

Edited by JohnfromUK
Addded quotes section in italics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that the legislation does go ahead and there's nothing available that matches steel in price, then the closer we get to the effective change date and push comes to shove somebody - no, it'll be plural - some folk are going to get hurt. The shooting associations should realise this fact and ensure that the Government are aware of this so that sufficient appropriate guidance can be published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, London Best said:

Interesting.
If the process uses only powder and no weight in front of it then how is the pressure generated? 
I assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the heap of sand which I noticed in the proof chamber during my visit to the proof house was to stop the shot. 
Dunno?

Then I may well be wrong, but was led to believe no shot passes through the muzzle. 🤷‍♂️

Will do some digging.
Ive mentioned before, that if steel shot proofing consisted of passing a certain load through a certain constriction, we wouldn’t be playing the guessing game we currently are. 
Just a thought. 

Edited by Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...