I just bought an 1897 shotgun, serial number puts it at roughly 1898 manufacture, stock is solid without any cracks, action is solid, and takedown barrel is snug to the receiver. Now I bought a few rounds to test it out, low recoil federal 2 3/4" 00 buck, anything I should know before I shoot it? Things to watch for and what not. It's 116 years old and absolutely magnificent so I don't want to damage it.
Winchester 1897 ammo query
- Thread starter D King
- Start date
The early production 1897's, of which yours is one, were chambered in 2 9/16ths. They weren't intended for use with 2 3/4" shells. Having said that, the guns are solidly built and I have never heard of a single failure from using 2 3/4" shells*. *Winchester 1897s only - not talking about clone crap.
Still, using any other than 2 1/2" does put more strain on the barrel assembly. Continued use eventually causes looseness in the take down mechanism. Other than myself, I don't know a single soul who uses only 2 1/2" shells in their '97s (including my Dad, before he handed a 16 ga down to me). In my case, it's not so much concern for the gun that motivates me, but a desire to use traditional shells with felt wads that make full use of the gun's choke, to use loads balanced to the weight of the gun, and to enjoy reduced recoil (by not constricting the forcing cone with the crimp or using heavy loads).
I've taken steps to acquire sequential adjustment collars, so I and my progeny won't ever have to wish we could get the parts to keep the old girls shooting. By my calculations, it should take at least 500 years to go through the whole range of adjustment offered by the design. I was conservative in my estimates. The real number is probably closer to 750 years and using the correct shells would push that to a millennium. Obviously, nobody feels compelled to worry about making their guns last that long. But, reduced recoil and better patterns are worth the effort.
Still, using any other than 2 1/2" does put more strain on the barrel assembly. Continued use eventually causes looseness in the take down mechanism. Other than myself, I don't know a single soul who uses only 2 1/2" shells in their '97s (including my Dad, before he handed a 16 ga down to me). In my case, it's not so much concern for the gun that motivates me, but a desire to use traditional shells with felt wads that make full use of the gun's choke, to use loads balanced to the weight of the gun, and to enjoy reduced recoil (by not constricting the forcing cone with the crimp or using heavy loads).
I've taken steps to acquire sequential adjustment collars, so I and my progeny won't ever have to wish we could get the parts to keep the old girls shooting. By my calculations, it should take at least 500 years to go through the whole range of adjustment offered by the design. I was conservative in my estimates. The real number is probably closer to 750 years and using the correct shells would push that to a millennium. Obviously, nobody feels compelled to worry about making their guns last that long. But, reduced recoil and better patterns are worth the effort.
Okay, good information. My 1897 unfortunately has no choke . It's a 30" barrel chopped to 20". It's not much of a personal concern, as it's more of a display piece and occasional target or cowboy action shooter( if I eventually get into the latter)
Yes, this renders moot any point around stressing the gun. It actually adds to the personal comfort equation, though. For fun shooting and the occasional cowboy shoot, there's not much point in buying high quality, low pressure loads. I would advise you use the lightest loads you can find when you have a choice. Having a 2 3/4" shell partially opening into the forcing cone will accentuate recoil to begin with. Having a lighter gun due to weight having been chopped off will only add to that. You may find this gun will kick harder than most in it's current configuration, especially with buckshot and other heavy loads.
Anything I should worry about with the cut-down barrel? It looks to have been done with a pipe cutter and the low recoil federal ammo I put through it already went off without damage to the gun. Recoil isn't an issue as it still kicks less than my .303
Damage to the barrel itself is highly unlikely - the thinnest part has already been removed. The remaining length of barrel is good gun steel, more than adequately thick (assuming no corrosion damage). Even steel shot is okay, now that the barrel is cylinder bore (if you can find much steel in 2 3/4). If any damage will occur to the gun due to use, the greatest probability is that it will be to the take-down assembly or the stock.
Just as there are myths about guns that circulate and pass as truth, there were in past generations, too. One that got a lot of mileage in previous generations was that, if something was good, then more of it was better. When applied to oiling freshly cleaned guns, this philosophy resulted in excessive oil running down to the face of the stock. Too much oil makes wood pithy. Many 1897s bear cracks in the wood behind the receiver, and many more develop new cracks or break altogether when subjected to a steady diet of heavy loads. I relate this more as a continuation of the discussion. In your case, maintaining the original stock is not a concern. And, after market replacement stocks for the 1897 are commonplace.
