WHILE the rifle has progressed by leaps and bounds in the past decade, we must confess that the shotgun has, by comparison, been standing still. However, just prior to the war, experts were paying more attention to shotgun ballistics than ever before, and now that they will have the time to continue their experiments, it is not hoping for too much to expect that we may have some radical improvements in that branch of gunnery in the near future. It is impossible to predict just what the guns of the coming generations will be like, but as we know what points are receiving the greatest attention it is fairly safe to hazard a guess as to which way the cat will jump.
As the improvement of the rifle was largely in the development of superior ammunition, so it must be with the shotgun. It is hard to imagine better designed or more beautifully proportioned arms than the best double guns of today; surely little more could be asked for in that respect. And if we carefully examine some of the best examples of the game gun produced in our forefather’s day—guns made a century ago—we find that we have progressed but little in exterior appearance. There is a limit to what can be done to beautify the gun—we cannot hope to surpass perfection. Just as the last of the muzzle loaders were all that could be expected of its kind, so I believe is the high grade double of today. Where we surpassed them was in killing range, and facility of loading, and almost any improvement that seems possible in our future guns hinges upon the development of better ammunition.
It may be said that the muzzle velocity of a twelve-bore gun is approximately 1250 ft. per second with the standard loads, but we dared not make use of much higher velocities, such as we would like to, until we arrived at some way of preventing the increased pressure, disrupting the pattern and deforming a large number of the pellets in the load. With the rifle, the problem was far easier, for after developing our powders it was only necessary to produce bullets that would resist the increased strain imposed upon them. In the gun, we are dealing with a quantity of small projectiles which not only must be given a higher degree of resistance to the steel bore of the barrel, but they must all be controlled after they leave the muzzle, and this is harder to do when we are dealing with about three hundred projectiles instead of one, particularly as we admit that we know very little about what happens to the shot charge, either within the bore or after it leaves the muzzle.
Since the birth of the breech loader there has been nothing new of major importance, except the invention of choke boring and the repeating gun; the former increased our range 20 per cent, while the latter only increased our speed of fire. All of the other improvements, such as the single trigger and the automatic ejector, are of secondary value.
Undoubtedly, the chief hindrance to the development of longer killing range in shotguns lies in the fact that we could not increase the velocity of the shot charge beyond about 1,100 foot seconds over a range of twenty yards without spoiling the pattern by blowing it to pieces, except by increasing the choke. Some guns were already choked up to 80 per cent, which, in a twelve-bore, means that they are practically useless for close shots, as they will tear the birds to pieces, and for long range work, we cannot increase the choke beyond 80 per cent mark, as the pressure upon the shot charge is so great that too much of it is deformed and the pattern shattered.
To properly understand this it must be realized that about 5 per cent of the shot charge arrives at the target simultaneously, followed very closely by about 35 per cent of the remainder, and this 40 per cent constitutes the killing part of the load, since the rest of the charge flying irregularly and with diminished velocity arrives late, lacks penetration, spreads erratically, and is to a great extent lost at the longer ranges. The chief cause of this loss of shot is due to its deformation in the bore of the gun; all of the outer layer of shot, those which bear against the hard inner surface of the barrel, are flattened out, as is a considerable share of the shot in the interior of the charge due to jamming in the cone as it leaves the case, and in the choke, and this loss of sphericity is the cause of its lack of strength due to greater air resistance in flight and loss of weight.
I recall that about ten years ago a firm in Pennsylvania advertised a method of brass lining gun barrels so that cylinder guns could be made full choke and large gauges could be reduced in bore. I remember that they claimed a finer pattern from such relined guns than could be produced with the best of plain steel barrels, full choked. Undoubtedly, this was due to the fact that the brass lining did not have as detrimental an effect upon the soft shot. It is also probably why we no longer hear of them, as the choke doubtless quickly wore out in the brass tube. Working from the other angle, the French have experimented with indifferent results with a copper-plated shot made of iron.
Consequently, we must develop a harder shot than our chilled shot, which will be better able to resist deformity in the bore of the gun, or we must produce a practical concentrator which will be so satisfactory that we can discard choke boring entirely. I do not believe that a concentrator will solve the problem, for I fail to see how one can be made that will burst at other than a fixed range, and unless this was close to the muzzle, the weapon would be useless for near shots, while if it did open close to the muzzle it could have no effect upon the pattern at long range. It has been suggested that we may get a sort of shrapnel shell that would burst only at a fixed range, but while this method is quite satisfactory for artillery-men, it would hardly serve the sportsman, who would not find his game inclined to wait until he got out his range finder and adjusted the time fuse to match.
Another improvement that has been said to make for better results at long range with heavy charges is the chamberless gun as described in Chapter V. This may be a step in the right direction. Either some one outstanding discovery will be made which will revolutionize the shotgun, or it will be a long, tedious pull uphill for a gradual improvement. Personally, I do not think that there is much fear of our laying aside our present weapons in the near future. I feel that the change will be due when it does come to a combination of developments.
As I see it, and predicted a year ago, the only thing that we can look for other than stronger shot is the development of progressive burning powders more like our best sporting rifle smokeless in that they will develop their energy by degrees in the barrel and not all at once as our dense shotgun powders do. Such a powder might well improve the pattern by deforming less of the shot, as it would not jam it up against the cone with as much initial force; at the same time, such a powder might in the end, or rather when it reached the muzzle, attain just as high velocity as the quick combustion powders that we now use.
This prediction appears to be coming true—a slow progressive burning shotgun powder has just been brought out by the DuPont Co. to be known as No. 93. This powder burns so slowly that the pressure is exerted throughout almost the entire length of the barrel, thereby greatly reducing the breech pressure; and as the shot is eased over the cone and through the choke—starting slowly and gaining momentum as it progresses up the tube—instead of being smashed up against the cone with high initial pressure (as it was by the old style powders), fewer of the pellets are rendered useless through deformation in the bore. This means that a larger percentage of the charge is effective and also that the shot charge can be increased in weight to give a denser pattern at long range without balling or jamming in the bore.
At the same time, as higher power can be generated without fear of a dangerous breech pressure when the same energy is exerted over 26 inches of barrel area as was formerly exerted in from four to six inches, the velocity can be considerably increased with safety as well as improved pattern.
The Western Cartridge Co. was the first to take advantage of it and are now offering twenty-bore shells loaded with 2½ drams of No. 93 powder and a full ounce of shot. I believe the full ounce charge is really used to afford sufficient resistance for the proper combustion of the powder rather than to increase the range of the load—though it does this also. But at any rate not since we discarded the muzzle loader and black powder have we been able to safely use such heavy charges of shot in comparison to the bore of the gun and still get good patterns.
One might say that this throws out my calculations of the killing power of shotguns in Chapter VII but it must be remembered that this new powder is still in the experimental stage—few sportsmen have as yet had a chance to try it out. We were then considering guns and loads of the present, those in general use; we are now speaking of the future. It is true these new loads practically put the twenty-bore in the space formerly held by the sixteen for killing power, but the improvement is bound to be adapted to all bores, and my comparison of the relative power of them still holds good.
What can be done with No. 93 powder for the twenty-bore can in the same way be done proportionately for the sixteen and the twelve-bore—so that they would still be as far ahead of the twenty in power as they now are. In fact, they are also loading twelve-bore cases with No. 93 powder and an ounce and a quarter of shot that are effective up to sixty yards and which attain a higher velocity than we previously got from the same weight of powder and 1⅛ ounce of shot. Certainly they are more effective than any other shells that I have ever used from the same size gun, and though still in an experimental stage, I look for greater improvement to follow along the same line in the near future.
We might quite naturally be led to believe from this that the future guns will be small bores, as has already been the case with the rifle. Undoubtedly, there will be some reduction in bore as greater power and longer range are secured. Indeed, it seems highly probable that it will be so; but as there is already a reaction setting in against the ultra small bore rifle, I believe that there will also be against the small bore shotgun. If we can produce a weapon that will not deform a large percentage of its shot charge, we can get fully as efficient a load from a relatively smaller amount of shot and at the same time increase the velocity so that the smaller gun will not only kill further, but the necessary lead could be greatly diminished. It is this question of lead and also trajectory (which few think of in connection with a scatter gun) which stands in the way of killing game even at the extreme range of our present-day weapons. Nevertheless, as it now stands, there is no doubt that many sportsmen are handicapping themselves with twenty-bore guns, as they have not the skill to get the most out of them; and to say the least, cannot shoot as well with them as they could with a larger weapon. The twenty, as I have said many times, has got to be a full choke to be a killing weapon at anything over medium range, as otherwise the pattern is too thin; but if we are able to produce a twenty in which little or no shot is lost due to deformation in the bore, we may reasonably expect to be able to get better results with more open bored, small gauge guns, and in that case they will be more generally useful. I am personally inclined to believe that we shall wean ourselves away from the radically small bore and that the light twelve, such as is used abroad, will come back into favor to some extent. If it does, we will probably bring the much-neglected sixteen into its own to take the place for game shooting that it really deserves. For the average sportsman who is looking for a light weapon for field use, it is decidedly a more suitable weapon than the twenty.
Many will naturally think that the future gun will not be a double but an automatic. We should of course look for the automatic as the next step; it is sure to be greatly improved in balance and design and its weight decreased. It will then possess all of the advantages of the repeater magnified to a great degree. But I believe that as game decreases in plentifulness, and it is sure to do so outside of preserves, the prejudice against the automatic for field use will become stronger. A short time ago I read an article advocating a twenty-bore automatic for field shooting. It may be that such a weapon will be the gun for the future, but I cannot help hoping that it will not be so. The automatic has its place in the duck blind, where one may have been disappointed for several days and then get a few minutes’ fast shooting when he wishes to make up for lost time. I had such an experience, when after lying in a battery all day, I had killed but six or seven birds, and just before sundown had five come in over the decoy, of which I got four with the automatic.
The market gunner is gone, and with him the greatest harm that an automatic could do. Surely a sportsman is entitled to a few more birds to fill his bag, provided he is well inside the limit that the law allows, if he can get them by the use of an automatic. It is also, undeniably, the humane gun for dispatching cripples which will often escape when a double is used, because the gun cannot be reloaded in time to shoot them again before they recover sufficiently to dive. However, there is no such excuse for an automatic gun in the field. No sportsman could desire more than two shots on upland birds, and no extras are then needed for cripples. If we were to limit the automatic to two shots, where would be its advantage over the double, except that the shooter by using one is aiming over one barrel instead of two. That is, I must confess, an advantage, as is demonstrated by the large number of trapshooters who use single-barrel guns at a game where extreme accuracy counts so much. Still, there is another way of answering this, that is, in the over and under guns being built abroad. At present they are only made by the best English gun-makers, who turn out solely hand-made weapons, and they are consequently extremely expensive, but there is no doubt that they can be produced by our machine methods as well as the present double gun, and at a much reduced cost.
This has brought me up to my idea of what the gun of the future will be. I may be far from right, but I believe that I am near enough to the truth to hazard a prophecy. This future gun, I imagine, is a sixteen-bore, double-ejector with a single trigger and twenty-six-inch barrels of about 6½ pounds’ weight, shooting a 2-inch or 2⅛-inch shell. It is loaded with a scant ounce of shot and a high efficiency condensed powder. This gun would have a square-shouldered chamber, or it may be chamberless, but it will attain a muzzle-velocity of at least 1500 ft. per second. I imagine this gun is a sixteen because I believe it to be the rational step from the twelve for field work, and the size that can be expected in the future to shoot further and stronger than our best grade twelve-bores of the present day. I believe that we will, in the near future, get twenty-five per cent greater efficiency from our guns than we are now getting; and this would mean that we could expect a sixteen to kill as regularly with a scant ounce of shot as a twelve would with 1¼ It goes without saying that this gun would, of course, be a single trigger weapon and an automatic ejector. Both of these modern innovations have passed the preliminary stages and have already demonstrated their reliability and worth, as their use makes the double gun as easy of manipulation as an automatic for two shots. I have suggested 26-inch barrels because they are handier and give the gun a better balance and because they unquestionably have just as good range as the 30-inch barrel. I suggested over and under barrels because of their superiority for quick alignment and balance; 6½ pounds’ weight because when made of good material no more is required for strength, and their improvement in ammunition will undoubtedly bring lessened recoil; short cartridges, because when loaded with a dense powder, there is no need of their being more than 2 to 2⅛ inches in length. The only reason why large base cups are put in our present shells when loaded with dense powder is to keep them as long as the bulk powder cases. One naturally could not use a 2-inch shell in a gun with a 3-inch chamber. Not only is the pattern ruined, but the pressure on the barrel at the cone is dangerously increased when the shot abruptly smashes up against it. Consequently, as so many weapons are in use that were made for long shells, the munition makers, to avoid trouble, did not decrease the length of dense powder cases, but with an ordinary field load it will shoot just as well as in a gun with a short chamber if properly loaded. Undoubtedly this gun must use a cartridge which develops considerably higher velocity than that which we now have, and there is no doubt that our velocities will slowly increase in the future. In the last twenty years shotgun velocities have increased about 100 ft. per second, and we can surely look for a greater increase in the next decade. This increased velocity, with proper shot concentration, will undoubtedly mean higher energy, and consequently, an expert would be able to make kills with regularity up to seventy yards.
So far I have confined my prophecies to the development of the field gun. and it would seem to follow that the long range gun for duck shooting would progress in the same direction—undoubtedly it will, but in considering the mechanical factors, we must not forget the physical ones which are quite as important.
In this respect, I must confess that I am inclined to take a less enthusiastic view of our possibilities, despite the developments which are sure to come. If we can produce a field gun of six pounds weight that will fire a light charge at high velocity, with killing effect up to seventy yards range, it would follow that super duck guns will kill at a hundred yards and over. But if they would, of what material benefit would it be? As I see it, the advantage in the predicted field gun of the future lies not so much in its increased ranges as in the lightness of the weapon as compared with guns of equal power at the present, plus lighter ammunition, freedom from recoil, the extravagant wastage in the shot charge, and higher velocity, which will cut down to some extent the factor of personal error.
These things would also apply to the improvement of the duck gun, but let us also look more closely into the matter of personal error. I cannot see where a range of much over seventy yards would be of any material benefit, except to add to the lining of the munition makers’ pocket by increasing the number of shells which we would be tempted to expend, and as a rule uselessly. Within seventy yards our best long range guns of to-day are pretty capable weapons, in the hands of a first-class shot who is able to get the most out of them. Unfortunately, very few of us are proficient enough to do so. Therein lies the trouble, and if we are not good enough shots to kill at the extreme range of our present guns, of what material advantage will it be to increase their killing power? Not one sportsman in ten can kill with any degree of regularity at fifty yards and not one in a hundred can do so at sixty. It consequently follows that the value of a small bore (such as a twelve) capable of killing at seventy-five yards would be, to say the least, questionable, except for flock shooting, and I for one do not wish to put myself down in print as being an advocate of increasing the range of fowling pieces so that we may slam a load of shot indiscriminately into large flocks at greater range in hope of knocking down a few. We all know that we do so often enough now when sorely tempted.
I realize that I am laying myself open to terrific criticism in making the statement above, and already have a vision of letters from Duxberry to the Mississippi Delta informing me that I don’t know what I am talking about, and offering affidavits to the effect that Mike So-and-So or Jake Whats-it can kill ducks all day long at sixty yards with his old gas pipe. I realize that every small community throughout the country has its mythical prodigy and that I am shattering an ideal. Nevertheless, I shall stick to my colors. We all have made phenomenal long shots but most of them were flukes.
The biggest obstacle to successful shots at long range is our ability to accurately judge the distance and the speed of flight of the bird and lead it accordingly. No satisfactory system has yet been devised for doing so, and none will be, because the personal factor enters into the connection to too large a degree. Even when we do kill at long range we are apt to miscalculate the distance at which the bird was struck. As an illustration, take a high crossing bird; it is impossible to gauge its altitude within several yards unless it is passing over tall trees that we know the exact height of, and even then, by how much did the bird top them? Suppose we hit it, how far then did it drift? For a bird killed in the air will always drift a considerable distance in the direction of its flight. If brought down on the water, the distance at which the shot was made is even harder to estimate, for added to its natural drift is the action of the wind and water which keeps it moving after hitting the surface. Except in river shooting we seldom have any range finder, such as the trees afford, and this leads to peculiarity of shooting that is worthy of mention at this time. We are all tempted on occasion to shoot at low flying birds, that are out of range but appear to be closer than they really are. The exact opposite is true of high incomers, for the bird silhouetted against the sky invariably appears to be farther away than it actually is, and it is a common thing for the old-timers to pass up a shot at such birds that are really well within killing range. A good illustration of this is to watch a flock of pigeons circling around high city buildings when the opportunity affords, mentally calculate their height and then glance at the skyscraper, counting the floors down to the ground from where they are flying and allowing about twelve feet for each floor—until you become used to it you will invariably find that what you thought was a good sixty yards was not more than forty.
At one time I did considerable flight shooting at ducks, on a pass where they crossed a single telegraph line, generally going under the wires when they had to “buck” the wind, and it was such days that we always picked out to shoot. The poles were set at equal distances so that by lying near one and waiting until the birds passed we had a pretty accurate idea of just how far out they were from us. Nevertheless I did not seem to get any better at it, despite the fact that we had the firing zone charted out like a battery of artillery. Differences in the changing qualities of the light in the gathering gloom at dusk made our estimation at fault; variations in the force of the wind undoubtedly had their effect upon the speed of the ducks, and though we talk a lot about our time in trapshooting, whoever heard a duck shooter express the opinion that his time was slowing up in the blind? There is no doubt, however, that the personal factor does play a big part in our success, or lack of it, on certain days.
Again, the range of a duck has a great deal to do with your estimation of its speed; take as an illustration two strata of clouds, such as we often notice on windy days; the low scuds tear by like race horses, while the larger cloud banks higher up appear to be traveling slowly, though we know that they are really going faster because of the increased velocity of the wind higher up. The same way with passing ducks; often a bird whose range was accurately judged is missed because its speed was under-estimated. If our birds were always crossing at an exact right angle we would learn to do fairly creditable work, but alas! the angle is ever varying and it is the foreshortening effect of their flight that so often carries them out of the pattern.
To go back to atmospheric conditions, fog or mist has a tendency to magnify the bird and make it appear closer than it really is, while at dusk they seem farther away. There are a host of other things worth mentioning that I have not the space to bring up at this time; I merely seek to make good excuses for the inability of most of us to consistently kill at the full range of our weapons. Many sportsmen think that they are doing so when they are not. It is natural to overestimate anything that pleases us, and who among us is so blasé that he cannot feel a twinge of pleasure when he occasionally does knock down a single at long range? His pal slaps him on the back and enthusiastically declares that “that bird wasn’t a foot less than ninety yards off when you killed it! No, sir! Longest shot be-gosh that I ever saw!” And the pal finally settles the matter in the shooter’s mind by announcing that he will buy that old gun for what he paid for it new and give something to boot. Maybe they are both sincere, and bless the mark, who among us would be so wanting in sympathy as to try to disillusion them? But the point is that they go home and declare the supposition to be a positive fact. Suppose they do pace off the distance, the bird might well have drifted twenty yards through the air before it struck, at an angle which would entirely hide the drift from them. And they are ready to swear that it fell straight down. And so the stories grow until we are almost forced to believe what we know cannot be.
I repeat again, for emphasis, most of us cannot kill ducks with any degree of certainty at the extreme range of our best guns, although most of us think that we are doing so, and the same man that will unintentionally overestimate the range of a few long kills will often attribute the misses he makes at forty-five yards to the bird being out of range, when in reality he was at fault and the gun would kill every time at that distance if he had held it correctly.
As a good illustration, how few birds are “blown” badly in field shooting by the average man, armed with a full-choke weapon, simply because they were not centered by the charge, but were caught in the outer edge of it. Most of our kills are made in this way, but at long range the outer edge of the pattern is dissipated and ineffective, and consequently, we make a great many more misses than hits.
In point or pass shooting at ducks, where one gets the longest shots, as a rule, the average bird killed is between thirty-five and forty-five, while at fifty or over, comparatively few kills are made, and at sixty nothing short of the highest degree of proficiency will give us one out of four shots as a bag filler.
It is this and nothing else that has had the psychological effect of making the twenty-bore gun so popular among a lot of sportsmen who firmly believe that they are quite as good killers as the large bores. The effective range of the average field twenty is about forty-five yards, and as most men are not much good with a shotgun beyond that range, they take it for granted or come to the conclusion, that the twelve cannot kill much farther than the twenty can. I had a special twelve-bore gun made, as I wanted it for duck shooting, and secured in it a weapon that will kill ten yards farther than any twelve-bore that I ever shot before, but I must confess that it is little better in my hands than other guns that I have used simply because I have not the skill to use it to the best advantage.
It is for that reason that I am so lacking in enthusiasm for the future possibilities of the duck gun. Not losing track of the fact that with our present skill we will be able to kill at somewhat longer range when velocities are increased so that we will not have to lead our birds as far as we now do, and also as we are sure to get patterns in which a much smaller percentage of the shot charge will be deformed and made inefficient in the barrel, I still believe that killing birds at seventy-five yards would be an impossible feat for most of us unless we also enlarge the bore and go back to using big charges in a ten that will give us a much wider pattern and thereby make up for our own personal deficiency. Don’t forget that our twelve gauge guns are not the twelves of our grandfather’s day in size of bore, for the construction at the cone and in the choke makes them nearer fourteens from the muzzle-loading standpoint, while the tens that we now shoot are really nines. Lots of the old-timers still stick to their ten-bores for ducks, and if we want to increase our range, it is my opinion that we must follow their lead.