45LC in 410 Pardner shotgun?

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.

Screwdriver

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

Click to expand...

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

Pete D. said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dr. T said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

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.

if someone is worried about the choke and a .45 slug just saw off a few inches of the barrel oops just spotted the post above where the same thing is said

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

rcmodel said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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?

willypete said:

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

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?

Click to expand...

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".

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??

Click to expand...

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

RetiredUSNChief said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

RetiredUSNChief said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

RetiredUSNChief said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

RetiredUSNChief said:

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".

Click to expand...

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?

Sport45 said:

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

Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like extrusion...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Terms

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

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.

Pete D. said:

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

Click to expand...

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.