16ga.com ~ View topic

I should have pointed out that if you look at the derivation and the calculation of it, recoil energy is proportional to the squares of both the charge weight and the muzzle velocity, so jiggling around with those two factors has quite an influence on recoil energy. Just 10 percent more of each gives 46.4 percent more recoil energy, for instance. You and your gun do have to absorb that energy somehow, regardless of how the recoil "feels". This is the basis for the idea of using lower shot charge weights and velocities to make it easier on the gun and yourself. A perusal of loading data will show that higher velocities and larger shot charges can be fired with the same or even lesser peak pressures measured at that 1" point. So peak pressures are not at all indications of recoil energy, and certainly not of "felt" recoil, which is something even more removed from quantification.

Cheers!
Tony

Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Posts: 2124 Location: Hudson,Wy

Back to the two guns mentioned in the original post. The Ithaca NID was designed at a time when new heavier ammunition became standard, this meaning heavier payloads, higher velocities, and higher pressures, than were standard in prior years. The L.C. Smith was not. Revdocdrew has a superb website where you can actually look up what standard loads were during these eras and even in some cases, the actual factory recommended maximum loads (I believe L.C. Smith is on one of those listed). Matching ammo choices to what the firearms were originally designed for, tends to alleviate problems.

This all of course assumes the firearm is in proper functioning condition with no reductions in wall thickness from alterations, pitting, etc. Those factors get complicated and firearms should be inspected by those with proper knowledge and tools.

Stocks are of course the wild card. L.C.'s are more prone to crack with age (often caused by swelling of the wood grain from excess oiling of the gun), but it is possible with the Ithaca too, even if less likely. I will not elaborate on the effects of recoil since this has been covered rather thoroughly already.

I personally have owned both. The L.C. Smith guns received milder loadings whereas my NID, in great condition, gets fed heavier ammunition with never an issue. It has become my 16 ga. goose gun.

Here 'ya go
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F2sQuPm05IE4VWYYnCkvuXmYEzQoWd_SQgaAfUOZEFU/edit

When DuPont developed "progressive burning" Oval for the 1922 introduction of Western Cartridge Company’s 12g ‘Super-X Field’ 2 3/4” 1 1/4 oz. 3 3/4 Dram Equiv. shell, the pressure developed was no greater than turn-of-the-century standard Live Bird loads.

The Smith gun was based on Alexander Brown's 1884 hammer and 1886 hammerless designs, with a very strong top rib extension multi-point lock-up, but a defect in the inadequate recoil absorbing surface area at the head of the stock, leading to the RECOIL induced "Long Cracked Smith" guns.

[url=https://drewhause.smugmug.com/LC-Smith/Design-Engineering/i-bm2THX5/A]

[/url]