Which of these old guns can handle modern shotshells?

[valkabit6]

I recently bought several old shotguns, and I'm curious as to which ones can handle modern 2 3/4 shells.

Winchester 1897, manufactured in 1899. I'm assuming modern shells are a bad idea.

Remington Model 10 manufactured in 1916 ?

Winchester Model 12 manufactured in 1927 ?

Ithaca 37 manufactured in early 40s, I'd imagine this can handle modern shells, but since I'm here..

Remington Model 31 made in 1949 I believe? Serial #114XXX. I'm assuming this can handle modern shells.

Winchester Model 12 made in '53? I'd call this a modern gun, but the design is a 100 years old..

Thanks for any help.

[FrankenMauser]

All of them.


Whether or not they can handle steel loads is another story.

[Screwball]

All should be fine, but with any gun I don't know the history on... I'd have a gunsmith look it over.

[kozak6]

That's a tough one. The older ones might be chambered for a 2 1/2" shells, which would be unsafe to fire 2 3/4" loads in.

I'm pretty sure the Ithaca should have a 2 3/4" chamber. The rest of them might need some dedicated googling or a chamber cast.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by kozak6

That's a tough one. The older ones might be chambered for a 2 1/2" shells, which would be unsafe to fire 2 3/4" loads in.

2.5" was a black powder load (actually 2.625" or 5/8). They increased the length to 2.75" to allow the shorter ones to go in stronger guns, but not smokeless loads to fit in black powder guns. I think that was done completely in the 1897 from Jump Street, but the 1893 was bored to the earlier black powder load.

[eastbank]

all i shoot at small game is 1-1/8 oz #6-7.5 shot low base shells in all my shotguns, even the older one. oldest is a 1900 remington made in 1906. eastbank.

[FITASC]

2.5" was a black powder load (actually 2.625" or 5/8). They increased the length to 2.75" to allow the shorter ones to go in stronger guns, but not smokeless loads to fit in black powder guns. I think that was done completely in the 1897 from Jump Street, but the 1893 was bored to the earlier black powder load.

Thee are a lot of modern guns designed with 2.5" chambers (and a few with 2" chambers". Then there were the 2-9/16" chambers which were prevalent on many older guns as well.

They should be gone over by a good gunSMITH, (NOT some Glock parts changer) to verify there are no issues.

[Hawg]

2.5" was a black powder load (actually 2.625" or 5/8). They increased the length to 2.75" to allow the shorter ones to go in stronger guns, but not smokeless loads to fit in black powder guns.

Shot shells are measured after they're fired so yeah a 2 3/4 shell will fit a 2 1/2 inch chamber just fine but when you fire it the star crimp opens up over the forcing cone which raises pressure.

[FITASC]

Absolutely, watched too many supposed "gunsmiths" drop a unfired 2-3/4 into a 2-1/2" chamber and pronounce it good. I do my best to avoid their services.

[FrankenMauser]

I had a guy do that with an H&R 1908 12 ga that I purchased at an auction for $13.
While filling out the necessary paperwork, I casually asked if he knew what the chamber length was.

...Pulls out an A-Zoom dummy, drops it in the chamber, "two and three-quarters, I'd say."



I measured it later. It was a 2-9/16". (And unsafe to fire for other reasons.)

[44 AMP]

All should, but I would STRONGLY RECOMMEND NO STEEL SHOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've got a Model 12, made in the 20s. Absolutely fine for "modern" ammo, provided, NO STEEL SHOT, and I would avoid "magnum" loads for regular use. 3 3/4dr eq is plenty for the old guns.

All the guns you listed were made before the common use of plastic shot cups. They were choked to provide the listed pattern with the old type shells, and are generally tighter choked (smaller barrel diameter) than modern guns with the same choke rating.

My Grandfather's rule for determining a full choke 12ga (without shooting patterns) was that a full choke gun would balance a dime on the muzzle.

And they will. Nearly all full choke guns made before the common use of shot cups (which began in the 50s), will not pass a dime through the muzzle.

Grab a new full choke 12ga off the rack, a dime falls right through.

This is the main reason I say NO STEEL SHOT. The older guns barrels simply were not made to handle the kind of stress steel shot produces passing through a choke. Barrels have split. I don't consider the risk worth taking.

If you have to shoot steel, use a more modern gun, something made after steel shot came into use.

It is less critical with shotguns than with rifles and pistols, UNLESS the shotgun has a Damascus barrel (if it does its black powder ONLY), but if it was made before 1900 (and in many cases before the 1920s) your safest bet for the longevity of the gun is to only shoot black powder.

Modern smokeless powder ammunition, loaded to the same pressures as the original black powder ammo is safe to shoot, however, while the max pressure is within the safe limits, smokeless puts different stresses on the gun, and MAY lead to a failure sooner than black powder.

None of the guns you named has a Damascus (aka "twist") barrel, so that's not an issue.

[tango1niner]

A simple way to check the chamber is to get yourself a fired 2 3/4" shell. Stuff it with something that will hold the crimped portion FULLY OPEN (wood dowel). Slip it in chamber, if it goes all the way that is a pretty good indicator of chamber length. You MUST have the crimp fully opened.

[Gunplummer]

Old shotguns/shells are not an exact science. Like Frankenmauser, I have an early H&R (Probably early 30's) single shot shotgun. I have never had a problem with 2 3/4 " shot shells or slugs, but some buckshot empties are just a little too long and will weld into the end of the chamber. I don't know if the pressure goes up or not. The walls of the shell are much thinner than the old cardboard shells, so it is not compressing that much. Shotguns have been around a long time and there is bound to be some interchangeability problems.

[the possum]

Some of those guns could be special ordered with Damascus steel barrels, so if all the finish is gone it may be hard to tell at a glance. Check in protected areas to make sure. Even so, Damascus barrels of that era may well have been proofed for smokeless powder, so further research would be needed if you discover they are.

Also, even if the steel is good enough to handle stout modern loads, you also need to consider that the wood in the stocks is a century +/- old. Sometimes they have splits & cracks where they were inletted for the tang or receiver, that aren't obvious from the outside. It may be worth removing the buttstock so you can inspect it. A bit of epoxy now could save you from having a nice old stock splintered.

[dgludwig]

The older ones might be chambered for a 2 1/2" shells, which would be unsafe to fire 2 3/4" loads in.

When chambered in 12 gauge, I'm fairly certain that all of the listed shotguns had minimum chamber lengths of 2 3/4". The Winchester Model 97 (1897) shotguns were the first Winchester shotguns to be chambered for 2 3/4" smokeless shells. However, very early Winchester Model 97 16 gauge guns came with 2 9/16" chambers. Also, for a short time, the Model 97 could be had with a damascus barrel.
As others have advised, when in doubt have a gunsmith look the gun over. In good condition, all of the listed shotguns should be safe using modern ammunition-with the aforementioned admonition to not use steel shot in them.