Older Browning's and Steel Shot

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, Scully said:

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. 

Understand the thought ............ but the difficulties are in having a 'standard proof' shot size and wadding protection.  I think short of putting lots of complex and ultimately restrictive specifications on 'the load' (comprising shot and wadding/barrel protection cup), it would be hard to know quite what you had tested for ............. which sort of leaves us where we are!

My current understanding is that HP proof is a much more heavy duty (i.e. higher pressure) version of standard proof (higher than the old magnum pressure). 

[wymberley]

54 minutes ago, Scully said:

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. 

A clue might be 4.6mm

[Scully]

The following is all I can find ( admit it isn’t an exhaustive search but is from the Proof House website ) regarding ‘loads’, which isn’t specific at all and relates simply to that which is deemed suitable to meet rule 27. 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Scully

[London Best]

Rule 23b seems to say that projectiles will be used?

[Scully]

8 minutes ago, London Best said:

Rule 23b seems to say that projectiles will be used?

Yes, it does. Projectiles are referred to several times, but nothing more specific other than those deemed suitable to meet rule 27. 
Nothing about shot size, nor what that shot is made from. 
One would assume that the projectiles used in non steel loads would be lead, whereas those used for HP steel loads would be steel, but who knows? 
No mention of shot size so can we assume that is based on projectile weight? If so, then as steel is lighter than lead it simply begs further questions. 

[Dave at kelton]

Hopefully this is a simple question to answer on this point. Has anyone taken a modern but not steel proofed Browning and the equivalent steel proofed model and compared barrel dimensions such as wall thickness, chamber cones and choke cones to see if there is any difference? 

[Scully]

15 minutes ago, Dave at kelton said:

Hopefully this is a simple question to answer on this point. Has anyone taken a modern but not steel proofed Browning and the equivalent steel proofed model and compared barrel dimensions such as wall thickness, chamber cones and choke cones to see if there is any difference? 

No idea I’m afraid. But I know someone who bought a very modern Browning which stated ‘lead only’ was to be used, who then went on to have it Teagued and proofed for HP steel loads. 
Also, I recently mentioned a review of the new Miroku Mk60 high bird gun, also not steel shot proofed. The RFD ( gunsmith?) advised having it steel sho proofed and Teagued. 
Modern steel shot proofed guns are made no differently than non steel shot proofed guns. Unless someone knows differently of course. 🙂

[Old farrier]

12 minutes ago, Scully said:

Yes, it does. Projectiles are referred to several times, but nothing more specific other than those deemed suitable to meet rule 27. 
Nothing about shot size, nor what that shot is made from. 
One would assume that the projectiles used in non steel loads would be lead, whereas those used for HP steel loads would be steel, but who knows? 
No mention of shot size so can we assume that is based on projectile weight? If so, then as steel is lighter than lead it simply begs further questions. 

Q. Like how do they fit it into the gun 

where do they get a long enough protective wad to fit the steel shot into 

and a few more questions that they couldn’t answer 

ill use the 3 inch 410 for the question 

In order to get the extra powder wad some sort of barrel protection cup extra shot (more as steel is lighter) how can this be achieved with a 3 inch chamber 

I can only imagine that they are just putting a higher pressure cartridge with a fibre wad and lead shot ( not a 2..or ..3 steel shot) hp steel to generate higher chamber pressure and not measuring it at the choke where the extra pressure is a problem 

seems to me that the proof test is done on a lot of theoretical grounds and needs a radical overhaul before they can make the use of lead illegal with the substitute being steel 

food for thought 🤔🤔

[Scully]

4 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Q. Like how do they fit it into the gun 

where do they get a long enough protective wad to fit the steel shot into 

and a few more questions that they couldn’t answer 

ill use the 3 inch 410 for the question 

In order to get the extra powder wad some sort of barrel protection cup extra shot (more as steel is lighter) how can this be achieved with a 3 inch chamber 

I can only imagine that they are just putting a higher pressure cartridge with a fibre wad and lead shot ( not a 2..or ..3 steel shot) hp steel to generate higher chamber pressure and not measuring it at the choke where the extra pressure is a problem 

seems to me that the proof test is done on a lot of theoretical grounds and needs a radical overhaul before they can make the use of lead illegal with the substitute being steel 

food for thought 🤔🤔

Indeed. One could be forgiven for having the impression that none of those proposing a lead shot ban ( or even a voluntary phase out of lead shot 😉 ) had either not thought it through properly, panicked, didn’t consider smaller bores, or simply didn’t care! Makes you wonder doesn’t it? 
All seems very amateurish to me. 

[Dave at kelton]

22 minutes ago, Scully said:

No idea I’m afraid. But I know someone who bought a very modern Browning which stated ‘lead only’ was to be used, who then went on to have it Teagued and proofed for HP steel loads. 
Also, I recently mentioned a review of the new Miroku Mk60 high bird gun, also not steel shot proofed. The RFD ( gunsmith?) advised having it steel sho proofed and Teagued. 
Modern steel shot proofed guns are made no differently than non steel shot proofed guns. Unless someone knows differently of course. 🙂

I too suspect the answer is there is no difference as I have pointed out in respect of guns shot in North America but would like a definitive answer if someone can provide it. The practical experience is that shooting steel is neither damaging guns or maiming shooters or we would have heard about it. This question should be an easy factual answer by someone in the gun trade who is not looking to line their pockets by selling the latest steel proofed guns.

[Old farrier]

33 minutes ago, Scully said:

Indeed. One could be forgiven for having the impression that none of those proposing a lead shot ban ( or even a voluntary phase out of lead shot 😉 ) had either not thought it through properly, panicked, didn’t consider smaller bores, or simply didn’t care! Makes you wonder doesn’t it? 
All seems very amateurish to me. 

Very amateurish indeed 🙄

seems the proof houses are sat in a ivory tower with no intention of being open with the rest of the world as iv said before and apologies for repeating it 

if lead is banned lead proof will become obsolete 

therefor there needs to be a new rule for the proof of shotguns and they will need to be tested without using lead projectiles or lead shot 

proof to fire HP steel in my opinion would mean actually firing it through the gun 

not as it is at the moment where we assume that they use a proof load containing steel when they don’t actually appear to be doing so 

just my thoughts 

[Scully]

15 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Very amateurish indeed 🙄

seems the proof houses are sat in a ivory tower with no intention of being open with the rest of the world as iv said before and apologies for repeating it 

if lead is banned lead proof will become obsolete 

therefor there needs to be a new rule for the proof of shotguns and they will need to be tested without using lead projectiles or lead shot 

proof to fire HP steel in my opinion would mean actually firing it through the gun 

not as it is at the moment where we assume that they use a proof load containing steel when they don’t actually appear to be doing so 

just my thoughts 

Can’t argue with any of that. 

[Fil]

On 23/11/2023 at 21:26, 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. 

So much disinformation out there. You can certainly use steel in these Brownings and any gun proofed post 1955. (that's the proof house's own advice) BTW. I shoot it in my Edwardian guns when I have to as the barrels are in great condition. So many people on here are still panicking. The fact is other shot will come out like Bio Ammo that works like lead and you carry on as normal. Steel was the quick fix. If you do use steel, best get the 3/4 choke bored to around modified (3/8ths). Seems a good pattern. Buy a lovely gun at a bargain while you can. 

Signed

A gun barrel maker

[Fil]

On 25/11/2023 at 17:25, Scully said:

No idea I’m afraid. But I know someone who bought a very modern Browning which stated ‘lead only’ was to be used, who then went on to have it Teagued and proofed for HP steel loads. 
Also, I recently mentioned a review of the new Miroku Mk60 high bird gun, also not steel shot proofed. The RFD ( gunsmith?) advised having it steel sho proofed and Teagued. 
Modern steel shot proofed guns are made no differently than non steel shot proofed guns. Unless someone knows differently of course. 🙂

You're right. When I was at Holland and Holland our guns were all made to the same spec. It was the customers that asked for 70mm, 76mm, steel proof etc. The guns were all the same. The ONLY change was with barrel making and chokes. When I (a barrel maker) was given an order for a pair of barrels the order may specify steel shot, 3" magnum, etc. So I left extra wall thickness around the chokes and gave more "lead in" to the chokes for steel. Negated choke ring bulge. But the whole gun was the same otherwise. You can deepen the chambers of a 70mm chamber Browning and it should successfully pass HP steel shot proof provided the gun is fit for proof in the first place. 

[London Best]

At last!  
Common sense from somebody who really does know what he is talking about. 
Listen to this man.

[Fil]

On 25/11/2023 at 11:59, 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?

That heap of sand was where they used to lay the muzzle loaders and gun barrels that were in for barrel proof (provisional proof) with black powder and light it off. I'm not sure they do that nowadays for health and safety reasons. I was always wondering why my barrels were coming back with sand on them until I asked Jeff at the London proof house. 

They do proof with shot. That's the other half of the purpose. Pressure is one. And shot passing through the choke is another. If we didn't bore our tight chokes properly there was a slight possibility of a small ring bulge at the choke resulting in a failure of proof. 

[Fil]

8 hours ago, London Best said:

At last!  
Common sense from somebody who really does know what he is talking about. 
Listen to this man.

Cheers mate. Just trying to help people understand things.

FYI: Regarding reproof mentioned. When I was in the London trade we were told a "proof" load was roughly 2 and a half times more powerful than a standard load. (putting in layman's terms) I'm not sure if it is still today. 

[Bear68]

@FilThank you for your advice, it's appreciated. 

[wymberley]

17 hours ago, Fil said:

Cheers mate. Just trying to help people understand things.

FYI: Regarding reproof mentioned. When I was in the London trade we were told a "proof" load was roughly 2 and a half times more powerful than a standard load. (putting in layman's terms) I'm not sure if it is still today. 

This is where it could all get confusing, again because of the use of incorrect terminology, as we're talking steel shot. Historically, we in the UK have always used 'service' as the term for our 'working' pressure terminology. 'Isn't 'Standard' a term which applies to steel shot, the other being 'High Performance' (HP). As I understand it, the service and proof pressures for lead and 'standard' steel shot are the same for both materials. We now come under CIP rules and our everyday terminology relates to proof pressures. The 'proof' pressures for lead (magnum, superior, call it what you will and are dependent upon the nature of the test pressures used) and steel are not, the steel being higher. The use of layman's terms would explain why the (imported) guns are so damned heavy.

[Dave at kelton]

Well done Fil for stepping in and giving practical advice based on your considerable experience. .” Panic” just about sums it all up. 

[London Best]

55 minutes ago, wymberley said:

This is where it could all get confusing, again because of the use of incorrect terminology, as we're talking steel shot. Historically, we in the UK have always used 'service' as the term for our 'working' pressure terminology. 'Isn't 'Standard' a term which applies to steel shot, the other being 'High Performance' (HP). As I understand it, the service and proof pressures for lead and 'standard' steel shot are the same for both materials. We now come under CIP rules and our everyday terminology relates to proof pressures. The 'proof' pressures for lead (magnum, superior, call it what you will and are dependent upon the nature of the test pressures used) and steel are not, the steel being higher. The use of layman's terms would explain why the (imported) guns are so damned heavy.

Trust you to confuse the issue!

[Scully]

59 minutes ago, wymberley said:

This is where it could all get confusing, again because of the use of incorrect terminology, as we're talking steel shot. Historically, we in the UK have always used 'service' as the term for our 'working' pressure terminology. 'Isn't 'Standard' a term which applies to steel shot, the other being 'High Performance' (HP). As I understand it, the service and proof pressures for lead and 'standard' steel shot are the same for both materials. We now come under CIP rules and our everyday terminology relates to proof pressures. The 'proof' pressures for lead (magnum, superior, call it what you will and are dependent upon the nature of the test pressures used) and steel are not, the steel being higher. The use of layman's terms would explain why the (imported) guns are so damned heavy.

It only needs to be as confusing as people want to make it. 
It has been established you can safely use steel through any nitro proofed gun. 
It has been established you can submit any nitro proofed gun for steel shot proofing. 
It has been established nitro proofed guns are made no differently to those proofed for HP steel. 
I think a lot of ‘muddying of the waters’ is a result of the deliberate reluctance of some to let go. I can totally understand that, but lead is going and it isn’t coming back. People need to get used to that, and move on. 
 

[wymberley]

59 minutes ago, Scully said:

It only needs to be as confusing as people want to make it. 
It has been established you can safely use steel through any nitro proofed gun. 
It has been established you can submit any nitro proofed gun for steel shot proofing. 
It has been established nitro proofed guns are made no differently to those proofed for HP steel. 
I think a lot of ‘muddying of the waters’ is a result of the deliberate reluctance of some to let go. I can totally understand that, but lead is going and it isn’t coming back. People need to get used to that, and move on. 
 

Ooh, I say I am sorry. Didn't mean to confuse anyone.

Certainly not like posting to the effect that apparently there's no shot in a proof cartridge.

Or posting that a proof pressure is 2.5 times that of the service pressure.

[Scully]

6 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Ooh, I say I am sorry. Didn't mean to confuse anyone.

Certainly not like posting to the effect that apparently there's no shot in a proof cartridge.

Or posting that a proof pressure is 2.5 times that of the service pressure.

I said at the time I couldn’t find anything relating to ‘shot’ in a proof cartridge, and readily admitted there was shot involved on further searching. 

I have no idea what the proof pressure is, but I look forward to your response from the proof house; after all, it would seem it is only they who can answer your queries satisfactorily. 
I also look forward to your response to LB, as you responded to mine; it was he who said you were confusing ‘the issue’. 
The statements in my previous post remain relevant, but that isn’t what you want, is it. 
What exactly is it that you want? 
 

[Gordon R]

Scully - I will be interested to read the reply. 🙂