16ga.com ~ View topic

Guest

There was a guy on the old shotgunsports bbs named Jim Cassada (sp) and he used a Beretta Ultralight for his sporting clays. He often talked about having Rich Cole rebuild it after every season or so. Granted, this guy shoots a lot, but evidentally, there was some beat down occurring, but the rebuild was reasonable at under $200.00. A call to Cole Gunsmithng could put this to rest as far as the Beretta aluminum OU goes.

I tend to agree that a pump should be no problem because of the steel to steel lockup. I have an alum framed Browning Lightweight BLR rifle and they can handle up to 70,000 psi with the short mags. Steel to steel where it counts.

Joined: 15 Oct 2004 Posts: 787 Location: Indiana

Holy Cats !! I thought our Model 12 discussions were a little "over the top" but...mercy !! Steel vs. aluminum has heated the dialogue right up...I've got nary a dog in this fight, but it doesn't look like any minds will be changed here....

Member Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 743

You shoot a gun enough, it will wear. I've looked at bunches of British doubles--nary a one, I might add, with any alloy whatsoever in the action. Not at all uncommon for them to be loose on face, or to have been rejointed somewhere along the line. The vaunted Winchester Model 21, which some people would say is the strongest of the classic American sxs actions, was made with a replaceable hinge pin. Winchester made pins of increasingly larger size, to compensate for hook wear.

I'm certainly not encouraging anyone here to buy an alloy receiver gun; nor, for that matter, a steel receiver gun (although I always thought it a point in the I. Rizzinis' favor, vs the B's, that their 16's were on true frames and saved weight tht way as opposed to using a 12ga alloy frame. Made the gun more properly proportioned as a 16.) Were I looking for a target gun, personally I'd go with a steel receiver, simply because weight is not an issue. Field gun . . . well, that's where weight reduction counts. And because the alloy receiver guns are lighter, it's less likely anyone's going to use them for heavy duty target work. Horses for courses, as they say.

I agree with you here Larry. I've said as much. If you know the gun's limitations, and stick to those limitations, then that is wise. I carry a 16 gauge Citori steel framed gun because I can use some very stout loads without concern. the added power and range of these loads has displaced my need for a 12 bore for any upland hunting I do. I can and have also shot mine a lot over the years. No sign of any real wear yet. I also shoot a 6.5 or 6.75 pound gun better all around than a lighter one to boot. So, there is no up side with an alloy framed 16 ga. hinge gun for me here. I can afford to take the position of wait and see. If others are happy with their alloy framed hinge guns, then that is good. If they are not willing to stay within the alloy guns' limits, then that is their business.

The whole issue reminds me of the old Colt .45 ACP government model vs. the alloy framed Commander model. Each gun had its good points. However, too many Commander models got pounded to junk from being treated like they were government models. They were lighter to carry duty guns for occasional use with midrange loads. A steady diet of hardball ammo would wreck them in no time. I don't eveen know if Colt still makes the alloy .45 ACP Commander.

Member Joined: 01 Dec 2006 Posts: 524

Sorry Larry - that all wasnt really directed at you anyway. The reason I was a bit forcefull (or beligerent) in tone was because I'm not really trying to advocate the use, or non use of alloy frame guns anyway. But when the challenege for prrof comes forth, I take exception because it really isnt my concern - I'm already convinced not to own an alloy gun. My reason for citing failures (not regular wear issues) is that folks may pause to think a bit before they decide to save weight in this particular way. There is a trade off for every weoght saving measure a gunmake takes - thats just fact. Whether it be thin wall barrels, alloy metals, lightweight wood, or less wood etc., something is lost - and it aint just weight. Its all relative of course to what is going to meet your needs and/or demands. Some shooters may not wear out or stress and alloy gun in ten lifetimes. Others may consider the amount of shooting and for what purpose they intend, nd what type construction would be best for that purspose. I'm not trashing alloy guns, and not really talking about normal weart and tear either. Rather, out and out metal component failure. I didnt run into the guy at the range this last weekend, but I did contact a man I know that is close with the dealership owner from whence the gun in question came. As soon as possible, I'm going to get the photo's of the gun as they are dramatic enough to cause an "ooooh or ahhhhh. on this site. So standby, be patient and I will post ASAP. Until then, except my sincere apology for coming off a little strong and irritated. Its just that I detected that your on going feud with 16GG was spilling over my way -and really don't want to partake in the he said, he said-back it up with facts or your a blowhard type of interaction. In my mind everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and deserved the respect (or even thanks) for making any issues they have seen with any shotgun - known. Whether it turns out to be a one in one million deal or not - its all good stuff to share unless one is intent on trashing something just to rub others the wrong way...............I'm not. If there is a side to take on alloy guns however, I do agree with what 16GG has maintained all along, and that they just aren't for me. Part of it may be that I'm a bit of a traditionalist, the other part, is a combination of what I've seen, heard and what makes common sense. And of course my desire to have the best for my money.

[img]www.hunt101.com/showphoto.php?photo=485519[/img]

It looks like even steel isn't impervious to all forces, including my idiot neighbor.

How about a little jocularity, this thread was getting way to serious.

Regards,

Chris

P.S. Can someone tell me how to the picture to show up in the post?

*Last edited by onefunzr2 on Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:43 am; edited 1 time in total*

[quote="16gaugeguy"]

Do those cast aluminum pistons ride on steel or aluminum rings?

On Chevy V8 engines, they are steel. I can't say about those engines made in Italy or Japan. But no matter, how is this germane to my analogy of explosions to fragile aluminum on the top of a piston or shotgun receiver?

What about the cylinder sleeves? Normally cast iron, but there have been aluminum engine blocks that used a special honing process that brought suspended silicon to the wear surface when weight saving was all important. Again, I can't see how this applies as the alloy piston is the weak link in all this reciprocating assembly, not steel rings or cast iron cylinder walls.

How about the bearing surfaces, the crank shaft,etc. Bearings are lead babbit; cranks are of cast iron or steel. Again, none of this is relevant as the fragile aluminum is the weak link.

What is the top end pressure at the point of combustion in each piston? I don't know, but about as variable as the difference in shotgun shell pressures.

How thick is the piston head just below the ppint that is in a direct line with that thrust? I'll take a SWAG and say 3\16" or thinner. I'll cut a piston in two tomorrow and give you a definitive answer then.
EDIT...chevy 350 truck engine, at the bottom of one of the flycut valve reliefs= .243"

I don't know that comparing an internal combustion engine with a hinge gun made of alloy is a safe comparison. You're correct. The gas\air flame bears directly on the exposed aluminum piston. The gunpowder flame is encased in a steel barrel. There is no comparison to which is the most brutal.

I'd not assume a safe correlation between these to distinct articles. Its like comparing an aircraft with an automobile. It just does not translate in my opinion. Let's see: they're both dino-fuel powered vehicles with wheels and tires that carry occupants and move through the atmosphere. Some cars are even faster than planes. Seems to me there are more similarities than differences.

Besides, I'm fairly certain the engines and parts were designed specifically with alloy in mind. And I'd expect modern gun designers use finite element analysis to determine satisfactory performance whether inside and engine or any mechanical devise.

But in the case of shotguns, maybe they just WING it?

Guest

Chris, you need to "open the image in a new window," (Mac terms) then copy/paste the new url just like you did above. I "think" on a PC it's a right mouse click. Not sure, I'm a Mac guy.

Nice shot!

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

Is that gun made for use with those spreader loads? Laughing

Dave, Thanks for the tip.

TJC,
I don't know about the spreader loads, but my neighbor's new nickname is now Elmer...Elmer Fudd that is. The kicker is that it wasn't even his gun. Embarassed

He borrowed it because his BPS malfunctioned the day before and he had lost a part during the disassembly/reassembly process. The guy couldn't catch a break the whole weekend. Thankfully no one was hurt.

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

"This is so because all modern pumps and doubles designed since 1955 lock up the bolt directly into a steel barrel extention".

Hey, 16 gauge guy-what part of the word "doubles" that you typed don't you understand?

Still waiting for the comprehensive list of 'em designed since 1955. Per your post. Still think it'll be a short list.

If you can't even remember what you posted, or, look back at it to check, forget "medicinal brandy" and head straight to the dementia perscriptions. You may want to ease up on those 1 1/4 oz loads in a 16 gauge too, the brain damage is becoming apparent.

You can buy incendiary rounds and explosive rounds for shotguns, too. Doesn't mean I'd ever use them. Maybe you should mix 'em in with your "head bangers" and hunt with them, since they load them? Anything they load has gotta be good, right?

And, documentation of a problem with the Ultras. Anything you got. Anything? By the way, the Ultras were NEVER discontinued by King's Ferry Ithaca-they went out of business. Production of EVERYTHING was ceased. Big difference.
Best,
Ted

You are right Ted, I did say pumps and doubles. It was a typo. I meant to say just pumps. I do not know one double gun of any type that locks up into a barrel extention like a modern pump or autoloader does. Do You? I still think you occasionally wander into the medicine cabinet for the brandy though. Laughing

PS: Thats dain bramaged. If you are going to use the label, use it right for Pete's sake.

Dave and ckirk, I really have to say, that is about the worse porting job I've ever seen.

"Nice hat. anyone who buys a hat like that should get a free bowl of soup.", Rodney Dangerfield in Caddy Shack. Very Happy

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

Actually, I do know of a double that is locked to the barrels with a rising bite into an extension.

A Darne does that. In fact, you can remove the sliding breech off the rails, remove the barrels from the stock, and lock the sliding breech to the barrels by closing the toggle key, or, lever.

Probably better not fire it that way, however.

It should be noted that this is the secondary bolting in a Darne. The primary is the wedge into the main spring that is also driven off the toggle.

It was designed a few seasons before 1955, however. The early 1890s, as a matter of fact.
Best,
Ted

PS-Dick, Craig didn't know if they were actually going to produce the 28 as an Ultra-they just used the aluminum receiver to speed the prototyping process.

Far easier and quicker to model an aluminum version than a steel one. I suppose its safe to say that the steel version gun would fly through proof if the aluminum one did.

Would sure like to see the 28 in a model 37, however. Not saying I'll buy one (already own a model 17 Remington, and can't imagine what the 28 Ithaca would add, save more ammunition boxes on the shelf) but, I think it will be a neat little gun, anyway.

Here I agree with you Ted. a 28 ga. Ithaca 37 would be really nice to see. But make mine steel please. For me, too light is not right. Can't shoot 'em well. A 6.25 lb gun with a trimmed to gauge receiver and a 26" barrel and choke tubes would be just dandy though.