Please look at your '97 Winchester

[fourarmed]

A cousin of mine bought an 1897 Winchester 12 gauge at a farm sale, and asked me to "restore" it for him. It was made in 1912, and had been sorely neglected. Besides being badly pitted in places from all the rust, the barrel was noticeably bulged just in front of the chamber. I am guessing this was caused by firing 3" magnums in it. I got to wondering if this wasn't pretty common. I would like to ask the board members to look at any '97s they may own or know of, and report any bulges at that point.

I have finished cleaning up the gun, and mechanically it is pretty sound. The headspace adjustment is still in the first notch, the wood is pretty good, and there isn't a lot of wear. That bulge bothers me, though.

[Typecaster]

No bulge on the unrestored one I inherited from my dad. Will 3" shells feed? If they won't feed, there must have been some blockage other than an extra constriction in the forcing cone...unless it was used as a single-shot (like mine that doesn't feed).

Richard

[Calamity Jake]

I have 2 97's neither is bulged anywhere. I do the CAS thing and see and handle many 97's
I have never seen one bulged. The one you have may have been fired with a barrel
constriction.
I don't think a 97 will chamber a 3" mag round.

[scrapcan]

I had one for many years. It came my way with a blulge in the barrel....where the previous owner had left it leaned on the truck and drove over it! Yep it had a barrel bent at a little over 30 degrees. We replaced the barrel and I shot between 10K and 15K trap 1 1/8 of 71/2s at 1200 at little round clay targets. I ahve a count of all competition targets, but not sure of practice and hunting rounds. It had a full choke barrel. I had to pay unpaid income taxes after findign out an employer did not withold the proper amount. The 97 was the most valuable gun I had as it was very desireable as CAS was the vogue where I lived at the time.

A good friend has an original us marked trench gun, that bad boy is a hoot. double ought and pumpkins or water jugs make for a fun time.

so the short answer, the two I am very familar with neither had bulges from firing.

[fourarmed]

I was just reading Jack O'Connor's Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns this weekend, and he mentions that prior to "about the time of WW1" the standard length of 12 gauge shells was 2 5/8". Now I wonder if this shotgun (made in 1912) has a short chamber, and if firing a lot of 2 3/4" shells with star crimps would eventually swell the barrel at the front of the chamber.

[Morgan Astorbilt]

The '97 Winchester was their first shotgun to come out excusively with 2-3/4" chambers. Some owners try to measure their chambers and come out with a shorter measurement, but this is because they don't include the distance between the bolt face and barrel. Because of this, there are a few "Gunsmiths" making a cottage industry out of elongating '97 chambers for cowboy shooters.

Morgan

[S.R.Custom]

The '97 Winchester was their first shotgun to come out excusively with 2-3/4" chambers. ...

Indeed. It was the 1893 Winchester, forerunner to the '97, that was chambered for the shorter shells.

3" rounds will feed and chamber into my '97, but the longer empty will not eject. It is, as you might expect, too long.

The problem with firing 3" shells in a 2-3/4" chambers comes when the longer shell tries to unfold in the short chamber. The extra length of shell lays up in the forcing cone, creating a constriction the shot load and wad has to go past. What typically happens is the last 1/8" or so gets torn off the end of the 3" shell, leaving a jagged edge. And the recoil is fearsome, as the shot load is constricted, and the gun tries to come back against the "immovable object."

Bulges that come as a result of this, and they are rare, tend to be in the chamber itself (behind the shot load). A bulge forward of the chamber came about, I suspect, as a result of some kind of obstruction ahead of the chamber. (Mud dauber nest? Common in "barn" guns...)

[Pavogrande]

My Model 1897, also unrestored, and in very good condition, has no bulge -- Not sure what year it is # E 447135, possibly about 1920 --

[Morgan Astorbilt]

Your ser.# indicates your gun was made in 1910.
Morgan

[fourarmed]

I do know that you can't measure the chamber accurately with the barrel off the gun unless you add the thickness of the headspace ring.

I took the gun back to my cousin, and he was extremely happy with it. You had to see the condition it was in before I stripped it and cleaned off the rust and crud to appreciate what it looks like now. To give you some idea, I didn't realize there was a bulge until I was almost done with it.

[shotman]

it will never be a problem unless another obstruction happens i hunted with one for 15years that had 2 in the upper end and it didnt let a squrrel get away rick

[badgeredd]

No bulge on the unrestored one I inherited from my dad. Will 3" shells feed? If they won't feed, there must have been some blockage other than an extra constriction in the forcing cone...unless it was used as a single-shot (like mine that doesn't feed).

Richard

Mine is pre WW2 manufacture. Very used and not really pretty but it is one shootin' piece. Like typecaster, mine won't feed 3" shells but it will feed some slugs that are labeled 3". Never shot slugs through it but I had to check it out after seeing this thread. AND no bulge.