Why are there no stainless steel combat shotguns?

Allen_Raiford · May 31, 2000, 07:42 AM

Coated and plated yes, but no stainless.
How come?

Allen_Raiford · June 1, 2000, 07:03 AM

Y'all don't know either, eh?

JNewell · June 1, 2000, 07:19 AM

Nope! <vbg> Kinda funny, too, since everything else has moved that way.

fal308 · June 1, 2000, 08:56 AM

I'm sure if there was enough demand for them they would be produced. As it is, most organizations that buy firearms are looking for the most firearm for the least money and that usually rules out stainless. A true combat shotgun would require a coating on the stainless to dull out the sheen. Sort of like the black stainless that is seen, but again cost is involved. Only a wannabe would want a shiny combat firearm. That apparantly isn't enough interest for the firearms industry to tool up.

Dave McC · June 1, 2000, 09:48 AM

Possibly, a SS shotgun with one of the camo finishes over it would be the best combination of unobtrusiveness and corrosion resistance, But, how much of a market would there be?

One 870 here has been used extensively, including sea dusk hunting and for deer under wet conditions. After over 40 years of use, zero rust.

jthuang · June 1, 2000, 10:42 AM

Maybe it's cheaper to have a shotgun treated with Black-T, Metacol III or one of the various Robar finishes than to make one entirely from stainless?

Justin

Allen_Raiford · June 1, 2000, 09:27 PM

Seems like a SS shotgun would be good for boat duty. Then again, hard chrome would probably be better.

------------------
"Pathfinders Light the Way!"

C.R.Sam · June 1, 2000, 10:16 PM

Guessin here.
Maker has to make a profit.
More expensive to make, material cost a little higher, machining time a little longer, machine tools last a little less. Cost per item for a thousand of something is far greater than cost per item for twenty thousand of the same thing.

Harder to sell. Slightly heavier for same strength as 4,000 series steel. Steel shot would probably be a no no. Hunter doesn't want a shiny gun. A little more expensive cause of previous. Action parts life shorter due to stainless on stainless problems.

Sam

mongfu · June 2, 2000, 12:48 AM

what about electroless nickel? I love my remington marine magnum! (not because it is shiny-but because it does its job and will last forever)

JNewell · June 2, 2000, 07:55 AM

Dunno if it really would be more expensive. I would guess the materials cost is about the same, and you'd reduce or skip completely the (probably significant) costs of polishing and bluing, which is both labor-intensive and has big hazardous waste management issues.

As far as demand, again, dunno. My observation is that SS handguns seem more popular than blued, although rifles seem to be less so -- although I think the market is moving in a SS/synthetic direction. Less maintenance, more durability, lighter weight...I do think that folks are right when they suggest that shotgun buyers just haven't sought SS shotguns, so unless the manufacturers find it worthwhile to try to steer the market that way, things are not likely to change (and I'm not suggesting that they should change! <g> ).

1911 · June 2, 2000, 10:19 PM

Too brittle. When I worked as a machinist for CTD (Cooper Fabricators / Cooper Tool & Die) in Lake Zurich, IL we used to make SS barrels for the 870, & they were selling as fast as we could cut them. After about eight months they all started getting returned -- blown up!

(thankfully no injuries) Hired a metallurgist from CB&I he told us that we'll never find a suitable SS compound for shotgun barrels. Several other companies have also tried, Stainless IS stronger, but it's just too brittle (so far). Only ordinance steel, & the hi-palootin exotic steels flex enough for a 12ga barrel. There's no reason that the receiver can't be SS, it'd be a little heavy though. Rick

[This message has been edited by 1911 (edited June 02, 2000).]

**Mike Irwin** · June 3, 2000, 01:09 PM

1911,

I find it kind of hard to believe that stainless steel would be perfectly suitable for use in rifle and pistol barrels where pressures are significantly higher, but not shotgun barrels.

What's the difference?

p l i n k e r · June 3, 2000, 03:54 PM

Ruger makes an over and under that's stainless, so barrels shouldn't be a problem?

1911 · June 19, 2000, 10:37 PM

It looks like Winchester is going to try it again with the 1300, looks good - I hope it works out this time. Rick http://www.winchester-guns.com/prodi...r/13stnmar.htm

[This message has been edited by 1911 (edited June 19, 2000).]

Ledbetter · June 20, 2000, 12:22 AM

I seem to remember that pressures are actually lower in a shotgun than a rifle because of the nature of the projectile. Then I went back and found a thread that said that shotgun shells generate 7,000 - 11,000 psi. Someone out there know the truth? Mulder?

Ledbetter

[This message has been edited by Ledbetter (edited June 20, 2000).]

Dave McC · June 20, 2000, 06:36 AM

Off the top of my head, Shotgun pressures are less than 13,000 PSI, and some rifles go to 55,000. But look at the thicknesses of each.Compared to a rifle bbl of even ultra light weight, a shotgun bbl is paper thin.

Bennett Richards · June 21, 2000, 12:11 AM

Winchester's marine pump has a stainless barrel... has for quite a while now...

I like my 870 Marine magnum... Electroless is far more resistant to corrosian than stainless.

Ben

jthuang · June 21, 2000, 07:50 AM

Ledbetter, you are correct -- check Richard Lee's Modern Reloading. Lee's reloading manual details reloading for metallic and shotgun cartridges so it discusses the relative pressure limits of shotguns and rifles/handguns.

Lee notes that even though the pressures for shotguns are relatively low (when compared to most rifles, let alone a .416 Remington Magnum), they are still operating close to their maximum pressure limits so you can't go overboard in hot-rodding your shotshell reloads.

Justin

------------------
Justin T. Huang, Esq.
late of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

**Mike Irwin** · June 21, 2000, 12:33 PM

It is not at all uncommon to see rifle pressures jump as high as 65 to 70,000 psi. Small variations in the hardness of the bullet jacket, case, amount of powder, primer, etc., can cause this.

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.

Dave McC · June 21, 2000, 02:17 PM

oh, yeah, Mike, so darn true. Even shooting ammo in the summer that you loaded in the winter can get hairy.

Mom raised no fools. Any and all loads I work up are on the mild side, and it doesn't take flat primers for me to back off...

May 31, 2000, 07:42 AM	#1
Allen_Raiford Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2000 Posts: 304	Coated and plated yes, but no stainless. How come?

June 1, 2000, 07:03 AM	#2
Allen_Raiford Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2000 Posts: 304	Y'all don't know either, eh?

June 1, 2000, 07:19 AM	#3
JNewell Senior Member Join Date: March 12, 2000 Posts: 1,092	Nope! <vbg> Kinda funny, too, since everything else has moved that way.

June 1, 2000, 08:56 AM	#4
fal308 Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 12, 1998 Location: Missouri Posts: 1,992	I'm sure if there was enough demand for them they would be produced. As it is, most organizations that buy firearms are looking for the most firearm for the least money and that usually rules out stainless. A true combat shotgun would require a coating on the stainless to dull out the sheen. Sort of like the black stainless that is seen, but again cost is involved. Only a wannabe would want a shiny combat firearm. That apparantly isn't enough interest for the firearms industry to tool up.

June 1, 2000, 09:48 AM	#5
Dave McC Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 13, 1999 Location: Columbia, Md, USA Posts: 8,811	Possibly, a SS shotgun with one of the camo finishes over it would be the best combination of unobtrusiveness and corrosion resistance, But, how much of a market would there be? One 870 here has been used extensively, including sea dusk hunting and for deer under wet conditions. After over 40 years of use, zero rust.

June 1, 2000, 10:42 AM	#6
jthuang Senior Member Join Date: January 21, 2000 Posts: 823	Maybe it's cheaper to have a shotgun treated with Black-T, Metacol III or one of the various Robar finishes than to make one entirely from stainless? Justin

June 1, 2000, 09:27 PM	#7
Allen_Raiford Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2000 Posts: 304	Seems like a SS shotgun would be good for boat duty. Then again, hard chrome would probably be better. ------------------ "Pathfinders Light the Way!"

June 1, 2000, 10:16 PM	#8
C.R.Sam Senior Member Join Date: October 29, 1999 Location: Dewey, AZ Posts: 12,858	Guessin here. Maker has to make a profit. More expensive to make, material cost a little higher, machining time a little longer, machine tools last a little less. Cost per item for a thousand of something is far greater than cost per item for twenty thousand of the same thing. Harder to sell. Slightly heavier for same strength as 4,000 series steel. Steel shot would probably be a no no. Hunter doesn't want a shiny gun. A little more expensive cause of previous. Action parts life shorter due to stainless on stainless problems. Sam

June 2, 2000, 12:48 AM	#9
mongfu Member Join Date: February 19, 2000 Posts: 29	what about electroless nickel? I love my remington marine magnum! (not because it is shiny-but because it does its job and will last forever)

June 2, 2000, 07:55 AM	#10
JNewell Senior Member Join Date: March 12, 2000 Posts: 1,092	Dunno if it really would be more expensive. I would guess the materials cost is about the same, and you'd reduce or skip completely the (probably significant) costs of polishing and bluing, which is both labor-intensive and has big hazardous waste management issues. As far as demand, again, dunno. My observation is that SS handguns seem more popular than blued, although rifles seem to be less so -- although I think the market is moving in a SS/synthetic direction. Less maintenance, more durability, lighter weight...I do think that folks are right when they suggest that shotgun buyers just haven't sought SS shotguns, so unless the manufacturers find it worthwhile to try to steer the market that way, things are not likely to change (and I'm not suggesting that they should change! <g> ).

June 2, 2000, 10:19 PM	#11
1911 Member Join Date: June 1, 2000 Posts: 30	Too brittle. When I worked as a machinist for CTD (Cooper Fabricators / Cooper Tool & Die) in Lake Zurich, IL we used to make SS barrels for the 870, & they were selling as fast as we could cut them. After about eight months they all started getting returned -- blown up! (thankfully no injuries) Hired a metallurgist from CB&I he told us that we'll never find a suitable SS compound for shotgun barrels. Several other companies have also tried, Stainless IS stronger, but it's just too brittle (so far). Only ordinance steel, & the hi-palootin exotic steels flex enough for a 12ga barrel. There's no reason that the receiver can't be SS, it'd be a little heavy though. Rick [This message has been edited by 1911 (edited June 02, 2000).]

June 3, 2000, 01:09 PM	#12
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,382	1911, I find it kind of hard to believe that stainless steel would be perfectly suitable for use in rifle and pistol barrels where pressures are significantly higher, but not shotgun barrels. What's the difference?

June 3, 2000, 03:54 PM	#13
p l i n k e r Junior member Join Date: May 17, 2000 Posts: 46	Ruger makes an over and under that's stainless, so barrels shouldn't be a problem?

June 19, 2000, 10:37 PM	#14
1911 Member Join Date: June 1, 2000 Posts: 30	It looks like Winchester is going to try it again with the 1300, looks good - I hope it works out this time. Rick http://www.winchester-guns.com/prodi...r/13stnmar.htm [This message has been edited by 1911 (edited June 19, 2000).]

June 20, 2000, 12:22 AM	#15
Ledbetter Senior Member Join Date: February 23, 2000 Location: California USA Posts: 4,533	I seem to remember that pressures are actually lower in a shotgun than a rifle because of the nature of the projectile. Then I went back and found a thread that said that shotgun shells generate 7,000 - 11,000 psi. Someone out there know the truth? Mulder? Ledbetter [This message has been edited by Ledbetter (edited June 20, 2000).]

June 20, 2000, 06:36 AM	#16
Dave McC Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 13, 1999 Location: Columbia, Md, USA Posts: 8,811	Off the top of my head, Shotgun pressures are less than 13,000 PSI, and some rifles go to 55,000. But look at the thicknesses of each.Compared to a rifle bbl of even ultra light weight, a shotgun bbl is paper thin.

June 21, 2000, 12:11 AM	#17
Bennett Richards Senior Member Join Date: November 14, 1998 Location: Carlsbad, CA USA Posts: 356	Winchester's marine pump has a stainless barrel... has for quite a while now... I like my 870 Marine magnum... Electroless is far more resistant to corrosian than stainless. Ben

June 21, 2000, 07:50 AM	#18
jthuang Senior Member Join Date: January 21, 2000 Posts: 823	Ledbetter, you are correct -- check Richard Lee's Modern Reloading. Lee's reloading manual details reloading for metallic and shotgun cartridges so it discusses the relative pressure limits of shotguns and rifles/handguns. Lee notes that even though the pressures for shotguns are relatively low (when compared to most rifles, let alone a .416 Remington Magnum), they are still operating close to their maximum pressure limits so you can't go overboard in hot-rodding your shotshell reloads. Justin ------------------ Justin T. Huang, Esq. late of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

June 21, 2000, 12:33 PM	#19
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,382	It is not at all uncommon to see rifle pressures jump as high as 65 to 70,000 psi. Small variations in the hardness of the bullet jacket, case, amount of powder, primer, etc., can cause this. ------------------ Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag. Chances are he knows how to use it.

June 21, 2000, 02:17 PM	#20
Dave McC Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 13, 1999 Location: Columbia, Md, USA Posts: 8,811	oh, yeah, Mike, so darn true. Even shooting ammo in the summer that you loaded in the winter can get hairy. Mom raised no fools. Any and all loads I work up are on the mild side, and it doesn't take flat primers for me to back off...