GUNS AND AMMUNITION. 



295 



months. On the whole, each has been an 

 improvement over its predecessors in qual- 

 ity as well as price, until now there is little 

 more to be asked for in this direction. It 

 is only essential that the shooter select a 

 shell that is adapted to the powder he in- 

 tends to use and that he follow the powder 

 manufacturer's directions in loading it. 



If these points are complied with it is not 

 likely there will be as many complaints of 

 bad work with gun, shell or powder, and 

 many a day in the field will be made a happy 

 one that would otherwise be filled with dis- 

 satisfaction and regrets that some other 

 load had not been used. E. H. L. 



HOW TO LOAD. 



In reading your magazine I have often 

 noticed articles on loading shells for shot 

 guns. Many of these articles are both in- 

 teresting and instructive. They are the 

 first things I look for when I get my Rec- 

 reation. This is a subject I have given 

 much thought and experiment, having 

 loaded thousands of shells. I find no 

 trouble in loading Dupont's W. A. or Gold 

 Dust when following maker's directions. 



I loaded 63 grains of another brand of 

 smokeless in a 2^5 blue rival shell, using 

 regular wadding, same as for all others. 

 Result: gun boomed like a cannon, kicked 

 like a 1,600 pound mule, burst the shells at 

 the folded rim, smoke issued from the 

 breech and made the bells ring in my ears 

 like Christmas chimes. I fancy I hear some 

 W. A. man calling out, " You didn't know 

 how to load it and used a common measure 

 and had some old trap of a gun." But the 

 powder was weighed on 4 different drug- 

 gist scales and one diamond scale, and was 

 just the amount recommended on the can 

 for medium to strong loads. Furthermore 

 it was fired in a new gun. Then I drew the 

 balance of the loads because I couldn't give 

 them away to anyone who had seen the 

 trial (some 10 to 15 members of the club), 

 and I wouldn't dare give them to anyone 

 who had not seen the trial. I reloaded with 

 54 grains, and have never seen or used a 

 more pleasant or effective load. The ex- 

 periment convinced me that the powder 

 was not uniform in pressure. If so, it could 

 not be reliable, might prove too weak or 

 too strong at some critical time, resulting 

 in lost birds, if weak, or a burst gun if too 

 strong, neither of which is particularly en- 

 chanting to a common trap shooter. Were 

 it not for the " disagreeable effluvium " that 

 arises from Gold Dust, I should prefer it 

 above all others. In ease of loading, igni- 

 tion, quickness, effectiveness, it is unsur- 

 passed; but taking all points into consid- 

 eration I am in line with a great majority 

 of the shooters who pronounce in favor of 

 Dupont. In this I do not decry other 

 brands. 



There is one point, however, which I am 

 unable to understand. That is, many rec- 

 ommend the use of an 11^ or even an 11 

 gauge wad, somewhere over the powder. 

 Others advise a 12 gauge. Now, if the 

 large wad, as most recommend, then every 

 man knows, who has ever pushed a wad 

 into a shell, that the shell is enlarged so 

 that the 12's are loose following. Again, if 

 the 12's be of any use in the propulsion of 

 the load through the barrel, why is it then 

 necessary to make use of the 11J/2 or 11? 



If the larger wads lie right, then it fol- 

 lows the smaller are little if any value ex- 

 cept to raise the shot in shell up to the 

 proper place to crimp. This is a wasted 

 trouble and a needless expense, except as 

 to the shortest shells on the market. Again, 

 all our modern made guns are said by their 

 respective makers to be suited to the use 

 of 12 wads. My experience convinces me 

 that the maker knows what he is talking 

 about; that larger wads get up a little more 

 friction on the points of contact, the shoul- 

 der and cheek of the shooter and the stock 

 of gun, but no better results are obtained 

 at the other end. Try 10 of each kind on 

 a target at 35 yards, and note results. You 

 will find equal penetration and better pat- 

 tern where all 12 gauge wads are used. 

 John H. Vernon, Sioux City, la. 



A SPECIAL RIFLE. 



Brooklyn, N. Y. 



Editor Recreation: I am pleased to see 

 Mack Miner, M. P. Dunham and others so 

 energetically fighting for the general adop- 

 tion of the smokeless rifles. Stick to it, 

 brothers; the black powder fogies will 

 come around after a while. 



I used a Winchester .30-40 when in Idaho 

 last year and found it an improvement over 

 my .50-110 single shot of the same make. 

 Still, it left much to be desired; its chief 

 shortcomings being a short point blank 

 range and lack of shocking power at long 

 distance. 



It held up fairly well at 250 yards and was 

 a good killer at that distance; but at 500 

 yards the ball, having lost a great deal of 

 its initial velocity — 2,000 foot seconds — had 

 little smashing effect. This summer, hav- 

 ing rid myself of the .30, I had a gun built 

 which, but for its weight, would be ideal. 

 Being made to stand excessive charges of 

 smokeless powder, it is rather heavy — 

 about g]/ 2 pounds, unloaded. The weapon 

 is of the revolving magazine type, and the 

 product of a maker comparatively unknown 

 among sportsmen — mainly because he does 

 not advertise in RECREATION. 



Its calibre is .40, and its load 75 grains of 

 Wettern smokeless powder with a 300 grain 

 metal patched bullet. The velocity of the 

 bullet has never been tested, but, judging 

 by trajectory and penetration, it must be 



