Home Forums Birds & Dogs Shotguns Modern buckshot in a 1897?

Any concerns?

no more so than modern birdshot

Let me re-phrase that. Hi brass concerns?

Today you can often find "low-brass" shells that are more powerful then the "hi-brass" of long ago. The brass height was necessary back when shells were made of paper and black powder. For more velocity it took a tall column of brass to keep a tall column of black powder dry when the paper became damp. Today's smokeless powder can obtain high velocities in a low brass shell. They still make hi-brass in some offerings because some shooters still believe they are more powerful. They may or may not be.

Forget hi or low and look at the velocity listed on the box. Stay around 1200 fps and it will make no difference if the shell is hi or low brass.

Excess velocity is what is hard on the gun. The height of the brass may be low, but the velocity still high with smokeless powder.

Winchester makes a 12ga Super Sport 1 1/8 ounce shell that is 1300fps. It is a "low-brass" shell.

Addition: A shotgun shell of today doesn't even need a brass or steel base. In fact for awhile there was a brand called "Active" that was entirely plastic. Worked will in O/U and SxS shotguns. Not so much with autos and pumps because the plastic was not all that good for giving the extractor something to grab on to.

Didn't Active shells have a steel belt inside the plastic? From the exterior they were all plastic, but there was a thin inner steel belt inside.

Yes they did, however from what I could see the belt was much shorter than what we would today call low brass. I could be wrong, but I think for the most part it was only around the rim at the head of the shell.

Left to right: All 12 ga-1150fps-1200fps-1325fps. The slowest velocity has the highest brass. Today the brass height means little when it comes to velocity.

as mentioned, "high" and "low" brass have no real meaning other than a visual reference on what type of load MIGHT be loaded in the hull. It wasn't an effective indicator "back in the day" either as the typical shooter was just as clueless as today on internal shotshell ballistics.

The question being asked in the OP is probably more on the lines of, "Is using modern loads going to place any undue wear on the shotgun in question than loads of the past?" The answer to that is not generally. What causes wear and tear is not the brass height but pressure, recoil, and frequency/duration of both.

Pressure in a given load is not now and never in the past determined by brass height. What mostly determines pressure is the type of powder and the shot charge weight. One can readily find 1 1/8 oz and even 1 or 7/8 oz loads developing higher pressures than 1 1/2 oz "magnum" loads. In practice, those "low base" shells will put as much and maybe even more stress on the gun than the "high base" magnum. Luckily, the manufacturers typically take into account these differences during the design phase and develop a gun that will be safe to use with the loads of the time. As the development of powders has become more refined and consistent plus the development and actual use of reliable and accurate pressure testing equipment. I would expect less wear and tear using equivalent loads today than yesteryear. A very general rule would be to pick the lightest shot charge with the lowest velocity for the least pressure. There will be exceptions but that is as close as one can get without actually delving into the minutiae of shotshell ballistics.

This will also reduce recoil which is the other significant factor in part longevity. The less recoil, the less stress placed on the gun. That does not necessarily mean one can shoot unlimited amounts of low pressure/low recoil shells (those two concepts do not always mean the same thing) without eventual breakage but just that one should be able to go longer than with high pressure/heavy recoiling loads. It's kind of like comparing breaking a rock with a tack hammer and a sledge. The one can break the rock given enough blows while the other can break the rock in as little as a single blow.

As mentioned, more frequent use leads to breakages sooner than infrequent use regardless of load type. The duration part mentioned earlier is directed more toward the length of time he pressures act on the firearm. High velocity and/or heavy charge weights require pressures to remain high and act longer on the charge which leads to greater wear and tear. As that is roughly dependent on the type of powder used, the height of brass used has no bearing on things.

This abbreviated explanation is much longer and detailed than the vast majority of shooters wish to know. They want a brief, one sentence sound bite and its accuracy is not overly important though simplicity is. One will need to put in some time and effort if they wish to make the best informed decisions- if not then the industry took steps nearly a century ago to develop safe loads for us to use as can readily be seen by how rare damages occur.

It's not hard, with the world at your fingertips....



https://www.remington.com/ammunition/shotshell/buckshot/managed-recoil-buckshot-loads

No one has addressed what that I consider important. My 97 has serial #in the 170,xxx range and was made in 1902-3 time frame. Mechanically in good shape. I ran a few boxes of 1 oz target loads thru it without a problem. I couldn't get 6 rds in the mag only 5 till it dawned on me that shells in 1902 were 2 5/8" long. To verify that it had a shorter than 2 3/4" chamber easy just use a straight wall empty and slide it in till it stopped ,yup 2 5/8 ". I cut a bunch federal hulls back to 2 5/8" and put a 1/8" spacer in der the pre crimp and crimp station. Back on track also if you go to Cabela's you can get those Herter's short buck loads pretty reasonable. 6 in the mag 1 in the chamber. Pull the trigger for the first shot, hold it back and run the slide, 2.5-3 seconds later your done "Life's a dance you learn along the way".. Make sure your gun is in good shape and has a 2 3/4" chamber first thing. MB

Thanks fellas.

Just want to be sure I'm not going to hurt this beautiful OLD scattergun.

You ran a few boxes of 2 3/4 with no problems, other than being one round short Is not surprising. Here we go, someone is about to chime in that your pressures were dangerously unsafe. They were not. Proof loads were at least three times the magnitude of pressure.

Another myth in line with high brass/low brass.

It is improbable that the "extra" 1/8" would raise pressures to proof load levels but some load combinations can raise pressures to near or over SAAMI maximum. This would lead to premature wear and possible parts breakage when compared to "normal" pressures. Just how much sooner is open to confecture and one would determine the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin before agreeing on how much quicker problems a particular gun would suffer.

I would have few concerns regarding the internals when using modern ammunition equivalents of the era of production as the 97 is a well designed and built firearm. John Browning was a gifted designer and all of his early designs transitioned to smokeless powder with little, if any design changes. My greatest concern would be with breaking the stock as time, use, changing humidity, and especially oil would all have their chances at weakening the stock.

Forgot to remark on the original Activ hulls.

The Activs were all plastic except for a steel washer in the base which gave the extractor something to grab. They were originally made to be sold as a component but the manufacturer had to come out with loaded ammunition as virtually no one would buy them. That was quite a change as Activ was made by a company that produced lipstick cases!

They actually worked quite well, I still have a hundred or so 3" 12 ga hulls left. They work very well for steel shot as they have the highest internal volume of all the various hulls. My first experiences were with 2 3/4" 20 ga ammo and I shot that until it would no longer hold shot- that was up to 8 or 9 reloads depending on powder type. I have at least 5 loadings on the 3" using an autoloader with no problems.

All plastic hulls are as old as the use of plastics for hulls- I have seen Win AAs with no metal of any sort that were used to demo the early compression formed hulls. The use of metal on the head was due to shooter' distrust as there was no metal. I have or have had Wanda, Herter's, Jet, and Pinto all plastic hulls though I have not shot them. Wanda had a plastic overshot wad that glued in rather than a crimp and a company from South America called Eclipse used a proprietary wad and the use of other wads was strongly discouraged. I was not able to collect one of these hulls as the only time I saw them was while shooting clay targets off the back deck of a cruise ship. Empties were tossed over the side by the semi auto used.

No worries on over pressure loads in the 97 with my ammo I was using 1 oz loads about 1175 with slower burn rate powder with lower pressure. I am going to work up a field load with 1 1/8 oz shot featuring nitro cards ,fiber wads , some with a wrap around shot collar and some without at about 1220-1250 fps for use on sharptails and roosters with # 5 & 6 shot. Might use the plastic Fed hulls or old paper tube champions. 6 star crimps and I also have the tools to roll crimp them. The point is to reproduce the ammo to what they were using back in 1902- 1920 to see how effective they were in the field. I know way to many people today who think that the only way you can kill a rooster is with a miracle "hammer load" featuring 1 3/8 oz of copper plated buffered shot moving atleast 1500 fps from the muzzle. Old guns and old style loads still work for reasonable use. MB

If it should have a 2 5/8" chamber, there are 2 1/4" buck loads available, for instance:


https://www.cabelas.com/product/Herters-reg-Defense-Shotshells/1555113.uts

https://www.sportsmansguide.com/pro...00-buckshot-6-pellets-50-rounds?a=669205

My state issued 97 was late production. All it ever shot was buckshot and rifled slugs. IIRC, it was from the late thirties.

Jack