Proofed for steel?

[Simonix]

Costs about £50-£70 to have you're gun reproofed for steel at the Birmingham proof house. 

But that is only for high performance steel, nitro proof covers you for regular steel up to half choke anyway like what has been said above. 

Buy the perazzi! ;-)

 

[Paul120]

Some very good and useful info in this thread. I've bern trying to unravel the Steel shot conundrum for a while. Therr serms to be losds of conflicting / muddled opinions when I ask peaple. You woild think that the proof houses woild isdue a clear guidance leaflet or bulletin. 

Onecquestuon springs to mind. The higher power load  I believe os to ovetvome the losd in striking power over lead. 

Therefore , Does anyone know what diffetence is between  say  a 2 3/4" 32g  stamdard load against a 3" 32g  HP shell. 

Would it give you an extra X yards(Metres)  or X%age ? 

I find this really interesting as I am on there verge of having a gun opened up from 3/4 & Full to 1/2 & 1/2 for 2 3/4" Steel. . From what I'm reading here I don't need to bother. The other option is to chop it in for a steel proofed gun.  

 

[timps]

BASC has a good leaflet on the subject

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/download-monitor/download.php?id=723

"There are two types of steel shot cartridges: Standard Steel and High Performance Steel (See table below for criteria). Standard Steel cartridges can be fired through any gun proved to the standard level (ie most “Nitro” proved guns, proved to at least 930 bar) and through any choke. High Performance Steel cartridges should always be marked as such on the box and should only be fired through guns that have passed Steel Shot proof. These guns should be proved to at least 1320 bar, be stamped with "Steel Shot" and a have a Fleur de Lys  proof mark to prove it). Most High Performance steel can be fired through any choke, but it is recommended not to use choke greater than a half for shot sizes BB (4.1mm) or larger."

In standard steel you can use any choke according to CIP (except on very light weight game Guns).

In HP steel you can use any choke up to 4.0mm shot size, however a fixed choke gun choked more than 1/2 would need to be opened up to pass the steel proof test as the bigger shot size could be used.

Regards the striking  power you are limited in shot size, load weight and momentum, I stand to be corrected but I have yet to see a CIP HP clay load, only the bigger load weight or shot size game loads.

Momentum is velocity (in m/s) at 2.5 m from the muzzle  multiplied by load weight (in kg). The limit for standard steel is 12 Ns.

Black gold steel for instance is  28g 7.5 shot ,1450 velocity (marketing) 400 velocity (mps v1 used to to work out momentum) gives a momentum of 11.2 Ns which is below 12 and therefore standard steel. I doubt you would need more than that for clays.

For game loads if you up the load weight you obviously have to drop the velocity and the limit on shot size could be a problem for some quarry. 

Like I said if you are shooting clays no problem, with hunting your cartridge choice is more limited but there is still plenty out there in standard steel.

Edit to add:

the gamebore website is worth a look as you can see a graph and work out the difference between their shells. 

 

[Paul120]

Thanks for that. 

It's good to see somehing in writing from an authority on the subject. 

My only experience with steel so far has been on DTL with 24g 7s. 

The results were somewhat dissapoining to say the least against a 24g lead load. 

Perhaps if lead is banned  the rules could be changed so the use of say 4s in 32g in the norm to match lead. 

The people that Have said they shoot HP Steel at wildfowl say its not a nice experience and not good in the teeth department and should avoided unless absolutely necessary and only recommended for use in autos. 

Wildfowlers seem to hate the stuff. 

 

[Darkside]

I've shot 25 skeet with steel once, nothing wrong with it for skeet.

I did manage to aquired 60+ loose 28g steel Clever Pro Extra steel mixed through with 24g 7 1/2 lead and 28g 7 1/2 and 8's in lead, screwed in two 1/4 chokes and shot 100 sporting practice with them 'blind loading'...the kills from the pro extra steel were awesome...smoke!!! 

 

[timps]

I have shot 28g steel for sporting clays and while I prefer lead I was surprised at its ability.

A friend of mine shoots the Dutch Dorhout Mees GP a FITASC sporting meet nearly every year and as lead is banned in Holland it's all steel. He doesn't have a problem with the use of steel and seeing as everyone is forced to use it no one has an advantage, he was using 28g steel.

Obviously if he thought it was an issue he wouldn't pay the expense to travel and shoot in Holland so  I do value his opinion on the use of steel.

 

[Wonko the Sane]

You're making this way more complicated than it need be.  Shooting steel TARGET loads in a nitro proofed gun is not a problem as long as the shooter realizes that tight chokes are likely to eat it when the nasty steel shot don't flow thru the choke like lead does.  The choke proper has no influence on pressure whatsoever no matter whether Brit proof takes that into account or not.

I shot one box of steel 28gm'ers thru #3 and #4 Perazzi screw-ins with no visible or measurable effect to the gun or chokes.  But I do not shoot steel because I simply will not pay that price to shoot.  Anti-lead sustained by bad science may well destroy a fine pastime for me eventually but for now I'm a dedicated polluter. 

If you want to shoot 3.5"HP steel then get an auto - - that's what they're for.  

JMO of course YMMV

 

[timps]

I am  not making it complicated I am simply stating you can shoot standard steel through any choke in your gun which is making it easier for UK shooters.

Whilst  you are correct that it doesn't increase the chamber pressure it can and DOES increase the service pressure measured in the barrel, the standard steel TARGET loads available in the USA are not the same as TARGET loads available to CIP member countries.  Increase the velocity on Gamebore black gold 28g 7.5  target load from its  400 v1mps to greater than 400 v1mps it then becomes HP steel. HP steel can only be shot through a HP steel gun which can only normally be submitted for proof if it is designed to shoot it. So with that in mind the chokes in a HP steel gun will have been designed to take steel at the recommended constrictions if sold in a CIP member state, so no damage should occur.

On older non HP steel guns if the steel shot cannot flow through the choke like lead does then obviously the pressure builds up behind it and the choke and /or the barrel  does get damaged.

So they reduced the service pressure of the standard steel target cartridge to below that of the equivalent lead so it can get through the choke like lead does and not damage the gun.

A CIP Working Group made up of Austria, Belgium, Chile,  Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy,  Russia,  Slovakia, Spain, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom. Looked into this in great detail and scientific tests were done taking into account worst case scenarios of existing nitro proofed guns that could be using steep full choke.

You might not agree with their findings but they did do extensive scientific testing and research to come to this conclusion where as yours is just an opinion. If this standard was trashing full choke guns I think the standard would have been changed by now.

 

[Wonko the Sane]

AFAIC that is still more complicated than need be.  Reducing pressures reduces velocity and if any suitable V for steel is gonna be attained then you're stuck w/ that.  Reducing V to aid flow thru the choke can hardly be done enough to be of consequence and it would be WAY interesting to see the pressure/V charts that were done to support that contention and how it was determined that the flow improved or not.  And did that include comparisons with lead at all pressure/V points of analysis?  It's been my unfortunate enlightenment that there are scientific studies and then there are scientific studies. Not that I really GAF tho cuz I'm not using steel.

Regardless of proof I would offer that anyone shooting steel at anything like usual speeds for steel thru more than an IC choke is asking for trouble.  Whether or not that happens is prolly a matter for the gods to decide and besta luck to any of you who do it.

that's about all for me - thanks for playing

still JMO of course and YMMV

Charlie

 

[timps]

Making it more complicated is saying you can only shoot CIP standard steel through 1/4 choke to those who have a fixed choke gun tighter than 1/4. Personally I would also use 1/4 on steel but that is for patterning reasons not anything else.

I come from a scientific background so when you say .  "Reducing V to aid flow thru the choke can hardly be done enough to be of consequence"  without actually doing any tests or being able to quote tests is bold statement to make and one I won't take at face value without proof unfortunately.  To help flow they don't just set limits on V at 2.5m they also include shot size, service pressure, mass of shot and momentum,  if I don't trust the CIP to get the scientific tests right then everything I shoot is up for debate.

You arrived at 1/4 because it sounded right to you rather than anything else, you could have just as easily said 1/2 or skeet is the maximum. It's a perfectly acceptable opinion to have just not one based on empirical evidence. 

Your welcome, I love debating/playing

Still JMO and CIP's of course

 

[Wonko the Sane]

IC is the reco'd choke for hs steel in game guns - I didn't pick it - and it patterns F at steel V's in regular guns

Knowing how slack "popular science" is these days I have little use for claims made w/out detailed methodologies of data collection, types of data, analysis methodology, etc etc.  I call BS on anything that is not substantiated.  In my pro past I assembled a pile of testing regimes, and the statements you have in the big para read like slop to me.  I don't care who did it.  Sticking a pressure sensor in the chamber will most def not give any substance to those statements and I'd be surprised if anything more than that was done.  A definitive study of what is contended would require tens of $K and to do it right would take a couple hun$K.  Wanna bet they spent that much? 

trust anyone you like for whatever reason.  Bad science is bad science and government agencies and industry usually do the absolute least possible. 

 

[timps]

That is for LIGHTWEIGHT game Guns only, not game Guns in general,  the same reference says everything else is ok.  

"In 1992, after several years of study, the Working Group presented its findings. 

In deciding on the limits for Standard Steel Shot cartridges, CIP had to take into account the worst case condition of barrel strength and choke profile of existing shotguns, without the requirement for reproof, and with shotguns of different age, make and construction. Not only were limits set for pressure, velocity, momentum and shot size, to take into account the worst condition of barrel strength and section, but also the steepest angle of choke and also the possibility of full choke in one of the barrels."

So several years of study does seem a bit more than sticking a pressure sensor in it, as for cost yes the cost would have been over tens of K for several years of study. 

I do find the irony in that you call BS on anything that is not substantiated, however go on to offer a opinion that is not substantiated in anyway whist calling BS on one that is.  By your own reasoning you have to call BS on your own opinion. 

If you were to ask the CIP I am sure they can provide the proof you require. So saying it is not substantiated is incorrect, just you haven't seen it.

You are right bad science is bad science but an opinion offered without any science at all  is a lot worse.

You genuinely have no idea that it is bad science  you're just assuming it is because you don't like the findings. 

 

[Wonko the Sane]

Your quote is devoid of actual information.  Simply gross generalities that say nothing.  Unencumbered by data as it were.

"So several years of study does seem a bit more than sticking a pressure sensor in it, as for cost yes the cost would have been over tens of K for several years of study. "

In truth it does not.  The data collection protocols are central to the legitimacy of the conclusions and the time taken is not a criteria of anything.  I'm sure there have been decades of study relating to the evil of lead shot in the environment and its effect on waterfowl and every study that I've seen is BS with nothing more than spurious generalities provided by BAD science.   

If you care to pay for my time I'll be happy to provide you with a study that will actually be controlled by stated and defined protocols and data.  You might want to set aside $200K for starters.  Designing the study will easily eat the most of that.

As for not liking the findings of you CIP - I couldn't care less.  Not only do they have no effect on me, I don't shoot steel for any reason anyway.  Does the term GAF ring a bell?

 

[timps]

Unfortunately all your posts  are devoid of actual information. 

cost of testing doesn't mean that it proves it more.  I work in a testing laboratory so quite easily do it myself but don't feel the need  

You have no idea what they have or have not done but you condem all the same.

If you don't GAF then don't try and convince people what they have done is useless without some proof.

What lead shot on the environment has to do with this I have no idea. But if Guns were failing due to the standard steel shot I think we would be hearing about it by now. 

If you are saying all sientific tests are rubbish unless first approved by you then I disagree.