736 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[May 8, 1909. 
Small-Bore Loads. 
Los Angeles, Cal., April 30.— Editor Forest 
and Stream: In a late issue a correspondent 
takes me to task for certain statements made, 
and others he accredits to me regarding small¬ 
bore shotguns and loads. He uses the time- 
honored nom de plume “Twelve Gauge,” an in¬ 
justice, I fear, to all humble seekers after the 
light along this line. There can be no excuse 
for one who has spent so much time in re¬ 
search into these subjects so dear to the sports¬ 
man’s heart, depriving the fraternity of the satis¬ 
faction of knowing which of the leading authori¬ 
ties to thank for such definitions of fact. 
There ought to be no controversy over facts. 
Setting a part of a statement, meant to be con¬ 
sidered in its entirety against the rest like a 
straw man merely to be bowled over, only be¬ 
clouds the issue. My words when read should 
have been considered as carefully as when writ¬ 
ten. Then I would not stand accused of laying 
down an ironclad rule to apply to all shotguns 
when in the article under fire the individual 
peculiarities of these arms were enlarged upon 
regarding handling large shot, passing previous 
essays on the subject in which I feebly—and 
apparently in vain—endeavored to make it plain 
that all statements and deductions related to the 
rule, not the exceptional gun of any bore. 
“Sixes work well in the sixteen, sevens in the 
twenty, although some of these handle sixes very 
well,” preceding an enlargement upon the excel¬ 
lent results obtained with eights in an individual 
twenty-gauge gun, acquits me of attempting to 
square all smooth-bores to one universal rule. 
But we should get nowhere, and no one would 
learn anything arguing this controversy out on 
the individual gun. Certain shot sizes chamber 
best in certain gauges. We all are perfectly 
familiar with variations wrought by alterations 
in chamber taper and choking, as well as other 
details of barrel workmanship that modify the 
general rule in the individual instance. 
Sportsmen become biased along their personal 
preferences. Far be it from me to claim im¬ 
munity from so general a tendency to prejudice, 
but a sense of duty has prompted my giving 
results of experiments to that class which needs 
no other title to the best I have. Discussions 
are a means to the interchange of knowledge, 
and as no one man may himself cover the broad 
field of complete experience in any one line of 
endeavor, each must add his mite to the fund 
of general information. So, my worthy critic 
having examined my views from his vantage 
point, certainly will yield to me the same privi- ' 
lege. 
The various bulk powders now on the market 
are as individual in their action as guns possi¬ 
bly could be, and show a variation in ballistic 
energy load for load. Compare two of the old 
smokeless powders for proof. In England these 
powders are classified according to standard 
loads and grouped intelligently according to 
their density. This difference in velocity will 
account for pattern variations as found by 
“Twelve-Gauge” for, beyond a certain point, 
velocity destroys pattern, the point being the 
speed necessary to get all the shot in the charge 
to the target which is decidedly too low for an 
effective game load. An important feature of 
the pattern question many forget. The station¬ 
ary target intercepts all the shot, whether they 
travel in compact mass or badly strung out. 
Lesser velocity is apt to aggravate stringing, and 
at fast crossing birds the defect is critical. I 
have settled on one powder as being the best, 
giving the greatest possible velocity with the 
most regular patterns, judging not by one gun, 
but by many, and experiences of others. So 
my critic seems to have fallen into the pit he 
has dug for me in assuming the strength of 
bulk powders to be a uniform quantify either 
per bulk .or per weight. 
Of nearly seventy local duck clubs containing 
about 1,000 members, it is a fact that’the crack 
shots, almost without exception, have adopted 
small-bore guns, sixteens mostly, and No. 6 
chilled shot. I might rest my case upon the 
one argument. Of some 4,000 ducks which fell 
on our Canvasback grounds last season, my six¬ 
teen and twenty accounted for 1,005 and small¬ 
bore guns killed most of the remainder. Here 
we think any good shot who sticks to his twelve 
wants to rake flocks for extra birds. Our shoot¬ 
ing is a singles and doubles proposition mainly, 
and good shots here are men who mostly have 
won their spurs elsewhere. 
Regarding patterns averaging “71 per cent.” 
and “77 per cent.,” the question arises, how 
many shots counted on average? These exact 
figures might be “extremely misleading and far 
from universally true” even of the individual 
gun. A hundred shots is all too few to strike 
so exact an average. 
Variations of six to twelve pellets show uni¬ 
formity. Consider the 280 odd pellets in a 
charge of No. 6 shot and how remarkably con¬ 
sistent must be this individual gun. 
All who experiment concede the difficulty of 
making accurate comparisons; the difficulty of 
securing for each piece the load it handles best. 
Yet men who have shot their guns much ought 
to have learned enough about them to give such 
comparisons some value. In this connection it 
seems a chief point of my preference, for small- 
bores are lost sight of in neglecting to con¬ 
sider the tremendous velocity and killing power 
of such a gun as my sixteen, loaded with 3!^ 
drams of powder and % ounce shot, against the 
same powder and ounce shot in a twelve. 
My contention is that few men would care to 
stand behind nearly four drams of powder all 
day, and that is about the proportionate load 
for the bigger gun. To reiterate, the ability to 
use a tremendous powder charge in the sixteen 
without adding materially to weight or recoil 
is a decided advantage over a twelve. My 28- 
inch barrel, I am convinced, burns all this 
powder and could burn more if given the chance. 
The gun weighs 6 pounds 5 ounces, but is a 
splendidly made piece. 
The excess of velocity of small-bores over 
bigger, with proportionate, not to say larger 
charges, I believe is already established. One 
of the trials proved the 28-gauge the fastest 
of the half dozen different bores tried. At any 
rate we cannot disprove this principle by going 
back to the days of black powder and scraping 
the silt off Greener’s experiments in 1879. The 
difference in the action of black and glycerine 
or gun cotton base powders is such that con¬ 
clusions based upon black powder tests would 
be worse than useless nowadays, because con¬ 
fusing. Later data in plenty bears on the sub- 
j ect. 
It must not be lost sight of that the small¬ 
bore movement did not originate with either the 
gunmakers or ammunition fixers. Both are 
chiefly equipped on a twelve-gauge basis, and in 
a mild manner I have noticed a tendency to 
throw cold water upon the gradual charge in 
favor of smaller bore guns that has been going 
forward so steadily in the past decade. They 
are coming to it, however. 
Any cool shot can form some valuable con¬ 
clusions from field experience. The unanimity 
with which such agree upon the lessened allow¬ 
ance required to stop crossing birds with sixteen 
and twenty-bore guns as against twelves is valu¬ 
able testimony. This and the greater facility 
with which the average man can swing the 
lighter gun may account for the startling im¬ 
provement in marksmanship I have noticed 
among some who have discarded twelves for 
smaller gauges. 
I do not now, nor have I ever claimed the 
sixteen-gauge gun is the one for all duck shoot¬ 
ers to adopt. There are places where it would 
be outclassed. In Minnesota are some flights 
over which the ducks in big bands trade cease¬ 
lessly at ranges from 90 to over 100 yards high 
hours at a time, and for that matter any ordi¬ 
nary twelve is outclassed, too. My old friend, 
Jake Danz, of St. Paul, in summer and this 
city in winter has a pair of twelve-bore guns 
built for such work. The big gun has 36-inch 
barrels and weighs 13J/2 pounds, being built on 
a ten-gauge frame. Jake’s “little” gun weighs 
0^/2 pounds and has 34-inch barrels. Splendid 
for the work he had them built to do and capa¬ 
ble of handling heavy loads all day, but Jacob 
himself says he would not bother with such 
artillery, but for an obstinate head that cannot 
stand the jar of a lighter arm. The big gun 
will come as near killing ducks regularly at 
seventy-five yards as any I ever saw. In a day 
Danz, who is a fine shot, will scratch a fair 
string of birds from these flocks of high-flyers 
when an ordinarily equipped gunner would starve 
on what he retrieved. Yet my sixteen will drop 
ducks now and then that were fired at without 
expectation of results, often enough to make 
one wonder when it is the gun and when my 
own fault that a bird is missed at extreme 
range. 
I hope to hear more from “Twelve Gauge.” 
Had I his experience, or he mine, probably we 
would share views. Edwin L. Hedderly. 
Planning a Long Voyage. 
Jamestown, Pa., May 3.— Editor Forest and 
Stream: I should like through your columns 
to get opinions of the feasibility of floating from 
Rochester, Pa., to New Orleans, La., in a flat 
bottom boat about twenty feet long and seven 
feet center width. The boat would have a small 
cabin at its widest point large enough for a 
bunk, stove and other necessaries, and would be 
equipped with a pair of oars with locks where 
width indicated at narrowing of bow for steer¬ 
ing and pqlling to either side of stream. 
If the trip is possible, would a boat of above 
dimensions be suitable for two passengers? I 
would be glad to receive any suggestions on this 
point as well as to cabin dimensions and inside 
arrangements. Would Oct. i be a suitable time 
to start, and about how long would the trip 
take? Are adverse winds to be reckoned, and 
are there any navigation laws to which one 
must conform? E. J. McCartney. 
