Modern Shells for a 1918 Winchester Model 12

[t100]

Hi,

Just purchased a Winchester model 12, 12 gauge made in 1918. Need to know if modern 2 3/4 inch shells are safe to use or do I need to fine some 2 1/2 inch shells.

Thanks.

[Thefeeder]

><

Look at what is stamped on the barrel for any info.

[t100]

Nothing on the barrel.

[Thefeeder]

Nothing on the barrel.

No "winchester" "Model 1912" "12ga" on the left side ?

[Vertigofirearms]

Nothing on the barrel.

That is odd, there is almost always some sort of marking on the barrel

[jfifer]

Not always! My 1944 ithaca 12 gaugr doesn't. I took it to a smith to check. It was 2 3/4.

[RayPDA]

IIRC the 12ga guns (not including 3" heavy duck guns) were all 2 3/4" chambered - early 16 and 20g guns had shorter chambers.

On a related note- it may be a good idea to have the gun checked out by a competent smith just to be sure the gun is sound.

[Tom-ADC]

Using a highly calibrated wood dowel I just checked the chambers on my 100 year old AH Fox SxS it has 2 3/4 inch chambers. So when my stock gets back with the new recoil pad installed I'm going to treat this old gal to a round of trap. Have some reloads using Clays 1oz at 1150 FPS that should be okay to shoot.
Good luck with your seasoned model 12.

BTW all my barrels say is 12 GA which I understand was common back then.

[t100]

Thanks all. I will have it checked before shooting.

[Asphodel]

Hi,

Just purchased a Winchester model 12, 12 gauge made in 1918. Need to know if modern 2 3/4 inch shells are safe to use or do I need to fine some 2 1/2 inch shells.

Thanks.

A 1918 vintage Winchester model 12 should be marked 'Winchester' and 'Nickel Steel' on the left side of the barrel, along with New Haven Conn and some patent dates.

It was intended for 'modern' smokeless powder 12ga rounds, the same as standard 12ga of today. Its perfectly safe with 12ga-2-3/4 mag, for that matter.

The 'Nickel Steel' was a premium barrel material, of that time. The later 'Winchester Proof Steel' marking referred to a less expensive, but still quite adequately strong, steel.

If you really can't see any markings on the barrel, is that due to rust, or has someone polished the steel way too deeply, to remove rust pits for a re-blue?

Try gently cleaning the barrel, and looking for markings in a good light.....then let us know what you find.

cheers

Carla

[Tom-ADC]

Member on another board posted this little history of shotgun shells:

The first smokeless powder for shotgun shells was Wood powder introduced in 1876. Shotgunners being a hidebound lot were rather slow to embrace smokeless powder, but by the 1890s it was coming on strong. In 1890, Captain A.W. Money came to America from England, and established the American E.C. and Schultze Powder Company in Oakland Park, Bergen County, New Jersey, with offices on Broadway in New York City, to manufacture smokeless shotgun powders. By their July 20, 1891 price list, Union Metallic Cartridge Co. was offering American Wood or Schultze smokeless powder shotshells. In 1893, Winchester was providing smokeless powder shells to selected shooters with Winchester offering them to the general public in 1894. The American ammunition companies held their smokeless powder loads offered in the 2 5/8 inch 12-gauge shells lower than those offered in the 2 3/4 inch and longer shells. The very heaviest 2 5/8 inch shells I find offered were 3 1/4 drams of bulk smokeless powder or 26 grains of dense smokeless powders such as Ballistite or Infallible with 1 1/4 ounces of shot in the early 1900s. Before 1910, according to the ammunition company catalogues I have, the companies backed off on the 2 5/8 inch 12-gauge shells to nothing heavier than 1 1/8 ounce, and one needed to go to the 2 3/4 inch or longer 12-gauge shells to get 1 1/4 ounce payloads. In 2 3/4 inch and longer shells they offered up to 3 1/2 drams of bulk smokeless powders or 28 grains of Ballistite or Infallible dense smokeless powders with the same 1 1/4 ounce of shot. These loads were very high pressure according to a DuPont Smokeless Shotgun Powders (1933) book I have. It shows the 3 1/2 drams of DuPont bulk smokeless powder pushing 1 1/4 ounces of shot as being 11,700 pounds; 3 1/2 drams of Schultze bulk smokeless powders pushing 1 1/4 ounces of shot being 11,800 pounds and the 28-grains of Ballistite pushing the 1 1/4 ounces of shot being 12,600 pounds!!! There were plenty of lighter loads being offered, but American shotgunners being what they are, I'm sure many were opting for the heaviest loads available. The same situation held with the 20-gauge shells. The "standard" 2 1/2 inch 20-gauge shells carried slightly milder loads than the extra cost longer shells in 2 3/4, 2 7/8, and 3-inch lengths.

Many folks believe that the "modern" shotshells loaded with progressive burning smokeless powders, introduced in the early 1920s, Western Cartridge Company's Super-X loads leading the way, were higher pressure than the old bulk and dense smokeless powder loads. Reading period literature, this is not the case. With progressive burning smokeless powders they were able to move out equal shot loads at higher velocity or a heavier shot load at equal velocity, but at lower pressure than the old style bulk or dense smokeless powders.

In reviewing old Union Metallic Cartridge Co. catalogues and price lists, the first time I see mention of paper shotshell lengths is in 1895 where they offer 10-gauge shells in 2 5/8 and 2 7/8 inch lengths, 12-gauge shells in 2 5/8 or 2 3/4 inch lengths, while 16-gauge is just 2 9/16 inch and 20-gauge just 2 1/2 inch. In the September 1896 catalogue they offer 12-gauge paper "Smokeless" shell in lengths up to 3-inch. All brass 10- and 12-gauge NPEs were offered up to 3 1/4 inch length. By the April 1899 UMC Catalogue things are really taking off and they've added 2 3/4 and 2 7/8 inch lengths to both 16- and 20-gauge offerings, and the 3 1/4 inch 12-gauge length in their "Trap" shell. By the May 1900 UMC catalogue the 3-inch 16- and 20-gauge length is being offered in their salmon colored "Smokeless" shell and their green colored "Trap" shell.

That pretty much covers paper shotshell lengths and when they appeared. So, by 1900 we had paper 12-gauge shells in 2 5/8, 2 3/4, 2 7/8, 3 and 3 1/4 inch lengths; 16-gauge shells in 2 9/16, 2 3/4, 2 7/8 and 3-inch lengths; and 20-gauge shells in 2 1/2, 2 3/4, 2 7/8 and 3-inch lengths.

[Asphodel]

Thank for for the good info about cartridge development, Tom..... : )

I will add one more caveat, if I may......

Its possible to find old pump shotguns, notably the Winchester 97 and 12, which were used for duck and goose hunting in bays and marshes, and used hard for many years by men who didn't think of doing any cleaning/maintenence of their guns.

What can happen, under such usage, is that fine 'silt' mud will be splashed into the actions, and act as an abrasive to badly wear the working parts. The fine 'fluff' from cat-tails, and other bits of marsh plants, will accumulate in the 'nooks and crannies' of the mechanism, as well.

The model 12 does have one vulnerability in this respect, that of the locking cut in the top of the receiver becoming partially packed with foreign matter, so that the breech-bolt isn't fully seated in its locking recess when 'in battery'.

The design of the model 12 is such that the piece cannot fire until it is fully in battery, as a little 'rocker' component called the 'firing pin retractor' on the top of the breech-bolt positively blocks the firing pin until the breech-bolt is correctly in place.

If the mechanism is badly worn, or rusted, or packed with debris, that safety feature may be defeated, and, if the locking lug area of the breech-bolt has become badly worn, the model 12 can, possibly, fire out of battery.....not a good thing.

Its very rare to see a model 12 so badly worn/abused, but its always prudent to have the weapon apart, and carefully clean/inspect it.

Parts are available with which to replace badly worn ones. The models 97 and 12 were designed to be repaired as may be needed 'in the field' by users, by simply replacing parts, if one has reasonable mechanical skills.

If one lacks those skills, then having someone who does......any reasonably able machinist or gunsmith, look over the gun would be prudent.

cheers

Carla

[bjl333]

If in doubt have the chamber measured by a gunsmith. Because an unfired shotgun shell will fit into a shorter chamber! Be safe not sorry ....