16ga.com ~ View topic

Joined: 19 Jun 2004 Posts: 1480 Location: Mpls, MN.

Aluminum alloy, Scandium, and Ergal all have their place in modern firearms design. Since most of the stress occurs in the barrels, we won't likely see aluminum there, but in certain applications, receivers can certainly be built from it.

It's doubtful that a large volume claybirds shooter needs or wants aluminum alloy in the trapgun he shoots. But, what about the 70 year old Korean war vet with the artificial leg who would like to make it out just a few times in a season? A gun 1 pound or so lighter might just be the thing to keep him in the game for a few more seasons. Ditto a skinny, asthematic teenager. Or, just a middleaged guy (or, God bless her, his wife) who realizes he walks more than he shoots on the public ground he has available to hunt.

Very lightweight all steel guns double guns are out there, and they typically cost a bundle. My Darne 12 is about an oz over 6 lbs. It would be expensive to replace. A guy can get into an alloy receiver O/U or, even cheaper, an alloy receiver pump, and enjoy a lifetime with it.

I have handled and shot the Verney Carron, and the Beretta lightweight O/U guns, and know a few folks who own the Berettas. They aren't duck hunters suffering from magnumitis but, folks who just need or want a lighter gun, suited for walking and hunting (see above). The guns weren't bought for 8 hour shifts at a claybird range. The Beretta's and the Verney Carrons have a titanium insert in the breech face to take the surface wear.

I've never been able to fathom why someone would insist their birdgun needs to be built of the same material, and to the same use standard, as someones else's goosegun or trapgun. The "solid steel receiver" advertising we used to see in the Remington catalogs was a marketing ploy that played on people's misunderstanding of materials. It also ignored the fact that Mossberg, Manufrance, and many others quietly went about building and selling millions of guns with aluminum receivers that don't wear out in a person's lifetime, and, that those same guns routinely pass proof in France. Yes, every single Mossberg 500 sold in France (they are popular with boar hunters there) goes to the proof house, and suffers the worlds highest level of proof. None have failed yet.

Before anyone says a Mossberg 500 is junk, remember they have built them since 1962, build them today, and sold far, far more of them then anyone else did with their pumps. And every single one has an alloy receiver. Even the magnum versions.

I did talk to Craig at Ithaca about two weeks ago, and he told me several interesting things. They used an aluminum receiver for the proof testing on the scaled frame 28 guage they were working on. They used it because it was easier, quicker and cheaper than prototyping a steel one. They couldn't hurt the aluminum receiver gun. They tried, very hard, to do that, and fed it many, many proof rounds. He also told me that there really isn't any record of problems with the alloy receiver Ithaca 37 Ultra pumps built by any of the companys in the past.

It just isn't a factor in these lightweight guns. Never has been. Never will be. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignoring the facts. They will likely recoil a bit more, but, if you only have 4 or 5 hours to get in some grouse hunting, and need to cover some ground, a lightweight gun is going to make it a bit more pleasant. If you know you won't get an entire flat of shooting in, the extra weight won't be missed.
Best,
Ted

Member Joined: 01 Dec 2006 Posts: 524

It wasnt a problem with the hinge pin Larry, IT WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE RECEIVER AROUND THE HINGE PIN - got it? I'm gonna do my best to get these photos for the record. But at the end of the day, I really don't feel a need to convince anyone - because it doesnt really matter what you believe.
Everyone should either beware, or do their own research on matter important to them - it aint to me, because i already believe I know.

Just go buy the guns if you want em, I could give a rat's A$$. I'm not the first or only one to cite issues with alloy receiver. Do your own research -its all out there floating around. Better yet go buy an alloy gun and shoot the Holy crap out of it with the heaviest loads you can find.
I will say whatever i want to say, whether I back it up or not. I'm not a gunwriter, nor trying to produce an article for anyone's benefit. Though for a price I'd be happy to do a very, very thorough one. But others get paid for that work I think, maybe I'll let them do the job. Or, write an article for publication. Why divulge all my valuable info for free uncopyrighted?

In fact, maybe I'll just do that. Wink

Thanks Ted :

Finally someone put things in to perspective , concerning differnt types of materials and the relative strengths and weekness of each, this is the kind of thing such as trying to catch a whale with a flyrod .

You have to compair apples to apples and oranges to oranges and you cant please all the people all the time DONT EVEN TRY .

When one doesnt understand a subject topic , perhaps one should place the I DONT KNOW WHAT I AM SAYING IS FACT JUST AN OPINION , your right the Marine Corp put the Mossberg on machines and tried to destroy them and the upedy guns all failed the test Not the Mossberg it kept going and going , Hmmmm interesting fact Aluminum is so prone to failure that you COULD NOT TEAR IT UP Hmmmm

Anyone that is in the trade of working with these materials knows a bit about them and the associated traits of each , I am not afraid of an Alum receiver in the least , and all the hype of the Titanium is funny why do eveyone that doesnt know about this think that a 3 percent reduction in weight over alum. is such a great thing hmmm it is so strong perhaps hmmm well the only thing that Titanium has going for it is High Heat Applications ( THE STUFF DOESNT MOVE, AT ALMOST ALL HEAT RANGES, IT LIKES HEAT ) is it better than Alum. well look at your Machinist Handbook and read all about it and go to school for a few years then make many parts out of each material that everyone is discussing and then come back and tell us all about what you have learned Hmmmm

Thanks Ted for bringing light to a very dim tunnel.

Regards Charles

I'm no expert on the engineering of shotguns, but obviously some of our board brothers have studied the subject closely. I learn something new almost every time I visit and that is what makes this such a good board!

I only have one alloy frame gun. It is a Browning superlight feather model in 16 gauge (what else?!)...

I have never contemplated shooting a couple hundred rounds in a day with this gun, because even with a limbsaver pad added to get to my 15 1/4 LOP it will tag you a bit. But it does get some fairly good workouts from time to time. Last week, I shot 3 rounds of wobble trap with it (75 rounds) within an hour or less to get tuned up for a late season preserve hunt. Next day, took it up to the well-known 4-B's preserve. Shot 11 times, killed 10 birds. I was amazed and gratified as I am NOT a world-class shooter.

The gun felt like a magic wand in my hands...light, fast, responsive. I''ve shot wobble and birds with this gun for 3 seasons now, and have had no lock up issues of any kind and it always goes bang when the trigger is pulled. Again, I'm no shotgun expert, but you'd have to be a pretty big ol' boy to get this one away from me!

OSL

As usual Ted, you are both right and wrong all at the same time. You are right about modern pumps with aluminum frames. This is so because all modern pumps and doubles designed since 1955 lock up the bolt directly into a steel barrel extention. All the forces are contained in a closed system and are in line. There are no lateral or diagonal forces impinging on the alloy frame to contend with. These repeaters are very strong.

And please don't bring up your beloved 37 Ultra Featherweight.Its a different animal all together. It was designed well before 1955. It was never the most durable gun to begin with. Most Ultras develop headspace in about one third the time a steel framed Featherweight does, because locking a steel bolt into the roof of an alloy receiver does not wear all that well.

A HINGE gun is much different, and that is what we've been discussing. So you've once again got your apples and your oranges in the same bucket. The barrel hinges on a steel pin supported by an alloy reciever or frame. At some point, even the locking bolts, pins, cones, lumps, cross bolts, or what ever the design uses are supported by alloy. The forces impinge on a breech face that is not part of a bolt locked into the barrel. It is a seperate and free standing breech face.

Anyone frail enough to need a sub 6.5 pound gun probably would also best aviod a 12 or a 16 ga gun for hunting. Even a 20 might be too much. However, a nice light, 20 ga autoloader built on an aluminum frame would probaly do nicely. It would carry nice and would also attenuate out some ofthe recoil. However, it is not a hinge gun and never will be. I hope this puts us on the same page.

Larry, I understand that the barrel flats slope away from the water table and why. However, some designs do have them contact near the breech face for support. However, when the gun is fired, these surfaces come away from each other a tiny bit. The forces work against the breech face and push the barrels away and muzzles slightly down against the hinge pin. The little bit of room at the front between the flats and the table keep them from smashing into each other. O/U guns also have a clearance between the bottom of the barrel block and the reciever for the same reason. There has to be a tiny bit of give and the room to let it happen, or the gun would pound itself to pieces in no time.

Its this running start and the resulting inertia forces that concerrn me the most. Steel against steel can take the pounding if both have about the same strength and resilience. Steel impinging on alloy/ The alloy will not hold up as well. Cannot, and will not--ever. You can put a steel buffer withg a big area to spread the force out, but at some point, steel is still impinging on alloy.

Also, the alloy supporting the steel hinge pin is a small area and hard to reinforce. Here is the weak spot. so are the sides of an ally receiver. They cannot take the lateral and diagonal forces at well as steel.

Joined: 19 Jun 2004 Posts: 1480 Location: Mpls, MN.

Doubles that have been designed since 1955 is going to be a really short list...

Care to name one?

"Not the most durable design", is a mostly moot point. Since a well designed pump will last several lifetimes of shooting, one that wears a bit faster is going to be no big deal to the rest of us.

And, news flash-guns can be fixed.

Craig was pretty clear that the only disadvantage was the Ultras recoil a bit harder. The alloy framed "sacrificial lamb" 28 had zero wear, zero problems after all the proof testing was done. A lot of testing. Since you brought it up, with a specific number (1/3 the time) can you provide the documentation on the wear characteristics of the Ithaca 37 Ultra? Not just an opinion, but, actual documentation, with that exact number, for all of us to see?

Until you can do that, or, produce even a single worn out Ultra for us to see here, (like Sponge Bob says, "good luck with that") lets just make it clear that your post is a long, long, way from fact, and just an opinion you hold, OK?

As to alloy hinge O/U guns, well, quite a few of those Citoris you like so much have been sold in that exact configuration. Quite a few Berettas as well. And, although you don't see them here, the Verney Carron "Ergal" framed guns are great sellers in Europe. Since you insist on steel framed guns, AND, it would seem, have a near doctorate education in warranty issues resolution with same, I'm pretty sure we can conclude that problems exist, from time to time, with both alloy and steel guns.

I would expect to see some warranty issues in both designs of production guns.

Seems like a lot of problems exist in your new steel frame guns, by the way. Couldn't help but notice.

The alloy O/Us that several friends use haven't had any warranty issues, unlike you and those steel frame guns you insist on. Of course, I consider these guys to be expert in the care and feeding of their alloy guns. A lot of people, especially those who have warranty issue after warranty issue, over and over, year after year, new gun after new gun, who can post an internet BBS page full of how to get warranty issues resolved, with their steel framed guns, probably could learn something from these guys. Light loads. Skilled handling. Careful use. Good maintenance.

Most of them would laugh just as hard at the suggestion of an 1 1/4 load in a 16 gauge, as I do. Can you believe, there are people out there that still use, and even suggest others use, that heavy a load in a sweet little 16?

I can't remember who exactly posted that they still use those, but, maybe all his guns should be steel framed, eh? Just to be on the safe side. Suppose he has any warranty issues abusing his guns like that? That guy likely doesn't understand he shouldn't use them in an alloy receiver gun, anyway.

Who was that guy? I 'gotta think about it-I'll get back to you. Just can't remember who that guy was right now.

If a guy (or, gal) understands the limitations of his alloy framed Citori, Beretta or Verney Carron, (HINT-1 1/4 oz is going to be a bit "over the top" in an alloy framed gun, pump or O/U) it will be shooting for many, many years. Likely, more years than they have to shoot. After seeing a few posts here, I question if some people have an understanding of exactly what an alloy framed O/U gun is really for. No, NOT for hundreds of heavy rounds at clays, every week, but, a bit of practice and lots of hunting. Lots more walking then shooting. Good quality, light loads.

Geez, I really wish I could remember that guy's name right now. The guy with the 1 1/4 oz 16 gauge loads. Seems so relevant to this discussion about alloy receiver guns, and, come to think of it, warranty issues on steel guns, too. Who was that guy? Anybody remember? Help me out here.

As to what weight of gun someone needs to be shooting, well, you have, as per usual, confused an OPINION (yours) with fact. If a guy wants a 6 lb 12 (I've got one, and trust me, I'm far, far from frail) that is their business. I can assure you, mine is a superb bird gun, I have killed pickup truck boxes full of wild birds with it, and it will never be for sale while I can still hunt or shoot. Your OPINION on that point, means little to nothing. Nor, should it. To anyone except you, anyway.

Something you might want to keep in mind, is, it doesn't hurt to look at an orange from time to time when contemplating apples. Thinking "outside the box" is helpful to understanding the whole picture, or problem, and finding the answer that works individually the best, which, will often be different for different individuals. Industry rewards those that perform well, in this regard. Keep it in mind.
Best,
Ted

Ted, have you been into the medicinal brandy again? Laughing

What part of "pump guns designed since 1955" do you not understand? Did not you yourself, bring up the Mossberg 500? Does this design lock up into a steel barrel extention? Last time I looked, the Mossberg 500 was not a double gun. Try following the thread my friend. It will all be clear if you do. Wink

I don't "insist" that anyone buy or not buy anything. I just offer the down side as information to be considered.an informed buyer is better off.

Now, as far as 1 -1/4 ounce 16 ga load, I think several ammo companies offer them for sale including Federal. Have for many, many years. So I'd have to guess there is a demand. Some folks do use them. My 1988 steel framed Citori has absorbed its share without any ill effects at all. The load allows the 16 to be even more versitle by adding range and hitting power. Its why I now carry a 16 for all my upland duties instaed of a 12 for the bigger upland species. Of course, if you think these loads are too much for the 16, you should tell Federal to stop loading them. While you arwe at it, why not write all the reloading data publishers to have them eliminate the 1-1/4 ounce load data available. However, I'd not recommend them in older, worn doubles or in your Ultra Featherweight.

Lastly, the reason Ithaca Gun Company originally stopped producing the Ultra Featherweight was over both warranty and liability issues. Premature excessive headspace and frame failure was right at top of the list. Some ideas, like dirigibles, only seem like good ones at the time-right up until they explode and burn. I'll stick with steel frames on all my hinge guns. Thanks. You or anyone else can buy what you like. I'll see what happens to yours. Then I'll know.

Member Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 743

Geez, Jig . . . chill out, man! If you want to write an article about the problems of alloy-frame guns, have at it. Do the research, come up with the reports (first-hand only, thanks, is what most editors will tell you--preferably with photo support), and somebody will probably buy it. I'm not working on such an article, have no interest in doing such an article . . . but one point you might consider is that steel receivers also fail. If you want to do a comparison between the two, you might look at Sherman Bell's "Finding Out for Myself" series in Double Gun Journal. But it's not going to be an inexpensive project, because you'll need to get your hands on one each, brand new, steel receiver and alloy receiver gun of otherwise the same design (like Citoris) and put them through various stress tests. (More than one each would be better.) Proof loads, volume shooting, rapid fire to see if heat has any impact, etc etc. And you probably want to contact Browning and see what they do.

Definitely be prepared to DOCUMENT what you write. All I did was ask a simple question, and you go all ballistic. If you're writing for any editor worth his salt, and you're writing on something like alloy frame failures, be CERTAIN that you will get all kinds of questions about what you write before the article ever makes it into print. That's because, as Ted pointed out (in addition to the guns we've mentioned previously), there are a lot of alloy receiver guns out there. And if it looks like you're trashing a particular make or model, your editor is going to want to be VERY certain of the facts before he allows anything into print.

Just giving you the benefit of MY experience, as a relatively widely published outdoor writer, for the last 30 years.

Member Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Posts: 446 Location: Wisconsin

I've lined up right behind Ted for an Aluminum framed Ithaca M37 28 gauge! I'm not the slightest bit worried.
As to aluminum for other shotguns, pumps, semi's and doubles, it's fairly simple with todays computer designed CAD/CAM (we used to make models out of transparent plastic and used interference fringing techniques to see the stress flow) to determine where the need for steel or titanium should be used rather than aluminum. These shotguns can be safey used for many rounds and it will only be the competition shooter for both weight and longevity that will really benefit from an all steel shotgun. My only problem with aluminum framed double shotguns is that aluminum is being used as a cheap solution to produce lighter weight shotguns. Light steel doubles can be produced, I have them, but at a manufacturing cost. Ted supplied me with a 16 gauge Bruchet/Darne that weighs 6# 1oz (I use 2&1/2" GameBore in this gun) . In some cases the tooling and methods are completely lost and they will never be manufactured again. 2" Brit boxlocks and Browning Superposed Superlights will never again be made at such light weights. The tooling is gone for the Brit guns and Superposed SuperLights after the Production era are invariable from 6-8 oz heavier. The Spanish firm of Arietta will make you a 2" Sidelock and will tell you that they weigh 5# 15oz, but I have never weighed one less than 6# 1oz.
Coming from a Nuclear Engineering/Metalurgy background and having developed Quality Assurance Methodology and QA/QC Departments for Nuclear Power Plants as well as managed these areas, I rely on facts and tests to determine my decisions. In this case I see no facts and no consistant problems with the use of aluminum in shotguns. -Dick

I like to think of myself as an informed consumer. Before investing in my Rizzini alloy frame O\U I stopped to think of all the other products made from alloys that are designed for severe service. The first that came to mind is pistons. How many explosions per minute do they survive? Of course, most racing pistons are forged aluminum, but the overwhelming majority in everyday use are of the cast variety; not nearly as strong, yet they seem to be up to the job, day after day. I don't ever hear of folks clamoring for steel pistons. Why is that?

Member Joined: 20 Mar 2005 Posts: 1522 Location: NH

Well I put 150 rds through my Feather yesterday at the trap range. All shots in consecutive order without taking a break, except for the normal break between lines.
Didn't have any metal bind up, seperations, too hot to handle, too much recoil (used Rem Game Loads), or any other problem. I predict that this Feather will be shooting clays and game long after I'm gone. Wink

But maybe I should look for another one just in case this one falls apart. Wink

Member Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 665 Location: Louisiana

Dang! this is better'n when Mike bit Evander's ear. Wink

And MUCH more educational.

Member Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 743

You know, TJC, it's always good to have a "parts" gun handy. Smile