Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our
community around the world.

Firearm and Gun Forums Firearm and Gun Forums Firearms Shotguns Appropriate target loads for a 1924 nitro proofed double

  • Appropriate target loads for a 1924 nitro proofed double

     Tony updated 10 months ago 2 Members · 2 Posts
  • Tony

    December 17, 2019 at 9:33 pm

    Some of you might remember my [post]( last week showcasing my new (to me) side by side. I’m now ready to get some ammo and have some fun at a sporting clays event next weekend.

    The proof marks indicate clearly that this shotgun was built for smokeless powder. After a thorough disassembly and cleaning, there’s no evidence of black powder. I understand the argument between smokeless vs black powder for older guns but I’m concerned with modern chamber pressures. Intuition tells me that power pressure smokeless loads will benefit the longevity of the gun, but I’ve also read conflicting information online citing the way that old smokeless powders were mixed.

    Can anyone suggest an appropriate load for me? I’ve been thinking about [these]( RST MaxiLites but I found some 2 3/4” Estate 1 1/8oz No. 8 shells at Sportsman’s Warehouse today that fire around 1145 FPS, only 20 FPS higher than the RST’s.

  • bscepter

    December 17, 2019 at 9:33 pm

    I have a c. 1912 Belgian double-barrel 12 bore side-by-side that’s proofed for nitro powder, and I use [these]( without issue. As long as you have fluid steel barrels (not Damascus), you should be fine—so long as there aren’t any cracks or serious dents or bulges. BTW, I love paper shells. Partially for environmental reasons, partially because they’re a bit old-school and partially because they smell great. Weird, I know.

  • SnoozingBasset

    December 17, 2019 at 9:33 pm

    FPS does not equate directly to low pressure. There are loads at 1200 FPS with 7000 psi and other 1200 FPS at 10,000 psi. SAAMI pressures have not changed over time for smokeless powder, but you may want low pressure loads because you want less recoil on your 100 yr old wood

Reply to: Tony
Your information:

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018