The Steel Shot Shotgun

[Fil]

21 hours ago, Feltwad said:

Steel shot will mark the end of an  era  for  the Damascus barrel muzzle loaders and early hammer guns and a important part of a gun heritage.

Feltwad

BioAmmo? For hammer guns that is. 

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, Are you talking Wear and Tear on Barrels or what a non steel Shotgun is capable of using, Most i read is using no more than half choke but this only goes in Standard steel Cartridges, I am sure it would not be wise to use High Velocity unless proofed for, I presume you can get Standard Steel game cartridges ?, and from another post it looks like old Hammer guns etc may become obsolete 

[old'un]

48 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, Are you talking Wear and Tear on Barrels or what a non steel Shotgun is capable of using, Most i read is using no more than half choke but this only goes in Standard steel Cartridges, I am sure it would not be wise to use High Velocity unless proofed for, I presume you can get Standard Steel game cartridges ?, and from another post it looks like old Hammer guns etc may become obsolete 

Obsolete? I don't think English guns owned by those who spend £2k-£3k and more on a days game shooting will worry to much about the cost of 100 bismuth/tungsten cartridges, the lead shot ban will have little effect on the wealthy.

[London Best]

1 hour ago, old'un said:

Obsolete? I don't think English guns owned by those who spend £2k-£3k and more on a days game shooting will worry to much about the cost of 100 bismuth/tungsten cartridges, the lead shot ban will have little effect on the wealthy.

I am not a ‘wealthy’ man. I have never earned big money, always just under the national average. But I saved well and invested wisely, so now, in retirement, I can afford to shoot driven game on a fairly modest scale. It is the only thing I want to spend my money on.
My days cost between £400 and £800. Using bismuth cartridges through my lightweight English guns will, on average, increase the cost of my day’s sport by about £50 or roughly 10%. 
I will not be giving up shooting for that.

[old'un]

36 minutes ago, London Best said:

I am not a ‘wealthy’ man. I have never earned big money, always just under the national average. But I saved well and invested wisely, so now, in retirement, I can afford to shoot driven game on a fairly modest scale. It is the only thing I want to spend my money on.
My days cost between £400 and £800. Using bismuth cartridges through my lightweight English guns will, on average, increase the cost of my day’s sport by about £50 or roughly 10%. 
I will not be giving up shooting for that.

Good for you, as you say an extra £50 on a days game shooting is not a lot, plus it allows you to keep using your English guns but when I say wealthy I mean people who shoot five or six days or more at £2k-£3k.

I don't think your average pigeon shooter is going to be using his English guns on a days pigeon shooting, a bit of walked up using bismuth/tungsten cartridges maybe.

[London Best]

4 hours ago, old'un said:

Good for you, as you say an extra £50 on a days game shooting is not a lot, plus it allows you to keep using your English guns but when I say wealthy I mean people who shoot five or six days or more at £2k-£3k.

I don't think your average pigeon shooter is going to be using his English guns on a days pigeon shooting, a bit of walked up using bismuth/tungsten cartridges maybe.

‘Wealthy’?
Five days at £2k is £10k per season. Lots and lots of ordinary working men spend more than that each and every season. I try to keep my cost under that. I know plumbers, carpenters and digger drivers who spend more. 
‘Wealthy’ people are the ones who don’t count the cost and I know people who spend £50k plus each season.

I have spent many days in a pigeon hide with an English gun, all be it a box lock non-ejector. Why wouldn’t you?

[EnfieldLock]

On 01/01/2025 at 17:39, enfieldspares said:

It is however not the whole picture this "overall pressure". The pressure curve is different. That is the pressure gets higher, quicker, with cartridges loaded for steel shot. This means that the action is stressed more than with powders used in lead shot loaded cartridges where the burn takes place over a longer time. Therefore a gun used for steel shot is likely to go off the face sooner than if used with lead shot. 

I find this puzzling (not saying you're wrong, just that I'm puzzled!).  I'd have thought that the inertia of an ounce of lead would be the same as the inertia of an ounce of steel;  and that, if the steel and lead cartridges have the same weight and grade of powder, that the pressure build-up as the powder burns and accelerates the shot up the barrel would be the same - as the only difference between the two is the physical volume (an ounce of steel shot being much bulkier than an ounce of lead).  Or am I missing something important?

[old'un]

1 hour ago, London Best said:

‘Wealthy’?
Five days at £2k is £10k per season. Lots and lots of ordinary working men spend more than that each and every season. I try to keep my cost under that. I know plumbers, carpenters and digger drivers who spend more. 
‘Wealthy’ people are the ones who don’t count the cost and I know people who spend £50k plus each season.

I have spent many days in a pigeon hide with an English gun, all be it a box lock non-ejector. Why wouldn’t you? useing bismuth/tungsten cartridges?

so why do we hear so many ordinary working men complaining about the cost of shooting, or are they the poor ones.

[London Best]

Just now, old'un said:

so why do we hear so many ordinary working men complaining about the cost of shooting, or are they the poor ones.

Probably because they waste money on other things. 
I think (just my opinion) that most people are pretty stupid with money.

[Smokersmith]

34 minutes ago, old'un said:

so why do we hear so many ordinary working men complaining about the cost of shooting, or are they the poor ones.

Most folks have to earn 15k or so to get 10k disposable income.

That’s a big chunk of a lot of the average salary of £29 328 per year.

Edited Friday at 18:04 by Smokersmith

[enfieldspares]

18 hours ago, EnfieldLock said:

I find this puzzling (not saying you're wrong, just that I'm puzzled!).  I'd have thought that the inertia of an ounce of lead would be the same as the inertia of an ounce of steel;  and that, if the steel and lead cartridges have the same weight and grade of powder, that the pressure build-up as the powder burns and accelerates the shot up the barrel would be the same - as the only difference between the two is the physical volume (an ounce of steel shot being much bulkier than an ounce of lead).  Or am I missing something important?

The powder won't be the same and as the shot column is longer in one ounce of steel than in one ounce of lead the friction is more in the steel load. It doesn't intuitively make sense.

But for example from painful direct experience a loading of 4.1 grains of Nobel Pistol Powder No3 was a good safe load in a .455 Webley with a 265 grain hollow base Mk II round nose bullet. The same powder and the bullet loaded to the same seating depth with a 220 grain Mk IV bullet (the hollow base parallel sided) would bend the stirrup.

The difference was that the lighter bullet even though it weighed 20% less than the heavier bullet had a much longer bearing surface against the barrel. This may not relate directly to the steel v lead shot one ounce event you mention but it is how it worked with the two bullets as below.

https://calibremag.ca/calibres-calibre-455-webley/

Edited Saturday at 11:53 by enfieldspares

[holloway]

On 01/01/2025 at 17:39, enfieldspares said:

It is however not the whole picture this "overall pressure". The pressure curve is different. That is the pressure gets higher, quicker, with cartridges loaded for steel shot. This means that the action is stressed more than with powders used in lead shot loaded cartridges where the burn takes place over a longer time. Therefore a gun used for steel shot is likely to go off the face sooner than if used with lead shot. 

I am a little puzzled by this ,as i believed that the new powders were designed for steel shot and  not lead shot (for instance Alliant steel )so as to increase speed but reduce pressure ,we are not talking about traditional lead powders but a complete new breed of powders to enable lower pressure and faster speeds ,could you enlarge on this a little please.Surely development of new powders would have been pointless else ?

[enfieldspares]

2 minutes ago, holloway said:

I am a little puzzled by this ,as i believed that the new powders were designed for steel shot and  not lead shot (for instance Alliant steel )so as to increase speed but reduce pressure ,we are not talking about traditional lead powders but a complete new breed of powders to enable lower pressure and faster speeds ,could you enlarge on this a little please.Surely development of new powders would have been pointless else ?

All I can say is what one of the Proof House Guardians told me. That the pressure curve develops earlier and that the issue won't so much be the affect on the barrels bit that guns will go off the face sooner than with lead shot loads. 

[wymberley]

Assuming that no one is being silly by overcooking a home load, we can ignore proof pressures for this. So. assuming like for like chamber lengths which has the higher service pressure between lead standard and magnum and steel standard and high pressure steel loads?

[holloway]

1 hour ago, enfieldspares said:

All I can say is what one of the Proof House Guardians told me. That the pressure curve develops earlier and that the issue won't so much be the affect on the barrels bit that guns will go off the face sooner than with lead shot loads. 

Fair enough but maximum pressure is maximum pressure whether earlier or later in pressure curve it doesn't make any sense .well not to me anyway .🤔

Edited Friday at 23:29 by holloway

[EnfieldLock]

14 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

The powder won't be the same and as the shot column is longer in one ounce of steel than in one ounce of lead the friction is more in the steel load.

Thank you for the clarification.  Is that extra friction the reason for a different powder load for the same weight of shot - that the steel shot would need more powder to reach the same muzzle velocity?

Thanks in advance, and best regards,

Jack

[Sweet11-87]

 lead vs steel ounce for ounce  in theory should work identical all else being equal but thats the kicker all else isnt equal.   as everyone knows an ounce of lead shot is much smaller in volume than steel and to compound that steel loads are typically made from larger pellets that wont compress like lead so you will find voids and gaps as shot doesn't as readily sit together.

so 2 cartridges of the same mass of 28g for example to leave the barrel at 1300fps lets say in a 70mm package with the intention of having similar down range performance so larger steel shot

lead has 28g of  number 6 shot in a plastic wad that is 50% shot cup that has thin walls 50% compression buffer on the back ofthe wad all of this more readily compresses as the forces of burning powder expand behind it making enough space behind the wad for gas to expand as the payload begins to speed up along its way down the barrel. its the initial detonation that's the issue.  now to stuff 28g of steel 4 in to a 70mm case the wad walls are thicker and the compression buffer is smaller if their at all. so the whole payload volume is much more difficult to compress on detonation that leads to these pressure spikes.  they get round this by using slower burning powder that will no doubt  only get better but its still an issue and needs to be taken into account.

 

long winded i know and i apologies.

[enfieldspares]

9 hours ago, EnfieldLock said:

Thank you for the clarification.  Is that extra friction the reason for a different powder load for the same weight of shot - that the steel shot would need more powder to reach the same muzzle velocity?

Thanks in advance, and best regards,

Jack

I think so, yes, something to do with available powder space and friction as one ounce of steel uses up more volume than does one ounce of lead. This volume issue is why you could not safely load .357 Magnum loads in .38 Special cases (for use in a .357 Magnum chambered revolver) even though the powder charges were not filling the case. 

Edited Saturday at 18:31 by enfieldspares

[BobbyH]

Just an update for you all,

Ill try and take the Lanber for a steel shoot tomorrow after I take some before photos!

But, I am due to have a heart procedure on Thursday, so I will be out of shooting action for a few weeks after I should imagine. 
Im not mugging you all off, just bear with me untill im back up and going 🫡

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Hope it all goes well for you.   

[Scully]

Here’s to a fast and complete recovery. 
I don’t know what procedure you’re having done, but a bloke I beat and shoot with had a pacemaker (?) type thingy put in and asked if it could be placed on the left side as he shoots from the right! 🙂 

[BobbyH]

Thanks, it’s just AF Ablation 🤙

[EnfieldLock]

6 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

I think so, yes, something to do with available powder space and friction as one ounce of steel uses up more volume than does one ounce of lead. This volume issue is why you could not safely load .357 Magnum loads in .38 Special cases (for use in a .357 Magnum chambered revolver) even though the powder charges were not filling the case. 

Thanks again!

[BobbyH]

I had my first batch of 50 through this gun today. All hits and misses were normal (as I’m cack at Skeet).

The barrels are far dirtier than normal, but I’ll post up a before control photo, and an after photo of the 50, then an after cleaning photo.

[Penelope]

On 29/12/2024 at 21:59, Old farrier said:

A wonderful gesture look forward to seeing your pictures 

personally don’t think you will have a problem with it 

as there standard steel cartridge that you are using 

I should do something similar but with a side by side with choked barrels but I’m busy at the moment it’s hard to get a good picture of the bore of a gun and easier to do from the muzzle 

few pictures to try and help on your experiment best of luck looking forward to seeing how it goes 

bore measurements stock configuration gun weight proof marks attempt to take pictures of the bore note two different guns 

Nice bit of wood on the magnum, OF.