45LC in 410 Pardner shotgun?


PDA






berettaprofessor
February 24, 2013, 10:27 AM
This may be an entirely stupid question, but can one safely fire a 45 Long Colt cartridge in a 410 Pardner Shotgun? I know the barrel won't be rifled, but I'm looking for an inexpensive "barn gun" that might be useful for snakes (410) and larger critters such as raccoons (45LC) at relatively short distances.

If you enjoyed reading about "45LC in 410 Pardner shotgun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tolkachi Robotnik
February 24, 2013, 11:09 AM
It will probably go in and go off. Shotgun pressures are not near what is endured by centerfire cartridges, and it could blow up in your hands, taking off part of your forehead and maybe an eye or two.

This doesn't mean that someone hasn't done it and thinks it is a good enough idea.

At the very least the cases will probably stick in the shotgun and you'll have to take a rod to knock them out.

Bullets will also jump a distance, and you can expect leading or a pressure surge as the bullet rattles into the forcing cone area.

hipoint
February 24, 2013, 11:18 AM
I actually tried this, if you had a very low loading of the .45 colt pressures wouldn't be too much of an issue, but if you put a "regular" load in it, you could have issues with pressure... so it could be unsafe and the chances of you getting a "normal" load in the .45 colt on accident would be too great. Your eyes/face aren't worth a couple hundred bucks that it would take to buy something else.

aside from that, when I tried this the round would not chamber all the way and I broke my extractor. Just use a rifled slug, that way you're cool and no worries about it blowing up. a .410 slug has more power than people give it credit for. Sure it isn't a 250 grain .45 colt, but they are pretty devastating and would be more accurate anyhow. FYI, I also tried to see if a .41 magnum would chamber, nope.

If you search around online there are some folks making hotrod .410 slugs that are heavier than normal ones, it'll do anything you need it to do.

I own a farm and wanted something like this, I bought a rossi circuit judge and was terribly disappointed in it's accuracy... I'm still of the opinion that a rifled slug is the way to go. Better yet, you could sell the .410 and get a beat up single shot 12 gauge, then you know you'll have enough power. I keep one in the farm vehicle covered in used motor oil to keep it from rusting all to pieces, probably work fine in the barn as well.

rcmodel
February 24, 2013, 11:39 AM
Unless the .410 is specifically made to fire .45 Colt in it, it is not advisable.

The .410 bore is - ehhhh? oh yea!
.410" diameter.
Add the fact that a .410 full choke reduces the diameter to .392".

The .45 Colt bullet is .452" diameter.

A rifled slug is slightly smaller then bore diameter, hollow, and can easily swage down to go through any degree of choke.

A solid, and oversize .45 Colt bullet can't.

So you can see there might be a problem!

Regardless of that?
I think you will find a 3" .410 #6 shot shell will kill any coon that ever walked "at relatively short distances."

And it will be much safer around your barn & livestock then a ricocheting .45 Colt slug punching holes in things that shouldn't have holes.

rc

hipoint
February 24, 2013, 11:59 AM
^ what he said.... RC has probably saved my dumb butt a pile of money in hospital bills since I've been a member here... at the very least saved me quite a bit of money on wasted ammo trying stupid things like this. Wish I had been a member when I had the same idea, could have saved myself an extractor pin and a box of .45colt and .41 mag ammo...

people don't give the lowly .410 enough credit, it's been around a long time and has taken quite a few animals substantially larger than a raccoon.

The "collateral damage" bit was especially insightful, a .45 colt bullet bouncing around a barn could cost quite a bit of money. I read an article by Chuck Hawks I think (could be mistaken about the writer) who shot an old log cabin with .45 colt out of a long gun, said even at very long ranges it went clean through the logs and out the other side...

For most of my small critter dispatching I now use CCI's fragmenting ammo for a .22. Those things break apart pretty reliably and are a raccoon's wost nightmare in the poultry coop. With the added benefit of not being too loud at 3 a.m. when my more than tolerant neighbors are resting peacefully.

4sixteen
February 24, 2013, 12:02 PM
My H&R Survivor has a rifled barrel and is designed to fire both 45 Colt and .410. They say don't forget to remove the full choke if you're gonna fire a 45 Colt round. :eek: :D

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r236/storm_rider02/survivor45_410.jpg

hipoint
February 24, 2013, 01:22 PM
my experience with the rossi circuit judge was exactly what everyone said it would be... rifled barrel with shotgun shells is basically worthless. at about 10 paces it made such a donut that a dead on aim at a tin can resulted in about 3 pellets hitting it and a big circle of destruction around it... I really wish someone would come up with something suitable for this though. Would be really cool to have something capable of both that is not an over-under.

Not sure what "choke" the rossi had though and if it would have made a difference if it were tighter, but the fact that you had to change chokes to switch between ammo kinda negated anything cool about the gun...

hipoint
February 24, 2013, 01:27 PM
4sixteen, how does your gun handle both types of rounds? I'd love to own one that actually worked well!

and have you tried firing the shotshells without the shotgun choke in place? Just curious.

4sixteen
February 24, 2013, 03:31 PM
I really like this rifle. It's accurate enough for close range hunting as a 45 Colt. As a .410 with the choke screwed in it's my grouse slayer. However, without the choke, it doesn't pattern worth a darn.

berettaprofessor
February 24, 2013, 03:41 PM
Thanks everyone. I knew there are dual-made 410/45LC shotguns but didn't know about the Pardner and I didn't think about 410 slugs; in fact, I wasn't aware they are available since I'd never seen them. But I see I can order them from Midway. And I was able to find 410 Buckshot 000 locally, which should do the trick.

CraigC
February 24, 2013, 05:20 PM
Pressure of standard .45 loads isn't going to be the problem. The problem will arise when a .451" - .452" jacketed or hardcast bullet hits the choke of the .410 bore. Not a good idea.

Carl N. Brown
February 24, 2013, 07:26 PM
I have fired .45 Colt CCI shotshells in a .410 shotgun for very close in vermin control. Shotgun barrels are not intended for .45 Colt ball ammo.

Clark
February 25, 2013, 04:49 AM
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.
I did a stress analysis on a 45/70 handi rifle ~ 10 years ago. My father, the great gun designing chief engineer, helped me and a mechanical engineering professor helped me too.
I calculated the action pin in double sheer, the hoop stress on the chamber with Lame's formula, and the section modulus on cross sections of the breech face.
I concluded it was so much stronger than the brass that it did not matter.
Some people on line said I was not qualified, so I validated my calculations by working up to double the max published powder charge for a Ruger #1 45/70 [the highest published load I could find].
Reference loads:
1) "Loads for the 45/70" from the H.P.White laboratory via "American
Rifleman" 1950~1968 via "NRA Handloader's Guide" 1969 says:
405 gr Rem S.P., 17.5 gr Unique, 1286 fps, 25,240 pounds pressure, for 1886 Win
2) "Lyman's 47th" 1992 says:
400 gr cast, 16.5 gr Unique, 1286 fps, 27,000 cup, for 1886 Win
3) "Lyman's 47th" 1992 says:
385 cast gr cast, 17.5 gr Unique, 1411 fps, 38,500 cup, for Ruger #1
4) My handi rifle validation test: 38 gr Unique 405 gr cast... 87 kpsi [Quickload]

Still some doubted me. This is a lesson in life. If math and test data will not convince them, then what kind of person are you dealing with?
Years later it was published that the handi rifle was in the lever action level of strength, not the highest. We have some dumb stuff going on the the gun culture. We need more myth busters.
-------------------------------------------
So I saw an off brand [OEM Stevens] break action 410 at the guns show for $50.
I could see it had it where it counts, kid.
So with 45 Colt brass and CCI200 large rifle primers I worked up to a 454 Casull double load.
That was 40 gr H110 405 gr cast bullet 2.75" OAL.
I realize that is not a 454 OAL, but H110 will not compress much.

I reported that test a couple times to THR in 2004
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=99238
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=1211717
Here is the pic I posted in 2004

What does it all mean?
I have tried to blow up a lot of guns over the last 13 years.
Break action 410s with thick walls are about as strong as guns get.
That .48" chamber with .275" thick walls is a lot stronger than any 454 revolver with thin walls. Ruger may have specialty steel in that revolver that can go to 260 ksi, but revolvers with those thin chamber walls as strong as a thick walled 410.

Onmilo
February 25, 2013, 09:50 AM
Don't do it, Period.
Contrary to what you see on the internet, firing cartridges not designed for the original weapon is ill advised and stupid.

CraigC
February 25, 2013, 10:51 AM
I did a stress analysis on a 45/70 handi rifle...
Which is not a Pardner shotgun. Handi-rifles and shotguns are built on different frames. The shotgun frame is not as strong as the rifle and is why H&R won't fit rifle barrels to shotgun receivers.


So with 45 Colt brass and CCI200 large rifle primers I worked up to a 454 Casull double load.
That was 40 gr H110 405 gr cast bullet 2.75" OAL.
You shouldn't be allowed to post such nonsense. Even if you can stuff 40gr H110 into a .45Colt case with a 405gr bullet, to shoot it in ANY firearm is stupid beyond measure.

The problem with these guns is not that they are weak but that we do NOT know how strong they are.

None of which addresses what happens when that bullet hits the choke.

Clark
February 25, 2013, 12:24 PM
CraigC
I did a stress analysis on a 45/70 handi rifle...
Which is not a Pardner shotgun. Handi-rifles and shotguns are built on different frames. The shotgun frame is not as strong as the rifle and is why H&R won't fit rifle barrels to shotgun receivers.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=176613&d=1356457489
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=168247&d=1342373683
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=168248&d=1342373683
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx220/ClarkM/HRbreakaction9-17-2012.jpg
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx220/ClarkM/56-50shortenede4-7-2012small.jpg

That 16 gr H&R Partner lower I also got for $50 at a gun show, I milled a lot of material out of the reciever to get that 50 caliber Green Mountain barrel to fit. The receiver is made of grainy cast iron.
I have never shot anything with my wildcat "50CB" in that H&R Partner 16 ga lower, except compressed loads of either Bullseye or Red Dot.

The pressure is so high that Quickload calculations would mean nothing in a straight wall case.

goon
February 25, 2013, 07:01 PM
I slugged the choke on my H&R .410 Topper once and it came out at .389.
I would never consider shooting a .45 LC load out of it. Recipe for death.

4sixteen
February 25, 2013, 07:13 PM
Regarding hot loads in a Handi-Rifle, in practical terms I found the spring extractor the limiting factor. It doesn't have enough force to eject cases after a certain point resulting in a stuck case that needs to be removed by knocking it out from the muzzle end with a cleaning rod or whatever.

Clark
February 26, 2013, 11:46 AM
goon
I slugged the choke on my H&R .410 Topper once and it came out at .389.
I would never consider shooting a .45 LC load out of it. Recipe for death.
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

The Western Fields [Stevens OEM] 410 I got for $50 Went through a lot before the choke split.

1) 45 Colt brass with CCI200 Large Rifle Primer:
a)
37 gr H110 .452" FMJ 230 Montana Gold, 1.754"
39 gr H110, .452" MT Au 230 gr FMJ 1.71"
b)
30 gr H110 .458" hard cast 300 gr #457191, 1.775", published at 53,700 cup
32 gr H110 .458" hard cast 300 gr #457191, 1.68"
32 gr H110 .458" hard cast 300 gr #457191, 1.63" case head expands .002"
40 gr H110 .458" hard cast 300 gr #457191, 1.837" primer leaked, case head expands .004"
40 gr H110 .458" hard cast 300 gr #457191, 1.86" primer top hat and cratered but did not leak, case head expands .002"
c)
30 gr H110 .458" 405 gr hard cast 2.165"
30 gr H110 .458" 405 gr hard cast 1.85"
40 gr H110 .458" hard cast 405 gr 2.75"
40 gr H110 .458" 405 gr hard cast 2.1" case head expands .004", case body cracking, butt of gun on concrete, recoil breaks wooden stock wrist

2) 7.62x54R brass put in the lathe and made to fit 410 chamber:
a)
45.5 gr H110 .452" 230 gr Montana Gold FMJ 2.900"
The choke spit.
The Silver front bead sight fell out.
Bore is .406"
Choke is now .396"
Choke was .385"

willypete
February 27, 2013, 01:34 AM
Thanks, Clark, for all the destructive testing you do. Your posts are always interesting to read, and contain insightful information. Some people just don't understand the point of DT; don't let their bunched panties keep you down. :D

Given that .45 Colt and .410 shotshell operate at nearly the same pressure (14kpsi vs 13.5kpsi) and that there's a huge freebore for the .45 Colt, it's pretty easy to understand why people who have shot .45 Colt through .410 shotguns over the last 140 years haven't blown themselves up with their "recipes for death." :rolleyes:;)

Sure, the choke may eventually split (mine hasn't), but the practice itself is pretty safe when using normal-pressure .45 Colt loads with soft lead bullets.

Clark
February 27, 2013, 03:12 AM
Thanks willypete

I just ran some numbers

2.5" 410 SAAMI chamber:
Rim dia .536" - .541"
Rim thick .0532" - .0672"
base dia [@ .0627"].4780" - .4830"
mouth dia [@2.5"] .4630" - .4680"

444 Marlin SAAMI brass:
Rim dia .504 -.514"
Rim thick .053" - .063"
base dia [@ .2"].4618 - .4698"
mouth dia [@2.24"] .4469" - .4549

444 brass in 410 chamber clearance
Rim dia .022" - .037"
Rim thick [interfere .0098"] - .0142"
base dia .0082 - .0212"
mouth dia .0081 - .0211"

45 Colt SAAMI brass:
Rim dia .500" - .512"
Rim thick .049" - .060"
base dia [@ .2"].474 - .480"
mouth dia [@.99"] .474" - .480

45 Colt in 410 chamber clearance:
Rim dia .024" - .041"
Rim thick [interfere .0068" ] - .0185"
base dia [interfere .002"] - .009"
mouth dia [interpolating 410 taper to .472"][interfere .008"] - .003"

Of course if something does not fit, a Redding carbide 45 Colt die is .466" and the brass will spring back to .468", so it is going to fit.

In the world of sloppy SAAMI standards, this is a good fit.

About as good as a SAAMI 303 Brit case in a SAAMI 303 Brit chamber:)

Pete D.
February 27, 2013, 06:50 AM
The Western Fields [Stevens OEM] 410 I got for $50 Went through a lot before the choke split.
The operant idea there is that the barrel did split. In addition, there is no way to tell when that failure will occur.

Sure, the choke may eventually split (mine hasn't), but the practice itself is pretty safe when using normal-pressure .45 Colt loads with soft lead bullets.
Define "pretty safe". How safe is pretty safe?

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Pete

Dr T
February 27, 2013, 02:24 PM
All said, a box 410 slugs or buckshot may be a much less stressful way to go about eliminating the occasional barn bandit.

BTW, if the band bandit is wearing a white strip down the back, rather than a mask, I suggest that you get it to step outside the barn before shooting it.

willypete
February 27, 2013, 04:00 PM
Define "pretty safe". How safe is pretty safe?

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Pete

"Pretty safe" indicates a low likelihood of damage to myself or others when failure does occur.

You've never used a flat-bladed screwdriver as a chisel, pry-bar, or paint scraper, have you? ;)

Sun Tzu warrior
February 27, 2013, 07:44 PM
Hey Beretta Prof, here you can get .410 slugs at wally world. About the only kind of ammo they have left, probably a lot easier to find than .45 LC.

RetiredUSNChief
February 27, 2013, 08:32 PM
As rcmodel says, you've got some serious diameter issues with this, in addition to the chamber pressures involved.

Don't do it.

This post attracted my attention because years ago one of the Sailors in my division who was from Louisiana told me a story about the insane mentality of some of the Cajuns he grew up around...how they would shoot .44 magnum rounds in their .410 shotguns because they were "just plain crazy".

.44 bullets have a diameter of .429 inches...still too large.

Use .410 shotgun shells in your .410 shotgun and be done with it. My experience is the .410 has all you need to take small game and varmints in the ranges you are talking about.

:):)

Pete D.
February 27, 2013, 10:21 PM
You've never used a flat-bladed screwdriver as a chisel, pry-bar, or paint scraper, have you?

I use one to open cans of paint. Comparing a screwdriver improperly used to using the wrong ammo in a gun is inapt. Not nearly the same things.
Pete

willypete
February 27, 2013, 10:41 PM
I use one to open cans of paint. Comparing a screwdriver improperly used to using the wrong ammo in a gun is inapt. Not nearly the same things.
Pete

So you used a tool improperly at increased risk to yourself, yet got the job done effectively and without incident? Bravo, sir!

It is, in fact, an appropriate comparison for all the reasons I just stated. The wrong tool can still get the job done if you do a little research and understand the risks related to what you're doing.

If we all avoided risk as much as possible, we'd stop shooting, period. Some of us enjoy pushing envelopes while being creative, others do not and get their jollies elsewhere.

Sport45
February 27, 2013, 10:52 PM
For those who have shot .451 bullets through the .410 were any of the bullets recovered? I'm curious to know the OD after firing. The choke had to have done some elastic stretching too.

backbencher
February 27, 2013, 10:58 PM
Clark, we salute your courage and experimentation. I am in awe. Nothing I would do myself, but I'd love to video one of your experiments. With a remote camera. Someone else's camera, preferably.

I did once hear of a 6.5mm/'06 Japanese rifle whose previous owner had not realized the bore was only 6.5mm. Don't get any ideas, Clark.

clang
February 27, 2013, 11:04 PM
This makes great reading because I could never test something to destruction, at least not on purpose...

I appreciate reading about the testing Clark has done. I used to read the Double Gun Journal on a regular basis years ago, and the was a gentlemen that would write a column called "Finnding out for Myself" that would do similar tests. One of my favorites was an article where he tested a Damascus barrel vs a similar age steel barrel to destruction - very interesting stuff.

As the split barrel indicates - it's the choke that causes issues shooting solid projectiles out of a .410 shotgun. The chamber area on these guns are huge because they use the same frame for 20ga shotguns.

I believe the issue is most of these old .410 guns were made with a full choke, If you want to shoot solids out of them, it would be best to remove the choke by cutting off the last few inches of the barrel. Remember, most these guns were designed for shells with the old fiber wads that did not have a cup surrounding the shot. Modern .410 ammo with a full shot cup still has a pretty good pattern out of a cylinder choke, you may find it patterns better then the original full choke out to 20 or 25 yards. With no restriction at the weakest part of the barrel, solids (be them slugs or .45 Colt cartridges) would be less problematical too.

Anyway, I too have one of the Survivor .410/45 Colt, but mine is the NEF version. The NEF version is no longer made and everything is now sold under the H&R brand. The choke isn't really a choke, it is a device with vanes that stops the shot from spinning because of the rifled barel. With the "choke" in place, I get decent paterns out to 20 yards or so, with it removed I get the donut effect and a big hole in the middle of the pattern. Do not shoot solid projectiles with the choke tube in, it will most likely damage the gun.

goon
February 28, 2013, 03:12 AM
All said, a box 410 slugs or buckshot may be a much less stressful way to go about eliminating the occasional barn bandit.

BTW, if the band bandit is wearing a white strip down the back, rather than a mask, I suggest that you get it to step outside the barn before shooting it.


I made that mistake once before.
My advice, no matter what, avoid shooting a skunk at all costs. Figure out a way to remove the food source instead if at all possible.
You DON'T want to shoot a skunk. Trust me on this.

As for the shooting, I'm at a loss as to why the OP would need to do this. A load of 3" .410 #4 to the head or boiler room of any pest at 20 or so yards is going to put it down. Why risk trying to shoot some crazy pressure .45LC proof load, which is what you will have by the time you push a .452 bullet through a .390 choke, at all?
Would any of you suggest shooting a .30 '06 through a .270? Because to me, this is just as foolish.

With the exception of Clark's destruction testing, which I assume (and pray) was carried out with the help of a firing lanyard and some cover...

gp911
February 28, 2013, 12:09 PM
There was a thread on here awhile ago with links to a video of "the little .410 that could". The video had a guy testing a single shot .410 with .45LC, .454 Casull, etc with a lanyard and a vise. The gun showed no damage as I recall. I won't be trying it, but it was interesting to watch. I've heard of more than one person cutting the last few inches off a .410 and using hotter slug loads, full length brass cases with hardcasts, etc.

Pete D.
March 1, 2013, 05:55 AM
There was a thread on here awhile ago with links to a video of "the little .410 that could". The video had a guy testing a single shot .410 with .45LC, .454 Casull, etc with a lanyard and a vise. The gun showed no damage as I recall. I won't be trying it, but it was interesting to watch. I've heard of more than one person cutting the last few inches off a .410 and using hotter slug loads, full length brass cases with hardcasts, etc.

Actually....if we looked at the same video, that little .410 blew up. The barrel shattered at the breech end catastrophically.
The fellas had cobbled together a load using a 400 grain bullet and a powder charge composed of range sweepings. Kaboom.

goon
March 1, 2013, 06:08 AM
Bear in mind, this sounds like a destruction test on purpose.
When you put your .410 to your shoulder, are you planning to destroy it?
I'm not interested in destroying mine.
And I like my eyes and face and hands right where they are. I don't want them liquified and spread over half an acre.
Do what you want though... I ain't your mama.

Clark
March 1, 2013, 11:11 AM
goon
With the exception of Clark's destruction testing, which I assume (and pray) was carried out with the help of a firing lanyard and some cover...

No, after I did the stress analysis, I tested the Handi Rifle 45/70 with my left palm on the butt and my right hand on the trigger. The recoil would have broken my collar bone.

When I looked that the 410, I could see immediately it was in the same class of strength, so it got tested much the same way.

I have a 16 ga / 30-30 Savage break action that I am going to convert to 257 Roberts Ackley improved.
Again, much the same design. Thick steel, not like some wimpy 454 revolver.
I have pushed 30-30 in that rifle until the brass flowed ~~90 kpsi Quickload.

berettaprofessor
March 1, 2013, 01:03 PM
Hey Beretta Prof, here you can get .410 slugs at wally world. About the only kind of ammo they have left, probably a lot easier to find than .45 LC.

Yeah, my closest Wally didn't have them, but one about 20 miles away did....I picked up a few.

Onmilo
March 1, 2013, 07:36 PM
These numbskulls are professionals.
They conducted this test just to see how far they could take a .410 shotgun.
This is the end result and what happens to ALL .410 shotguns when unsuitable cartridges are fired in them.
http://youtu.be/o0MYG_-XCY0

Now if you watch all of the videos, you will note they do NOT fire this gun off the shoulder at any time! Fair warning and a smart move.

Sport45
March 1, 2013, 08:36 PM
And I like my eyes and face and hands right where they are. I don't want them liquified and spread over half an acre.


Not to minimize the potential risk, but really? Firearms are inherently safe in this regard. How many pictures have you seen of handguns that were destroyed by firing with a barrel obstruction, double charge, etc? Associated injuries are normally no worse than powder burns and abrasions. Shotguns and rifles are riskier since your supporting arm is usually out in front of the chamber unless you are firing from the bench. Even then you don't hear about a lot of serious injuries.

If you think your gun is capable of liquefying body parts and spreading them over half an acre that might explain your flinch. ;)

I don't intentionally overload anything or use the wrong ammunition. But if I accidentally drop a .44 mag in my .45 revolver I'm not worried about losing body parts.

rcmodel
March 1, 2013, 08:43 PM
Possibly the folks who think a .452" slug should fit in a .392" choke are the same kids who thought all those square pegs in a round hole toys in kindergarten should fit too??

Just a thought??

rc.

willypete
March 1, 2013, 11:10 PM
Possibly the folks who think a .452" slug should fit in a .392" choke are the same kids who thought all those square pegs in a round hole toys in kindergarten should fit too??

Just a thought??

rc.

You're totally right. Destructive testing is pointless and no one ever learned anything from it. :rolleyes:

Such a shame that it's been proven again and again and again that this works and is actually pretty safe and fun. Hmmmm, I wonder where some companies got the idea to chamber both .410 shotshell and .45 Colt in the same gun?

RetiredUSNChief
March 2, 2013, 01:19 AM
You're totally right. Destructive testing is pointless and no one ever learned anything from it. :rolleyes:

Such a shame that it's been proven again and again and again that this works and is actually pretty safe and fun. Hmmmm, I wonder where some companies got the idea to chamber both .410 shotshell and .45 Colt in the same gun?

Methinks there is a world of difference between DESIGNING a gun to fire both the 410 shotgun shell and the .45 colt and simply sticking a .45 colt in a gun designed solely around the 410 shotgun shell.

Just because you can fit a .45 colt into a 410 shotgun doesn't mean this is a smart or safe thing to do. Likewise, just because somebody has done it without any apparent adverse effects doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do, either.


Destructing testing, as you sarcastically pointed out, is not pointless when carried out safely. It is a valid method of testing the limits of many structures. However, destructive testing is carried out to the point of destruction...not to some level where all one can say is simply "well, it didn't blow up when I did this".

And destructive testing is generally performed on a representative sampling, too. One test by one individual on one gun does not necessarily constitute a valid basis by which one may extrapolate reliable information to certify safe operation under conditions not designed for.


If the point is "fun", and it's done safely, then by all means...load up your 410 with whatever load of .45 Colt you wish and have at it. But don't use this as a valid basis by to say "it's safe to do this".

:)

Sport45
March 2, 2013, 03:14 AM
Possibly the folks who think a .452" slug should fit in a .392" choke are the same kids who thought all those square pegs in a round hole toys in kindergarten should fit too??


It only took a bigger hammer. The one tethered to the little bench just wouldn't work. :)

willypete
March 2, 2013, 05:51 AM
Methinks there is a world of difference between DESIGNING a gun to fire both the 410 shotgun shell and the .45 colt and simply sticking a .45 colt in a gun designed solely around the 410 shotgun shell.

Point being, they got the idea because it's based on historical precedent.


Just because you can fit a .45 colt into a 410 shotgun doesn't mean this is a smart or safe thing to do. Likewise, just because somebody has done it without any apparent adverse effects doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do, either.

If it's been done often enough, and you understand the how and why of it, then yes, it's safe.

Destructing testing, as you sarcastically pointed out, is not pointless when carried out safely. It is a valid method of testing the limits of many structures. However, destructive testing is carried out to the point of destruction...not to some level where all one can say is simply "well, it didn't blow up when I did this".

And destructive testing is generally performed on a representative sampling, too. One test by one individual on one gun does not necessarily constitute a valid basis by which one may extrapolate reliable information to certify safe operation under conditions not designed for.

The destructive testing, in this instance, served to confirm calculations made regarding the strength of an item in question as well as the practicality of a cartridge swap. If you refer back to Clark's posts, you'll realize it took vastly overpressure ammo to finally damage (not even destroy!) the gun in question, thus validating his claims.

If the point is "fun", and it's done safely, then by all means...load up your 410 with whatever load of .45 Colt you wish and have at it. But don't use this as a valid basis by to say "it's safe to do this".

:)

I have both empirical evidence as well as Clark's theoretical and practical experimentation that backs up my claims regarding the safety of shooting certain .45 Colt loads in a .410 shotgun. If asked about this, I pass on what loads I use as well as the caveat that eventually, the choke will probably split.

How many times does something have to be proven before people will disregard preconceived notions?

willypete
March 2, 2013, 05:54 AM
It only took a bigger hammer. The one tethered to the little bench just wouldn't work. :)

Sounds a lot like extrusion...

Clark
March 2, 2013, 04:06 PM
willypete
Posted by rcmodel
Possibly the folks who think a .452" slug should fit in a .392" choke are the same kids who thought all those square pegs in a round hole toys in kindergarten should fit too??
Just a thought??
rc.

You're totally right. Destructive testing is pointless and no one ever learned anything from it.
In the 1990s I had my own biz designing switching power supplies for aerospace, medical, and cell phone towers.
I would disconnect the safety features and overload my prototype until it failed. The primary failure would be at a weak point. I would beef up that part or heat sink or whatever. Then I would do it again until it failed.
Some of these failures were like giant firecrackers where parts fly so fast a guy could get really hurt.
But I was able to design better, faster, and cheaper than my competition.
These days the HAST [highly accelerated stress test] is common place. But they just take anything and operated in an oven. I still think my method was better.
By 1999 I was really winding down how much I was willing to work and took up handloading.
Now I am up to 64 cartridges, and have overloaded half of them.
Lately I have been developing a formalized system for determining how much to overload a firearm, to find useful loads that are beyond published data. In effect, rating a gun and not a cartridge for a pressure and forward momentum.
I am looking at strength, recoil, and case support.


That system is in part based on what I have learned from wrecking a few guns.
This week i have been gathering more data on 380 pistols and finding a wide variation in capability.

Pete D.
March 5, 2013, 08:59 AM
WillyPete:
You have said a number of times that eventually the choke will split.
That reference/description minimizes the event.
What happens is that the barrel splits (at the choke). This is a more accurate emphasis.
Pete

Dr T
March 5, 2013, 11:10 AM
As I read through this thread, a recurring thought was that a "minor" injury from a self-destructing firearm is like "minor" surgery: Something that happens to someone else.

After many years of doing systems work, I understand the need for destruction testing. However, as a mathematician, I will observe that a sample of ONE is not enough to really understand the bounds on performance.

Since I wanted a something like a break action shotgun that could shoot a projectile safely, I got a 460 S&W barrel for my T/C Encore. It is a nice little package, but it does kick a bit. It will also handle 45 Colt and 454 Causall. I haven't tried a 410 shell in the chamber, but one would probably fit. However, I have a little 22/410 M6 that works just fine (and the 22 is a lot more accurate than it has any right to be).

Destruction testing is like forensic medicine. You have to understand how things can go wrong so you can design out the weaknesses. It is a necessary part of technology development. Those who do it should always take adequate steps to minimize the potential for injury and damage to the things not being tested.

willypete
March 5, 2013, 07:07 PM
WillyPete:
You have said a number of times that eventually the choke will split.
That reference/description minimizes the event.
What happens is that the barrel splits (at the choke). This is a more accurate emphasis.
Pete


Yeeeesssss... Since the choke is integral with the barrel, that is a given.

The way you phrase it ("barrel splits at the choke") makes the event more dramatic than it actually is, and might give the reader the idea that the shotgun is peeling itself back ala Elmer Fudd with a carrot in his barrel.

goon
March 5, 2013, 09:06 PM
Not to minimize the potential risk, but really? Firearms are inherently safe in this regard. How many pictures have you seen of handguns that were destroyed by firing with a barrel obstruction, double charge, etc? Associated injuries are normally no worse than powder burns and abrasions. Shotguns and rifles are riskier since your supporting arm is usually out in front of the chamber unless you are firing from the bench. Even then you don't hear about a lot of serious injuries.

If you think your gun is capable of liquefying body parts and spreading them over half an acre that might explain your flinch.

I don't intentionally overload anything or use the wrong ammunition. But if I accidentally drop a .44 mag in my .45 revolver I'm not worried about losing body parts.

Depending on your .45, a mistake like that could very well catastrophically damage it... And you. Or an innocent bystander, perhaps your wife or kid. If you're the type of guy who habitually accidentally shoots .44 Magnum loads out of a .45 Colt, I'd respectfully suggest you set aside a little of your ammo budget for some new bifocals. Or learn to read with Braille... And your weak hand. But I think new glasses and a little prudence would be better.

As for your assertions on the safety of modern guns, doubtless you are right that quality construction prevents a lot of accidents from causing serious injury or fatalities.
Having said that, you won't find me risking my health or that of my loved ones, or my valuable guns proving it.

But you gents can continue this conversation without me. I feel at this point that even though some of us have actually slugged .410 chokes to determine the feasibility of shooting different projectiles through them, anyone who is hellbent on stuffing a .454 in the chamber and just letting 'er rip is going to do it anyhow. The luck of some of these other guys notwithstanding, We warned them. My conscience is clear.
And please, learn to use a lanyard and a tire to hold long guns while doing testing.

Sport45
March 6, 2013, 12:35 AM
Depending on your .45, a mistake like that could very well catastrophically damage it... And you. Or an innocent bystander, perhaps your wife or kid. If you're the type of guy who habitually accidentally shoots .44 Magnum loads out of a .45 Colt, I'd respectfully suggest you set aside a little of your ammo budget for some new bifocals. Or learn to read with Braille... And your weak hand. But I think new glasses and a little prudence would be better.


Don't get me wrong. I've never dropped a .44mag in a .45 Colt revolver and don't intend to.

But there's a lot of room for pressure to escape around a .429" bullet in that case and I've never read an account of it causing damage. Certainly never heard of someone losing a hand to it.

Pete D.
March 6, 2013, 08:46 AM
The way you phrase it ("barrel splits at the choke") makes the event more dramatic than it actually is, and might give the reader the idea that the shotgun is peeling itself back ala Elmer Fudd with a carrot in his barrel.

Yah, that is exactly correct. I did want to note that as a possibility. Do we know for sure, every time for every gun for every .45 Colt load, that that won't happen?
Pete

willypete
March 8, 2013, 06:48 PM
Yah, that is exactly correct. I did want to note that as a possibility. Do we know for sure, every time for every gun for every .45 Colt load, that that won't happen?
Pete

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, especially regarding your phrasing. Thank you for your response, though. If you would examine evidence, rather than look to the worst possible (and least likely) outcome, you'd realize that the potential for failure, disastrous or not, is incredibly low.

MCgunner
March 8, 2013, 09:26 PM
This may be an entirely stupid question, but can one safely fire a 45 Long Colt cartridge in a 410 Pardner Shotgun? I know the barrel won't be rifled, but I'm looking for an inexpensive "barn gun" that might be useful for snakes (410) and larger critters such as raccoons (45LC) at relatively short distances.

May I suggest number 4 shot loads for raccoons? They'll kill the critter without killing you. You ain't gonna hit the side of the barn from inside the barn with a .45 Colt in a smooth bore anyway, even IF it didn't hurt the gun. :rolleyes: If you need a solid projectile, that's what foster slugs are for.

RetiredUSNChief
March 9, 2013, 10:20 PM
I have both empirical evidence as well as Clark's theoretical and practical experimentation that backs up my claims regarding the safety of shooting certain .45 Colt loads in a .410 shotgun. If asked about this, I pass on what loads I use as well as the caveat that eventually, the choke will probably split.

How many times does something have to be proven before people will disregard preconceived notions?

Me thinks that the very notion that deliberately firing a round through a gun which was not designed for it, and most especially one that will eventually (by your own words) cause damage to it, is the height of insanity.

I should think that "disregard[ing] preconceived notions" in such a case would be foolish.

:scrutiny:

willypete
March 9, 2013, 11:43 PM
Me thinks that the very notion that deliberately firing a round through a gun which was not designed for it, and most especially one that will eventually (by your own words) cause damage to it, is the height of insanity.

I should think that "disregard[ing] preconceived notions" in such a case would be foolish.

:scrutiny:

A) Don't put words in my mouth. I said "probably," which is not an assurance. Also, that "probably" involves many, many rounds. I have to date fired several dozen .45 Colt rounds through my .410 with no damage whatsoever.

B) Call me craaaaaaazzzzyyyy then. :rolleyes:

Actually, insinuating that I'm nuts does nothing but diminish the impact of real insanity or mental instability. What you "probably" mean (see, there's that word again!) is that you think this activity is too dangerous for you to partake in and that you'd rather dismiss it out of hand.

If you'd bother to look around, you'd realize there's plenty of evidence that contraindicates your (and a few other individuals') positions. I'm coming to the realization that several people don't really give a damn about facts and would rather repeat "the sky is falling, you'll put your eye out!"

But hey, exaggeration is more fun than acknowledging reality.

For those of you who are interested, there are several videos on youtube which can be found by searching for combinations of ".45 Colt in a .410." While some methods are suspect, results all tend to be similar: no damage occurs to the gun.

RetiredUSNChief
March 10, 2013, 12:51 AM
A) Don't put words in my mouth. I said "probably," which is not an assurance. Also, that "probably" involves many, many rounds. I have to date fired several dozen .45 Colt rounds through my .410 with no damage whatsoever.

B) Call me craaaaaaazzzzyyyy then. :rolleyes:

Actually, insinuating that I'm nuts does nothing but diminish the impact of real insanity or mental instability. What you "probably" mean (see, there's that word again!) is that you think this activity is too dangerous for you to partake in and that you'd rather dismiss it out of hand.

If you'd bother to look around, you'd realize there's plenty of evidence that contraindicates your (and a few other individuals') positions. I'm coming to the realization that several people don't really give a damn about facts and would rather repeat "the sky is falling, you'll put your eye out!"

But hey, exaggeration is more fun than acknowledging reality.

For those of you who are interested, there are several videos on youtube which can be found by searching for combinations of ".45 Colt in a .410." While some methods are suspect, results all tend to be similar: no damage occurs to the gun.


I concede the "probably".

;)

However, saying that "several people don't really give a damn about facts..." is not really true.

It is a fact that the .45 Colt bullet diameter exceeds the diameter of the .410 shotgun bore. The bullet diameter is 0.452 inches, shotgun bore is 0.410 inches, and the choke narrows down to 0.392 inches.

It is also a fact that the shotgun bore is not rifled...it's a smooth bore. This means there is no allowance to be had for bullet deformation around barrel riflings as there would be in a rifle or pistol.

It is also a fact that dedicated .410 shotguns are NOT designed to fire .45 Colt cartridges. Shotguns like the H&R Survivor ARE, and their bore's are rifled for the .45 caliber.

It is also a fact that 410 shotguns were not designed for the cyclic tensile stresses that repeated firings of .45 Colt rounds through an undersized barrel produces.

Just because you or someone else can say "well, I've put X number of rounds through my 410 with no problems" doesn't mean it's safe to do so. It simply means that you've put X number of rounds of oversized ammunition though a smooth bore shotgun with an undersized diameter with no visible adverse effects YET.

Even allowing for the excessive cyclic tensile stress loads, all it takes is one time for that oversized bullet NOT to completely swage down to allow it to pass entirely through that undersized smooth bore unnoticed to make the reason why this is not a smart thing vividly evident.

My assertation isn't a dismissal out of hand. It's a well thought out, logical deduction based on facts. Just because someone can hammer a square peg into a round hole doesn't make it a smart act to commit.


If someone wants a 410 shotgun with the intent to also fire .45 Colt through it, then the SMART thing to do is to buy one that's DESIGNED to do this.

Risking the material condition of the firearm, or the health of the people in the vicinity of the firearm, by intentionally abusing it is foolish.

willypete
March 10, 2013, 03:06 AM
I concede the "probably".

;)

However, saying that "several people don't really give a damn about facts..." is not really true.

While it is, in fact, a true statement, you are again misquoting me. The full quote is "I'm coming to the realization that several people don't really give a damn about facts and would rather repeat 'the sky is falling, you'll put your eye out!'" There are numerous instances in this thread alone of that behavior.

It is a fact that the .45 Colt bullet diameter exceeds the diameter of the .410 shotgun bore. The bullet diameter is 0.452 inches, shotgun bore is 0.410 inches, and the choke narrows down to 0.392 inches.

It is also a fact that the shotgun bore is not rifled...it's a smooth bore. This means there is no allowance to be had for bullet deformation around barrel riflings as there would be in a rifle or pistol.

It is also a fact that dedicated .410 shotguns are NOT designed to fire .45 Colt cartridges. Shotguns like the H&R Survivor ARE, and their bore's are rifled for the .45 caliber.

It is also a fact that 410 shotguns were not designed for the cyclic tensile stresses that repeated firings of .45 Colt rounds through an undersized barrel produces.

All true. However, just because something is not designed with a certain use in mind does not mean that it is not capable of performing that task to a lesser degree than a more appropriate tool. That lesser degree may still be sufficient to complete the task. A previous example I tendered was using a flat-bladed screwdriver as a chisel, scraper, prybar, etc. All of those activities are expressly prohibited by every manufacturer I have seen, yet flat-bladed screwdrivers continue to be used in those roles without injury or mishap. That is merely an example.

Just because you or someone else can say "well, I've put X number of rounds through my 410 with no problems" doesn't mean it's safe to do so. It simply means that you've put X number of rounds of oversized ammunition though a smooth bore shotgun with an undersized diameter with no visible adverse effects YET.

Quite correct. Also why I include my caveat.

Even allowing for the excessive cyclic tensile stress loads, all it takes is one time for that oversized bullet NOT to completely swage down to allow it to pass entirely through that undersized smooth bore unnoticed to make the reason why this is not a smart thing vividly evident.

One should always be on the lookout for squibs, yes. Especially when engaging in unorthodox behavior.

My assertation isn't a dismissal out of hand. It's a well thought out, logical deduction based on facts. Just because someone can hammer a square peg into a round hole doesn't make it a smart act to commit.

If someone wants a 410 shotgun with the intent to also fire .45 Colt through it, then the SMART thing to do is to buy one that's DESIGNED to do this.

Risking the material condition of the firearm, or the health of the people in the vicinity of the firearm, by intentionally abusing it is foolish.

Much in the same fashion, my continuing use of .45 Colt in my .410 shotgun is based on a combination of evidence and theory. The .410 tends to be massively overbuilt and well able to withstand the similar (if not lower, allowing for freebore) pressures of the .45 Colt round, despite discrepancies in bore diameter.

"Foolish" would be engaging in dangerous activity without understanding the risks. That description does not apply.

By all means, firing ONLY the ammunition listed on a firearm is the pragmatic choice, unless and until you understand risks inherent in any divergent practice and are willing to accept them.

RetiredUSNChief
March 10, 2013, 09:19 AM
While it is, in fact, a true statement, you are again misquoting me. The full quote is "I'm coming to the realization that several people don't really give a damn about facts and would rather repeat 'the sky is falling, you'll put your eye out!'" There are numerous instances in this thread alone of that behavior.[/I]

Sorry dude...not a misquote. I deliberately left that open ended with the inclusion of "...", indicating there was more that people could easily reference for full context.

:):)


All true. However, just because something is not designed with a certain use in mind does not mean that it is not capable of performing that task to a lesser degree than a more appropriate tool. That lesser degree may still be sufficient to complete the task. A previous example I tendered was using a flat-bladed screwdriver as a chisel, scraper, prybar, etc. All of those activities are expressly prohibited by every manufacturer I have seen, yet flat-bladed screwdrivers continue to be used in those roles without injury or mishap. That is merely an example.[/I]

I submit that the example the use of a flat-bladed screwdriver for alternate means is not entirely analogous to this situation. This example does not relate in any reasonable fashion to a tool which has an explosive component to it, to wit the use of ammunition, to which human reaction time is completely overwhelmed once the trigger is pulled. Your own example here of using a screwdriver as a chisel ignores the damage to the tool, such as handle damage and blade deformation/breakage which degrades it's original intended use as a screwdriver and may lead to personal injury or equipment damage.

Much in the same fashion, my continuing use of .45 Colt in my .410 shotgun is based on a combination of evidence and theory. The .410 tends to be massively overbuilt and well able to withstand the similar (if not lower, allowing for freebore) pressures of the .45 Colt round, despite discrepancies in bore diameter.[/I]

No, it is not. It's based solely on the happenstance of your practical experience and anecdotal evidence of other people who have also made such claims. Your claim that the 410 tends to be "massively overbuilt" fails because it is not based on the differences in design criteria and completely ignores the actual mechanical differences between the solid .45 Colt bullet dimensions and the .410 shotgun barrel design, down to and including such things as barrel thickness along the entire length of the barrel. Nor is your claim based on fatigue analysis or any other practical application of Fracture Mechanics.

Your claim also ignores the fact that not all 410 shotguns are manufactured the same. Some are quite old, harking back to the days when steel alloy manufacturing wasn't nearly as advanced or consistent with modern alloys. Some have quite massive breech construction compared to others. Choke design varies.


"Foolish" would be engaging in dangerous activity without understanding the risks. That description does not apply.[/I]

Foolish is as foolish does. The fact that lady luck, in combination with a variety of other factors, does not change that.


By all means, firing ONLY the ammunition listed on a firearm is the pragmatic choice, unless and until you understand risks inherent in any divergent practice and are willing to accept them.

Firing ONLY the ammunition for which a weapon is designed is not just the pragmatic choice, it's a wise decision because it's following the designed intent of the people who manufactured the weapon.

I submit to you that what you have presented here is not, by any means, representative of an understanding of the risks inherent in any divergent practice. At best, it can be said that it's a partial understanding based on the "it ain't broke yet, so it must be OK" line of practice that some like to follow. This is, at best, a shallow way of performing a risk assessment, especially when touting the use of this philosophy with respect to firearms. It does not take into account any other form of reasoning.


By all means, continue to shoot .45 colt in your shotgun if you wish. That's a personal decision. However, you cannot accurately and truthfully say that this is a "safe" thing to do for a firearm designed solely to be a shotgun. You can say "I've been doing this with my (fill in the blank model) shotgun for a long time and have yet to have anything bad happen", but that's about the extent of it.

;)

willypete
March 10, 2013, 11:18 PM
Sorry dude...not a misquote. I deliberately left that open ended with the inclusion of "...", indicating there was more that people could easily reference for full context.

:):)

Still a misquote since you based your response on only the portion that you misquoted.

I submit that the example the use of a flat-bladed screwdriver for alternate means is not entirely analogous to this situation.

But it is. An analogy is a comparison between two similar ideas, objects, or practices. In this case, it's the use of a tool which is not specifically designed to complete the task and could result in personal injury, but does not because of an understanding of risks entailed. It simply has fewer moving parts than a shotgun, and no expanding gas.

No, it is not. It's based solely on the happenstance of your practical experience and anecdotal evidence of other people who have also made such claims.

Again, incorrect. Clark has even posted how he achieved the mathematical proofs by which he arrived at his basis for using .45 Colt in a .410 shotgun. You're throwing out "cyclic tensile stress" and then ignoring previous posts about calculations to prove what pressures the shotgun can actually handle? Weak.

Foolish is as foolish does. The fact that lady luck, in combination with a variety of other factors, does not change that.

Huh? Pretty sure you left something out there, chief.

Firing ONLY the ammunition for which a weapon is designed is not just the pragmatic choice, it's a wise decision because it's following the designed intent of the people who manufactured the weapon.

Look up "pragmatic" and get back to me ;).

I submit to you that what you have presented here is not, by any means, representative of an understanding of the risks inherent in any divergent practice. At best, it can be said that it's a partial understanding based on the "it ain't broke yet, so it must be OK" line of practice that some like to follow. This is, at best, a shallow way of performing a risk assessment, especially when touting the use of this philosophy with respect to firearms. It does not take into account any other form of reasoning.

Then you either haven't been paying attention, or have been deliberately misreading posts. I've indicated factors besides "it ain't broke yet" which lead me to believe that shooting .45 Colt in .410 is a reasonably safe practice. So has at least one other poster.

You, on the other hand, along with others, have repeated the analogy of square peg, round hole (round peg, round hole would be more appropriate) with no real examination or calculation of stresses involved. Nor has anyone from your side of the argument addressed either the actual stresses and forces involved on the shotgun, especially with regard to the very similar pressures of the loaded cartridges (difference of 500 psi, max, which as we all know is less than the variation one might receive in a lot of ammunition) which will actually diminish when using .45 Colt due to two factors. 1) No rifling, thus no engraving force or axial spin to increase pressure. 2) Nearly 2" of freebore in a chamber roughly 0.03" larger than the cartridge, which will allow substantial blow-by of gas and thus reduction of pressure.

Unless and until you come up with something better than "square peg, round hole" and "it says you can't do it on the barrel" and "it's not designed for it!" (which is certainly no hindrance to actual use; I'm sure in your Naval career you've had to adapt tools and equipment), I'm afraid your arguments don't hold much water.

RetiredUSNChief
March 11, 2013, 02:39 AM
Oh, I understand perfectly.

However, nothing you've posted here is anything which can be considered at "proof" that this is a safe practice. All you've got going for you is exactly as I've said: "It ain't broke yet, so it must be OK".

You claim that I, and others, have made no real examination or calculation of stresses involved. Yet this is exactly the type of information you yourself are lacking.

You are the one who positing this is a safe practice. Therefore the burden of proof is upon you when challenged.

And there is more to this than as simple matter of "500 psi" max difference. I submit to you that there is a whole world of fracture mechanics that you are completely missing out on here. Tensile stress, compressive stress, thermal stress, cyclic stress, fracture toughness, crack propagation, elastic deformation, inelastic deformation, and more.

Your assumptions are quite lacking and naive in nature when viewed in context with this. There is MORE to this than what you're trying to put across and THAT is my point.

I'd rebut that your own arguments don't hold much water, but the fact is that they aren't holding any water at all.

A 410 is NOT designed to shoot a solid slug bullet with a diameter greater than that of the bore. PERIOD. The fact that you, or anybody else, have done this without any ill result does not make this a safe practice for the weapon, the user, or anybody around.

If you wish to do so, then have at it. That's a personal choice. However, you cannot accurately and truthfully say that it's a safe practice.

Robert
March 11, 2013, 09:59 AM
Oh enough. As others have pointed out it may not be the smartest thing to do.

If you enjoyed reading about "45LC in 410 Pardner shotgun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!