Mabch 6, 1884.] 



FORfiST AND STREAM. 



105 



and will open it about March 1. with a fine line of guns, 

 fishing tackle, etc. Mr. Havens has made himself very 

 popular indeed during his residence in Detroit, and in his 

 new location, which is a fine one. he will no doubt do a large 

 business. Delta. 



Detroit, Feb, 83. 



THE PERFORMANCE OF SHOTGUNS. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



In an editorial note Feb. 21 you truly say that the com- 

 parison of muzzleloaders and the breechloaders is a dead 

 issue, but a comparison of the shooting qualities bf the two 

 guns will certainly bring about just the discussion you sug- 

 gest— "the relation of 'experiments and tests in loading to 

 secure pattern and penetration." 



My experience in hunting, shooting and experimenting 

 runs back for thirty-five years. It has been with all kinds 

 of u'uns. from -the' old Continental flint-lock musket to the 

 best breechloaders of the day. I now own three breechload- 

 ers made by myself for the especial purpose of experiment- 

 ing. One is a single barrel 3-horo, weight 11 pounds, in 

 which I use one-inch Gatling-gun brass shells; no paper shell 

 enough are made. One is a single 10-bore, 14 pounds, 

 and the third a 20-bore, 11 pounds. 1 design conducting a 

 series ot experiments some time this spring and will give 

 you the results. With all my practical experience 1 do not 

 claim to be authority, hut what I have to say are my own 

 convictions, based on the results of many practical tests. 

 and simply give them as such. 



The old saying "as straight as a gun barrel" certainly had 

 no reference to very many of our modern double breech- 

 loaders, for not one i'n ten has straight barrels! I refer to the 

 inside bore. This is especially true as to the cheaper grades, 

 and I am sorry to say that many of the better grades have the 

 same fault. In order to get the required Strength for the 

 breech action as well as to stand heavy charges, breechloadiug 

 barrels must be very heavy at the breech end. This necessi- 

 eonsidcrable taper in the barrels, or the guns would be 

 verv heavy. Nearly all the taper is in the first half of the 

 barrels from the breech end. Very much of the beauty of a 

 gun depends on the graceful sheer given to the taper. In 

 Joining at the factory the barrels are sprung together in the 

 ■center, in order to have the ribs fit properly, as well as to 

 give the gun a' graceful appearance, hence the bore of the 

 barrels are not straight. However, twelve to fifteen inches 

 Of the muzzle ends are practically straight, and parallel with 

 The line of sight. It often occurs in the cheaper grades that 

 the barrels are sprung so much in the center that the muzzle 

 ends diverge to the right and left. In such guns the right 

 barrel shoots to the right and the left one to the left. Guns 

 with the barrels tapered down very thin at the muzzle, as a 

 general rule, are better shooters than those with thick ones. 

 A majority of chokebored guns are too heavy at the muzzle, 

 which accounts for their groupiug the shot in bunches and 

 leaving many bare spots iD the targets. In very thin guns 

 there is a certain amount of expansion and elasticity, which 

 has the effect 10 overcome the tendency to group the shot, 

 hence give quite an even distribution. 



It can be put down as an axiom that guns having the 

 straightest barrels, other things being equal, will give the 

 best results. 



The next consideration that has much to do with the good 

 and bad shooting is the quality and quantity of the ammu- 

 nition. There can be no denying the fact that a good quality 

 of ammunition is better than a poor quality; but as to quan- 

 tity, opinions differ greatly. From some unaccountable 

 cause, there appears to be a general opinion that breechload- 

 ers require very much more powder than the old-styled 

 muzzleloaders, when as a matter of fact guns properly 

 chambered and properly charged require less. In well-con- 

 structed breechloaders there are absolutely no escaping gases 

 unless the plunger cuts through the primer. In muzzle- 

 loaders it quite often occurs that sufficient gas escapes at the 

 nipples to throw the hammers back to a full cock. In guns 

 of ordinary weight, 8 pounds to 8+ pounds, I would not ad- 

 vise. 5 drams of powder to 1J ounces shot, nor would I think 

 of 1 dram of powder to 13 buckshot. The proportion of 

 powder to shot that gives the best general results will be 

 found to be 3 drams of powder to 1 ounce of shot. On 

 page 546 of "Haswell" will be found proportions of powder 

 to shot for the following numbers of shot, as determined by 

 (experiment: 



No. 



Shot. 



oz. 



Powder, 

 drams, 



No. 



Shot, Powder, 

 oz. drams. 



No. 



Shot, 

 oz. 



Powder, 

 drams. 



a i 75 



1.5 

 1.638 



4 

 5 



1.373 2J^ 



6 



1.35 



1.135 



2% 



Note.— 2 ourees of No. 2 shot witli 1.5 drams of powder produced 

 the .greatest effect. The increase of powder for the greater number 

 of pellets is m consequence of the increased friction of their projec- 

 tion. 



With American engineers Haswell is good authority. Bow 

 few men from actual knowledge could dispute the results as 

 he has given them; I could not do it for 1 have never experi- 

 mented with 2 ounces of shot to 1} drams of powder. Ogee- 

 chcrs 1 dram of powder to 13 buck shot is about according 

 to Haswell. Killing a buck at the distance of 120 yards with 

 such a charge caps the climax. Put me down as a little 

 skeptical. Whoever sticks to the proportion of 3 drams of 

 powder to 1 ounce of shot will be satisfied with the results. 



Now, in regard to wads. Nearly all guns, by actual 

 measurement, arc from one to two gauges smaller than they 

 are called. Many chokebore 10s will gauge but 12 at the 

 muzzle. As a general rule, for No. 10 brass shells No. 8 

 wads are used; for a paper shell, a wad of the same number 

 as the shell. There is also a general opinion that brass shells 

 will give better results than paper shells; but all of my ex- 

 periments have proven the contrary. Paper shells, loaded 

 with wads same number as shell, and not crimped, will give 

 better results than brass shells loaded with wads two sizes 

 larger than shell. Firm, elastic felt wads are best. The ad- 

 vantage of two wads on the powder is so very little that I 

 have never been able to discover it. 



More of the good or bad results of shooting depend on the 

 manner of loading than most shooters are willing to admit. 

 The ordinary way of loading is to use for brass shells wads 

 two or three sizes larger than the gun. The large wads arc 

 with some difficulty forced down on to the powder with a 

 close-fitting loading plug, that has either a perfectly flat or a 

 coneave'end. The inside of brass shells that have been used 

 are very rough, a kind of sandpaper surface. The friction 

 of the large wads is so great that the force of the discharge 

 Will bulge the center of the wads forward, and when the 



wads reach the smaller or true caliber of the gun at the end 

 of the chamber, they will bulge still more in the center— 

 the worst possible condition for good results. The shot 

 will be projected in a circle, and the center of the target will 

 have few, if any, shot in it. The crimping of paper shells 

 has the same effect, but in a much less degree, inasmuch as 

 the wads are smaller. 



To remedy this defect in loading, use a loading plug with a 

 Convex or cone-shaped end, and for a No. 10 brass shell use a 

 No. 9 or 10 wad on the powder. The wad should be firmly 

 rammed on the powder and lightly on the shot. If two wads 

 are used on powder they should be each rammed separately. 

 The wads will be sea ted on the powder cup iu the best possible 

 shape for good results in shooting and will be less likely to 

 start from the recoil or rough handling. I once made a very 

 poor shooting muzzleloader a very good one by changing the 

 shape of the butt end of the ramrod. The fault of the gun 

 was that it distributed the shot in a ring. The center of the 

 target for a foot in diameter would be almost entirely free from 

 shot. The butt end of the ramrod was very much concaved, and 

 at that time I used very large wads. I reversed the shape of 

 the end of the rod, made it very much convex or cone-shaped. 

 By using this rod the gun was made an excellent shooter, in 

 fact it acquired such a reputation that I sold it for more than 

 first cost, after using it for six years. 



I have one more experimental way of loading, which I 

 hope all glass-ball shooters, who think' two wads are a neces- 

 sity, will try. Load a few shells without any wad between 

 the pouder'and shot, Use a flat-ended loading plug. Earn 

 the naked powder quite hard; then put in the shot, On the 

 shot put one good felt wad. Try this Jon glass balls, from 

 any kind of a trap at the regular distance. Now don't say " 

 that charges loaded in this way will not break glass balls 

 until you have tried them. In my experiments I used No. 9 

 shot. 



Over-charges of powder are a detriment to the good shoot- 

 ing of any gun. Shot discharged from the muzzle of a gun 

 is very similar to water discharged from a hose nozzle. A 

 hose nozzle to throw a solid stream to any great distance 

 must be chokebored, very similar to a chokebored gun. 

 There is a limit to the distance that water can he projected 

 by pressure through a nozzle, and an increased pressure at 

 that limit will reduce the effective distance. There is cer- 

 taiulv a limit to the effective distance of the best shotguns; 

 and over-charges of powder will reduce the effective distance 

 from the same cause that an over-pressure will reduce the 

 distance to which water can be thrown. 



Heavy or over-charges cause heavy recoil, which is not 

 onl\ T unpleasant to the shooter, but detrimental to good 

 shooting. The force of the recoil backward is at the ex- 

 pense of the force of the discharge forward. This fact is 

 very easily demonstrated. Take a gun that weighs 8 to Si 

 pounds; have the shells loaded with 5 drams of powder and 

 1^ ounces shot. Let some small man, who weighs about 

 140 pounds and who has more pluck than muscle, tire a few 

 of the shells at a target 40 yards. Then have a large, mus- 

 cular man, of 210 pounds weight, shoot the same gun with 

 similar charge. The results will be found very different, 

 The heavy, muscular man by his weight and muscle will 

 hold the gun square to the work, and put all the force of the 

 discharge on the projected shot. The small man, if quite 

 active, will keep on his feet, but w T hen he examines his tar- 

 get will find it just as much poorer as the gun kicked him 

 harder than it did the heavy man. There can be a certain 

 amount of recoil that is not unpleasant, but rather a satis- 

 faction; charges just up to that point will be found very 

 effective. Charges would vary accoiding to the weight of 

 the gun, as well as the weight and muscle of the shooter. 



I hope good may result by a full discussion of this sub- 

 ject. ' * California. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



One is not a little surprised at the shooting of some guns, 

 and yet when all things are taken into consideration there is 

 nothing wonderful about the targets presented for our in- 

 spection; for all, or nearly all, omit to state whether they 

 are made with "standard" or "trap shot." Then they say 

 li ounces, leaving the reader to guess how many' shot 

 that means. A Bridgeport measure gave 556 pellets by 

 actual count, while a Jas. Dixon & Sons' measure showed 

 5(36 pellets of No. s standard shot, Tatham's make; while by 

 actual count, according to their table, there ought to be only 

 500 pellets. Then again, the distances that are given must 

 be guessed at and not measured. English guumakers all 

 adopt a uniform distance and a uniform target, while our 

 American makers do not appear to have either. Some shoot 

 at 45 yards, 24-inch circle, and some at 40 yards, 30-inch 

 circle. * Not long since I was in a testing gallery where a 

 man was shooting guns, and I asked him the distance. 

 "Well, we call it 37 yards, but it is just 35 yards, and we 

 use a 24-inch circle." At another time while in a testing- 

 gallery I noticed shot marks all along the side where the 

 pellets had struck on their way toward the target; and any 

 one can guess where the pellets had landed or boarded; viz., 

 in the target, and when 1 was shown a target with 466 

 pellets I did not wonder so much as before I saw how and 

 where these patterns were made. Only wondered they did 

 not get more. 



Greener advertises that every one of his guns ai e targeted 

 with li ounces No. 6 English shot that are counted, and that 

 the uistance is 40 yards. Not long since I was shown a "shot 

 counter," devised by M. E. Curd, of Cazenovia, N. Y., that 

 will actually count the exact number of pellets in a charge, 

 and do it very nearly as quickly as they can be measured. 

 When asked why this was not used, the answer was: "This 

 is too' accurate for the guumakers, they want to dip up a 

 measureful, well knowing that it gives them a decided ad- 

 vantage." A few days ago I saw a letter from a man who 

 wanted a gun sent him that would put in a 30-iuch circle, at 

 40 yards, 477 out of an actual 499, all but 22 of the entire 

 charge. I fear this man had been reading some of these 

 wonderful targets which are only made in a paper. 



Why can't we have a uniform distance and a uniform 

 target, and as 40 yards and a 30-inch circle is used by all 

 English and a good many American makers, let us adopt 

 that, Measure the distance and count the shot, and as No. 

 8 is the size generally used in America, adopt that, then one 

 can tell exactly what his gun will do and can make a com- 

 parison. 



xV not her thing, a man writes to you and wants to know 

 the proper charge to use and what the result ought to be, 

 and you write that it takes a good deal of experimenting to 

 know what a gun will do. Now, right here, I claim that 

 this is the gunmaker's business to determine, and that he has 

 no business (be he who he ma}) to allow a gun to go out of 

 "his shop until he knows exactly what the gun will do, and 

 the exact charge to use in it; and if the distance, shot and 



target were uniform he could bore the gun so it would do 

 what it should, and compare favorably with any other gun. 

 Regularity as well as closeness is what is wanted, and if a 

 thirty -inch circle is adopted it gives a larger space and will 

 compel the makers to bore their guns for regularity, as well 

 as to secure a Close pattern, and this is what every sportsman 

 wants. A gun with a killing circle of thirty inches at forty 

 yards is better fot all kindB of shooting than one that only 

 has a killing circle of twenty inches at same distance. 



Tell your correspondent "Oct." that if his gun will aver- 

 age 440 out of a counted charge of 500, I will give him five 

 times as much as he paid for his gun. 



These long shots prove nothing— only show what a gun 

 may do once in a while. I once owned a 10-bore, 8-pound 

 12-onnce gun, 24-inch barrels (breechloader) with which 1 

 killed two woodcock, one at 60 and the other at 61 yards, 

 with 34 drams powder and 1^ No. 10 shot, by measure. I 

 also killed a grouse with 3£ drams powder and H No. 8 

 standard shot at 65 yards. These distances were all i 

 tired. How many times I failed, would not care to state. 



Muzzleloaders, 'they arc, as you state, things of the past. 

 A man here owns one that will kill a dove at 20 rods every 

 time, and yet I can never get him to shoot at a target with 

 me; and not long ago he offered to sell this gun. I cannot 

 imagine his reason for wishing to dispose of so valuable a 

 gun, for if ever your humble si rvant gets one that will shoot 

 as this one is said to do, it will take quite a goodly sum to 

 purchase it. Hammekli>s. 



Editor Tforest and Stream: 



1 have a 12 .eauge, of 8 pounds weight, that I use for all 

 kinds of shootihg except geese. The barrels are choked and 

 are. 30 inches in length. 1 load with 4 drams powder and 

 1 ounce shot. I never vary from this quantity. I have ex- 

 perimented a good deal and find this to give the best results, 

 especially on ducks, which are the principal game of this 

 region. I am pretty sure of ducks at b0 to 35 yards, and I 

 often kill them at' 40 yards. For geese it is too light, but 

 for other kinds of game it suits me better than a 10-gauge, 

 as it is lighter, and as I am not blessed with an extra amount 

 of muscle 1 find the lighter gun preferable after a hard 

 day's tramp. I use metallic shells. I think them better, but 

 not so handy as paper, which you can throw away after 

 using. 1 carried this arm with me to the Pacific coast last 

 winter and could always rely on it. I hope this question of 

 shotguns will be as well ventilated as the articles on "The 

 Choice of Huuting Rifles," now appearing in your excellent 

 paper. ' W. H. R. 



IffW A. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



I believe the simple but uncompromising principle called 

 "inertia" is responsible for all the difference in straight bores. 

 The fault is not in the gun, but the shell and primer. All 

 unprejudiced men will agree that could the breechloader be 

 made to conform to the most approved muzzleloader as re- 

 spects practically uniform gauge throughout, a conical base 

 for the powder, and the slow ignition of the charge, begin- 

 ning at the extreme rear, there should be no difference pro- 

 vided the breechloader were strongly constructed and 

 chambered to tit the shell snugly. 



I think if the manufacturers would make some of their 

 brass shells with conical base, and put the least possible 

 amount of fulminate in the center of primers, the improve- 

 ment in shooting would more than counterbalance the in- 

 crease in weight" of shells. I put conical bases in my brass 

 shells several years since, and the improvement in shoot- 

 ing and decrease in recoil are very evident. I can use 

 5-drams electric powder with 1^ ounces shot in my 9-pouud 

 gun* continually without discomfort. 



The flame of the primer is driven through the charge, 

 igniting it instantaneously. Hence the increased recoil (to the 

 serious detriment of the "vis inertia" of the gun) and the 

 necessity for more and coarser powd> r and wider breeches. 

 There is enough energy in a large Berdan primer to shoot a 

 rifle. 



In muzzleloaders only a small portion of flame can be 

 forced into the tube, the charge is ignited at extreme rear of 

 the cone shaped chamber and the shot started gradually, and 

 urged on with constantly augui'-nted force to the muzzle. 

 The Lyman-Haskell cannon on the multi-charge plan illus- 

 trates this. 



I have observed (in targeting chokebore guns for custom- 

 ers) that the excessive choke, by contraction in muzzle, 

 adopted by many leading makers, unfits the gun for large 

 shot by reason of jamming tiiem so that they fly "wild;" 

 also that it increases the recoil, impairs the penetration, and 

 gathers powder, dirt and lead in the tapered portion. 



Reform. 



Missouri. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



For a man w T ho wants a general service gun, for field, 

 cover and trap shooting, a breechloadiug gun of 8 pounds to 

 9 pounds weight, 30-iuch barrels aud 10-gauge, is the proper 

 tool. It will answer for snipe, grouse, rabbits, foxes, ducks 

 and deer if loaded with buckshot. However, a No. lSgauge 

 is serviceable enough, the odds against it being merely that 

 it will not stand so heavy a charge as a 10-gauge ; and of 

 course will not bag the game shot at as often or as easily as 

 the other for ducks and fox shooting. I use a 10-bore, 32- 

 inch barrel, 9.t pounds. 



_ Correct loading can only be acquired by careful observa- 

 tion and practice. Some persons will say, and quite truly, 

 that all guns of the same bore do not call for the same 

 ammount of ammunition. There are exceptions to the gen- 

 eral rule; load them to suit their peculiarities. Very light 

 guns with large bores may not shoot pleasantly, because of 

 too much recoil. Load them with a coarser-grained powder 

 and you may find it to your advantage; if not, you will have 

 to reduce your charge, but at. the expense of loss in penetra- 

 tion and wounded "game. Very diverse results with good 

 guns may be brought about by having the powder charge dis- 

 proportionate to the shot, or by using very coarse and very fine 

 powder; also, very coarse and very fine shot, by employing 

 more or less wads, varying in diameter and thickness, and 

 setting them home with different pressure or by ramming, 

 or by mixing shot of different sizes, which is the worst of 

 all if you wish for good pattern and penetration. If all these 

 items control the shooting, does it not follow that to load a 

 gun accurately for all purposes requires many experiments 

 and good judgment and great skill. 



I see by your issue of Jan. 24 that "Backwoods" considers 

 chokeboring an abomination. 1 cannot agree with him on 

 that point. There are but few choice guns made in this 

 country or abroad which may not be called chokebores, for 

 the calibers of the barrels are smaller at the muzzle than at 

 the breech. If any person doubts this statement let him 



