Trapshooters Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I suspected my 1927 model 12 had short chambers so I bought a chamber gauge. It did (2-9/16 by my math). I then got a long-forcing cone reamer/chamber reamer from brownells. After much hesitation and fretting, I reamed the chamber out to 2-1/2" as measured on the gauge (remaining 1/4" is the chamber ring to bolt face distance). Since that worked without a hitch I read and fretted for a couple more days on how to hone the chamber. I ended up with a lisle brake hone with stones of unknown grit from the auto store and the tap oil I used for the reaming. It made a huge difference in appearance and it feels slick now. It just does not look as mirror bright as the bore.

My question is: how far should I go with the polishing the chamber? Same question for the forcing cone.

I gave it 30 seconds with a green scotchbrite and I only spent about another 30 seconds on it with the brake hone in my drill. I have a split dowel and a bunch of varying wet/dry sandpaper sheets up to 1000 grit and a bunch of 0000 steel wool. I don't want to egg out the chamber so I wondered how much more is recommended.

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
A word of caution, if you don't keep the chamber and chamber ring diameters concentric and the same id, you are going to have some major issues shooting steel base shells.

I wish there was a hone on the market that would allow for honing the chamber ring and chamber simultaneously. Maybe there is but I don't know of any.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
How do you know it is a Model 12 from 1927? What is its serial number?

Dave Riffle's book (page 49) states that all 1927 Model 12 guns were chambered for 2 3/4" shells.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
How do you know it is a Model 12 from 1927? What is its serial number?

Dave Riffle's book (page 49) states that all 1927 Model 12 guns were chambered for 2 3/4" shells.
I am not sure why you are arguing with my results but here are the answers and methods again in more detail.

Serial #550xxx. According to this paper: http://www.winchesterguns.com/conte...ture-Dates-by-Year-2012-Scanned-Documents.pdf, that means 1928. I read the chart wrong.

I don't have the Riffle book but I do have the Madis book. The barrel markings state "Nickel Steel" and also "Model 12" instead of "Mod. 1912". The last patent date on the barrel is "July 22. 1913". The Madis book indicates that on "serials near 500,000", the markings changed again and included a statement about 2 3/4" chamber (page 39, Winchester Model 12, Madis). My gun does not have the chamber marking.

I realize this does not mean guns before that time had shorter chambers. On the contrary. Page 35 of the Madis book would seem to indicate that all 12 gauge models were 2 3/4" chambers or certainly were after 1927 depending on how you interpret paragraphs 3-5. Interesting how mine is not. Was my barrel made earlier and taken from stock to install in this barrel extension? Who knows. My barrel has a solid rib and Madis seems to imply that this was not as common as the plain barrel due to machining costs. (page 53)

However, all of that is academic. I bought the chamber gauge from brownells. I used my Starrett dial caliper to get the depth of the ring to the bolt face. It was 1/4". I inserted the chamber gauge, put a scratch mark on the gauge and measured how much it indicated with the same caliper. It was 2 5/16".

I used 080-661-012WB from Brownells to ream the chamber and cut the short forcing cone to 1 1/2". I did cut slightly too much as the chamber + ring now measures 2 7/8". I do not believe this to be a problem as on the same page 35 of the Madis book, he mentions that winchester offered to lengthen any model 12 to 3".

Maybe I measured incorrectly but I do not believe I did. The rings on the chamber gauge sure seem to match up to the readings on my caliper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
A word of caution, if you don't keep the chamber and chamber ring diameters concentric and the same id, you are going to have some major issues shooting steel base shells.

I wish there was a hone on the market that would allow for honing the chamber ring and chamber simultaneously. Maybe there is but I don't know of any.
I completely understand this could be an issue. That is why I am still thinking over how to finish this. As it sits now, with the brake-honed only chamber, I cant catch a fingernail on the ring to barrel transition and cannot feel anything to indicate it is no longer concentric. I fed 10 federal steel base shells through it this morning (one was even rusty) and they all ejected without a problem.

If anything, it ejects smoother now than it did when I first got it.

I was thinking if I do the polishing with the bolt and action removed but receiver attached to the barrel, that would keep them concentric. But I would have to either load up the split dowel while it is in the breech opening and pull back through the chamber. But then with 1000 grit paper and 0000 steel wool, I am barley removing any metal anyway. Still thinking on that one. Worst case, the chamber I created now is better than the factory rough one on my 1100 classic trap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Let us know how that turns out.

I have a deep interest in your results. I sent one of my model 12s to Phillip to have a new chamber ring installed. Although the gun extracts the steel hulls better, it still is not where it should be. It takes too much force to extract some hulls.

What diameter dowel are you using? Neil suggested 3/8 to 1/2. I have several drills but don't think any will accept anything larger than 3/8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
What diameter dowel are you using? Neil suggested 3/8 to 1/2. I have several drills but don't think any will accept anything larger than 3/8.
My Craftsman drill will let me chuck up the 1/2" dowel so that is what I will likely use. I will keep the thread updated with my results.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,672 Posts
I am not sure why you are arguing with my results but here are the answers and methods again in more detail.

Serial #550xxx. According to this paper: http://www.winchesterguns.com/conte...ture-Dates-by-Year-2012-Scanned-Documents.pdf, that means 1928. I read the chart wrong.

I don't have the Riffle book but I do have the Madis book. The barrel markings state "Nickel Steel" and also "Model 12" instead of "Mod. 1912". The last patent date on the barrel is "July 22. 1913". The Madis book indicates that on "serials near 500,000", the markings changed again and included a statement about 2 3/4" chamber (page 39, Winchester Model 12, Madis). My gun does not have the chamber marking.

I realize this does not mean guns before that time had shorter chambers. On the contrary. Page 35 of the Madis book would seem to indicate that all 12 gauge models were 2 3/4" chambers or certainly were after 1927 depending on how you interpret paragraphs 3-5. Interesting how mine is not. Was my barrel made earlier and taken from stock to install in this barrel extension? Who knows. My barrel has a solid rib and Madis seems to imply that this was not as common as the plain barrel due to machining costs. (page 53)

However, all of that is academic. I bought the chamber gauge from brownells. I used my Starrett dial caliper to get the depth of the ring to the bolt face. It was 1/4". I inserted the chamber gauge, put a scratch mark on the gauge and measured how much it indicated with the same caliper. It was 2 5/16".

I used 080-661-012WB from Brownells to ream the chamber and cut the short forcing cone to 1 1/2". I did cut slightly too much as the chamber + ring now measures 2 7/8". I do not believe this to be a problem as on the same page 35 of the Madis book, he mentions that winchester offered to lengthen any model 12 to 3".

Maybe I measured incorrectly but I do not believe I did. The rings on the chamber gauge sure seem to match up to the readings on my caliper.
Well Mr Evesdropper, That makes a lot more sense than the 2 9/16 th's that you stated as chamber depth in your original post.
I was trying to figure out how in the hell you planed on shorting your chamber with your reamer.
MG
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
495 Posts
eavedroper, Try wrapping the different grades of scotch bright around a 12ga. bronze brush and use you elec. drill it worked for me. Works well on chamber and forcing cones. Roger C.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Well Mr Evesdropper, That makes a lot more sense than the 2 9/16 th's that you stated as chamber depth in your original post.
I was trying to figure out how in the hell you planed on shorting your chamber with your reamer.
MG
Understood. If someone is not familiar with the chamber ring measurement as part of the overall chamber length, I could see how they might be confused by my initial post. No offense taken or ill will given. Glad we got it sorted out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Here is my method and results.

I could not find anything but green scotchbrite pads so I did not try that method.
Materials:
  • Wet-dry sandpaper, 1 sheet each cut into 1' strips (240, 360, 400, 600, 1000, 1200)
    • I could not get any emery paper fine enough for this work
  • Cutting oil
  • LOTS of paper towels
  • 3/4" dowel
  • 1/4" x 5" lag screw
  • drill
I drilled a hole in the end of the dowel with a #12 bit, screwed in the lag screw until only the smooth shank was showing. Then cut off the dowel ahead of the screw tip about 1.5", sawed a slot in the dowel short of the screw tip. Hacksawed the head off the lag screw and now I had a mandrel.

I oiled the chamber and wrapped the 240 grit paper strip on the mandrel first. Oiled that too and spun it in the chamber with my cordless drill for about 30 seconds. Flipped the paper end for end and repeated until the reamer marks were nearly gone and I had a uniform scratch pattern. Careful not to keep checking the chamber ring to chamber fit so as not to create a lip. I did do some of the 240 grit honing with the chamber and ring mated to make sure. In hindsight, this seems unnecessary unless you are running the coarse grit for a long period. Repeat with each grit until you get it to where you want. For me, each grit change seemed to take less time to hone out the previous papers marks.

Results:
The forcing cone needs a bit of work yet as the 3/4" dowel is too big to do all of it. The chamber looks amazing. Mirror bright and nothing seems to stick to it. I can't get a good picture of it on my phone but trust me, it is shinier than the bore now.

Thanks Mr. Winston for the archived advice in another thread. Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Thank you for the update. Please keep us posted when you get to field test the gun with steel base shells.

I have a few questions.

I drilled a hole in the end of the dowel with a #12 bit, screwed in the lag screw until only the smooth shank was showing. Then cut off the dowel ahead of the screw tip about 1.5", sawed a slot in the dowel short of the screw tip. Hacksawed the head off the lag screw and now I had a mandrel... I did do some of the 240 grit honing with the chamber and ring mated to make sure.
I'm a bit confused about this part of the post. If I understood your description, you ended up with a very short dowel + remainder of the lag screw, maybe 3"? If so, how did you do the chamber and chamber ring simultaneously?

Also, in retrospect, would you have started with a finer grit; say, 400?

Lastly, did you chuck up the dowel in a lathe to drill the hole for the lag screw?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I bought a 5/8" dowel as part of the experiment and did the lag screw shank process on it as well. I dropped the trigger, ejector and bolt, inserted the long dowel and wound the paper through the ejection port. Then had my son hold the receiver while I ran the drill. It was a two-man job. The small dowel was about 5" long with a 1.5" slit on one end. the lag screw smooth shank protrudes about 1.5" from the other end.

In my case, I had a couple scratches from when I pulled the reamer out so 240 was needed. If I lengthen the forcing cone on my 1100 barrel with this reamer, I would probably start with the 400. I would bet that each successive attempt would be better as I practice. The chamber looked pretty good after 600grit. I kept going with higher grits since I already had them.

I thought about using the lathe but then decided it was not a job that required that kind of precision and I am an impatient sort anyway. I eyeballed the center and free-hand drilled it. the lag screw is soft metal so I just tapped it with the ball peen on the anvil to get it running true enough to not wobble. If I have 3-4 more to do, I would probably machine a split mandrel that matches the taper and width of the reamer. Or just sand a 1" dowel down to that right contour.

Any recommendations of bad steel shells to test? I have some Winchester Super Targets, Estates (usually everything eats those though) and some Federals. I think I have some Noblesports someplace too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Wow, it seems like there are too many to choose from. Ha ha.
Rio, cheap Winchesters, Fiocchi or any other promo shell. The one that gives me fits is Kent Fast Steel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Sorry for the delay. Here are the results:

Winchester Super Targets, 1 oz, #8, 1180 fps: Sticks but ejects
Remington Gun Club, 1-1/8 oz, #7.5, 1145: ejects fine
Federal Target Load, 1-1/8 ox, #7.5, 1145 fps: ejects fine
Federal Dove and Small Game, 1-1/8 oz, #8, 1200 fps (3 dram): ejects the best out of all tested.
My normal 1145 fps AA and STS hulls shuck just fine as always.

I will just keep the super-targets for the Beretta 682. It shoots whatever I put in it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Evesdropper,
How much of an improvement do you perceive you achieved? I know that's a subjective call but I'm just wondering if it was worth the effort?

If you are shooting doubles, would ejecting "fine" or "just fine" impede your performance?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,641 Posts
Worth the effort? Yeah, right. I have owned probably 150 Model 12s of all gauges, 1913 and up, and have not touched a reamer to any of them.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top