It has turned really hot and just living life has got in my way. I haven’t trained dogs in about a week. I have been thinking about doing a post about guns and shells for a while. Since it was about 80 degrees early this morning, today may be a good day for that post.
AYA no 2 on the bottom and the L.C. Smith on top.
20 gauge AYA No 2 and 4 quail.
3 quail and AYA no. 2 16 gauge.
I read a lot about guns but mainly side by sides. The English perfected the side by side in the late 1800’s and it hasn’t changed much since. The best of these were from Purdey, Holland and Holland, Boss or some of the companies that were started by people after working for these companies. Most of the people, whose books I have read, agree that the best workmanship were done on the shot guns built before World War I.
There were companies in other countries that are as old or older than the English companies but not a lot of their 100+ year old guns are still around. At least, on most of the online gun sites there are more old English shot guns than any other country. This speaks well for the longevity of the English double.
Most of the shot guns built in London to the Best standards are side locks although after Anson and Deeley patented the box lock, in 1875, for the Westley Richards Company, some of the Best guns were box locks. London didn’t embrace the box lock like Birmingham did. The most significant thing about the A&D was that it used the barrels to cock the gun. Now all break action guns use the leverage of the barrels to cock the gun with the exception of the few guns being built with exposed hammers.
These gun makers started with a file and a chunk of steel. Everything was hand made and fitted. Most parts were fitted to exacting standards, namely to the thickness of soot from a lamp. Stamped or machined parts must be made with tolerances so that the gun can be assembled. This lets the parts slam against each other where well made, hand fitted parts don’t. This is part of the reason for the longevity of the English shot gun.
Now, the companies that make the Best guns in England are using the different computer controlled machines to get the parts close but using hand fitting with files. The soot from the lamp is still the exacting standard.
This is a simplistic view of the shot guns made in England. The bad part of it I can’t afford a London Best or even a Birmingham Best but there are a lot of really well made older English guns around and the Spanish build some good guns, by hand.
I have a W. R. Pape 12 gauge that was made in the 1920’s, that only shoots 2 1/2 inch shells, that is really well made. I, also, have a Webley and Scott 12 gauge that shoots 2 3/4 shells, built in the 1960’s, that is nice. I think the Pape handles better than about anything I own.
The Spanish are copying the English guns and mostly the Holland and Holland side lock. They do build box locks but their better guns, at least more expensive, are side locks and they are mostly hand made. Some of these companies don’t even have electrical tools in their factories.
The Spanish wages are, for the most part, less than the wages in England. They, also, have fewer hours in their guns. As the price of the gun goes up, sometime, they use better steel. According to Terry Wieland, in the book Spanish Best, the bellota steel is a really good but some of the makers go to F115 steel in their higher grade guns. I wouldn’t know one from the other but it sounds like they are trying to build a good gun.
Some quail from Sandy Sanders in Oklahoma. My 16 gauge AYA no 2.
I have some Spanish doubles and they handle really well. They strike the barrels until they are really thin but strong enough to handle the loads they are proofed for. I had a Belgium side by side that weighed about the same as a Spanish 16 gauge that I had. I weighed the barrels on both and the Spanish barrels were almost a half pound lighter than the Belgium. The Spanish gun handled better, for me.
I’m not an expert on guns or ammo but I’m going to give you what I know and what I think I know about ammo now. I shoot year round. In the off season I shoot a lot of skeet and reload all of these shells. I use 3/4 ounces of shot in my 12 gauge, 16 gauge, 20 gauge and 5/8 ounce in the 28 gauge. I seldom shoot a 410 but when I do I shoot factory shells.
There are several reasons that I shoot 3/4 ounces of shot. At one ounce a 25 pound bag of shot will load 400 shells. By loading 3/4 ounces you can get 566 rounds. Also, the recoil is very light, with the reduced loads, when I keep the shells loaded to 1200 feet per second or less. Most of my guns are 6 1/2 pounds or less and these loads don’t beat them or me up, either.
It seems, that a lot of the big ammo factories are going into the high speed loads. One of the smaller makers, that used to make ammo for the older guns and the one’s with shorter chambers, now has a 1350 feet per second load. One of the reps for this company told a friend of mine that any load above 1200 feet per second was worthless. That was before they started making one.
Limit of quail and my 20 gauge AYA No. 2.
Shooting skeet I have a flinch, some of the time. So far I have never had a flinch on game birds. Shooting reduced shot loads doesn’t stop it but it helps. But the one thing I have learned about the reduced loads, they break targets. The 28 gauge with 3/4 ounce load is supposed to be perfect. The 12 gauge load is better, in my opinion. The bigger bore of the 12 gauge makes a shorter stack of shot in the shell. The shorter shot string puts more shot on the target at the same time and less damaged shot from the detonation of the powder. For the same reason the 16 gauge and 20 gauge, with 3/4 ounce loads, are also better than the 28 gauge.
I have a friend that has shot a lot of skeet and has a flinch from heavy loads. He usually shoots a 20 gauge with 3/4 ounce loads when we quail hunt. He doesn’t seem to be handicapped. Now he has bought an English made twelve gauge, that shoots 2 inch shells, and weighs 5 1/2 pounds. It’s proofed for 7/8 ounce shells but he said he would only shoot 3/4 ounce loads. He loads his own shells. He will do well with this gun.
The fallacy of loading more powder to increase the speed of the shot is that a sphere, the faster it starts the faster it slows down. In his book, Shotguns And Shooting, Michael McIntosh has a chart that shows if 7 1/2 lead shot starts at 1330 feet per second, at 20 yards it’s down to 930 fps. At 40 yards it’s down to 715 fps. A 7 1/2 shot starting at 1200 fps is doing 865 fps at 20 yards and 675 fps at 40 yards. That is only 65 fps at 20 yards more and is down to 40 fps difference at 40 yards. To someone sensitive to recoil the difference can be overwhelming. The manufacturer’s also substantially increase the cost of the shells.
Michael McIntosh talks about when he was a struggling college student he bought some cheap shells for a hunt and shot so bad that on the way home he threw away all of the shells he had left. The promotional shells have cheaper, softer shot. The soft shot deforms and doesn’t go anywhere near the target.
My 16 gauge AYA and 7 quail.
Better shells should have shot with antimony that makes it harder, with less deformed shot. I reload with Magnum shot or chilled shot that has antimony.
My cousin, Jim Smith, shot some clay pigeons on his farm. Once, he shot some Federal’s and when he cleaned up found that from the two boxes of shells he had shot there were 3 different wads. The next time he shot Winchester’s and again, from two boxes of shells, there were 3 different wads. I know from reloading that if you change any one thing you change speed or pressure, or both. In my opinion, these shells couldn’t shoot the same.
Near the end of last quail season I took the W.R. Pape to Oklahoma. I hunted two half days and one full day. I shot 7 times and picked up 6 quail and lost one. Part of that was luck, okay a lot of that was luck, but good shells had something to do with it. I was shooting a premium shell from RST. They use hard shot and premium components.
A couple of those quail were well over 30 yards. May have been 40 yards and they went right down. When I have confidence in my shells I shoot better.
A couple of those birds make a neat story. Jim Smith and I were hunting together and Luke went on point quite a ways from us. I told Jim where he was then I headed toward him. When I got close Jim must have misunderstood me because he was no where in sight. I circled Luke thinking I could flush the quail where I would have a shot away from where Jim had to be. I had circled Luke and came into his front. The quail flushed behind me and I knocked it down.
Jim was still over the hill from me and his dog, Willie, grabbed the bird. I called him to me but he didn’t know me. I got down on my knees and he came to me. I petted him for a few seconds then took the quail from him. As he started away another quail flushed, wild. I was still on my knees and the bird was a long way off when I shot but it dropped. That’s the only quail I’ve ever shot while I was kneeling down.
I guess what I’m trying to say is shoot the best gun you can afford. Most of us can’t shoot a Purdey or Holland and Holland but there are a lot of really good guns out there. And never ever scrimp on shells. That is false economy. For what it costs to feed dogs, buy gas and the vehicle to get to a hunting place you need to have the best guns and ammo you can afford.
W.R. Pape 2 1/2 inch 12 gauge.
Ugartechea 28 gauge a Spanish side lock.
Webley and Scott 12 gauge. Made in England in the 1960’s.
