I would but somebody will be here to tell you not to. Steel loads are much better than they used to be.

 

I hunted in AR about 3 years back with a buddy using a model 58. His even had a PolyChoke on it! He had no problems with Kent steel loads. He kept the PolyChoke set on modified and of course on that model 58's "Heavy" Load setting. Based on that, I say it should be fine.

 

I wouldn't shoot more than 10,000 rounds through it.

 

thanks all

 

Putting high velocity loads through a relic that was never designed for them will be iffy at best.

You will definitely shorten the lifespan of the gun compared to using shells it was designed for, and parts for the 58 are expensive and difficult to find (basically breaking one major component on a 58 puts most of the way to totaling the gun).

 

Probably. You know it was not designed to shoot steel shot.
Is it wise?

 

If by "safe" you mean are you going to get hurt, probably not.

If you mean will the gun be hurt - maybe, eventually. But it's also a 60 yr old gun - any number of things might be wearing down.

I probably wouldn't shoot 100 rounds every weekend, but if you wanted to take it out and put a box through it a couple weekends in duck season, I don't think you're anymore likely to encounter trouble than if you were shooting lead.

 

Sure shoot it all you want it will be fine.I have one we have been shooting for years.

 

No.

"Owners of Remington 12-gauge Model 870, 1100, 11-87, 3200, and Sportsman 58 and Sportsman 12-A and 12-P shotguns manufactured between 1960 and June 1995 (the \"Shotguns\") who have not previously excluded themselves from the settlement are entitled to receive a payment (\"Settlement Check\"), as part of the resolution of the class action lawsuit in Garza v. Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., Civ. No SA-93-CA-1082(W.D.Tex.). "

 

Which has nothing to do with anything other than lawyers making money.

 

Which has nothing to do with anything other than lawyers making money.

That may be your take, but resulfurized steel is not suitable for steel and current 4140 Chrome-Moly is substantially better. Lead only.

 

Damn I wish someone would've told me that back in 1979 when I was shooting some test loads
of steel shot , ever since 1990 I've run a steady diet of steel shot through my Wingmasters after
waterfowl and it hasn't caused a problem yet . I do have barrels that I opened the choke some
as some are 26" all the way to 30" with constrictions of .008 thu .027 , others are factory full
at .038 !

 

Damn I wish someone would've told me that back in 1979

No, you don't. It wouldn't have mattered.

 

Yup nothing to worry about at all...just remember as steel gets older it may get stressed over time with repeated shooting. may be fine but why risk it? On another forum one member years ago was shooting His '86 Winchester just as he had done hundreds of times with His reloads , He was shooting off of the bench when the barrel let go blowing the for end to splinters many big ones ended up in His left arm . His right hand on the trigger was out of the way.

 

Key word - "reloads".

 

I have a model 58 choked skeet -- is it safe to shoot steel ?

No.

"Owners of Remington 12-gauge Model 870, 1100, 11-87, 3200, and Sportsman 58 and Sportsman 12-A and 12-P shotguns manufactured between 1960 and June 1995 (the \"Shotguns\") who have not previously excluded themselves from the settlement are entitled to receive a payment (\"Settlement Check\"), as part of the resolution of the class action lawsuit in Garza v. Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., Civ. No SA-93-CA-1082(W.D.Tex.). "

No, the Garza suit had nothing to do with steel shot.

https://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewto ... 3&t=345137

 

The Garza suit was settled: it did not go to trial.

Description of Lawsuit: The Lawsuit, brought against Remington and DuPont, the former parent company of Remington (the "Defendants"), claimed that the value of the Shotguns had been reduced because the barrels were not strong enough and sometimes burst in normal use, causing damage to the gun and, in some cases, serious personal injury. Remington and DuPont denied such claims and asserted (1) that barrel bursts are extremely rare and occur only when improper ammunition, including ammunition generating much greater than normal firing pressure, is used, or when the barrels are obstructed, and (2) that the Remington owners' manual and the accompanying firearms safety booklet gives full and adequate warning of such hazards. The Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claims or defenses asserted in the Lawsuit.

Terms of The Proposed Settlement: The Settlement has three primary components: (1) Remington has begun to make, and will continue to make, barrels for Model 870, 1100, and 11-87 12-gauge shotguns (the other models are no longer made) from a different type of steel which can withstand higher pressure. (2) A fund of $31.5 million,less attorneys' fees and expenses approved by the Court, and less $1.375 million in notice and administrative costs, will be distributed among eligible Settlement Class members, (3) Remington will provide a shotgun safety bulletin with each settlement payment, which the Settlement Class member will agree to read and follow as a condition of cashing the settlement payment check. In return, Settlement Class members who do not exclude themselves from the Class will release and dismiss with prejudice all claims asserted in the Lawsuit relating to the use of 1140M Steel in the barrels of the Shotguns.

 

The Garza suit was settled: it did not go to trial.

Description of Lawsuit: The Lawsuit, brought against Remington and DuPont, the former parent company of Remington (the "Defendants"), claimed that the value of the Shotguns had been reduced because the barrels were not strong enough and sometimes burst in normal use, causing damage to the gun and, in some cases, serious personal injury. Remington and DuPont denied such claims and asserted (1) that barrel bursts are extremely rare and occur only when improper ammunition, including ammunition generating much greater than normal firing pressure, is used, or when the barrels are obstructed, and (2) that the Remington owners' manual and the accompanying firearms safety booklet gives full and adequate warning of such hazards. The Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claims or defenses asserted in the Lawsuit.

Terms of The Proposed Settlement: The Settlement has three primary components: (1) Remington has begun to make, and will continue to make, barrels for Model 870, 1100, and 11-87 12-gauge shotguns (the other models are no longer made) from a different type of steel which can withstand higher pressure. (2) A fund of $31.5 million,less attorneys' fees and expenses approved by the Court, and less $1.375 million in notice and administrative costs, will be distributed among eligible Settlement Class members, (3) Remington will provide a shotgun safety bulletin with each settlement payment, which the Settlement Class member will agree to read and follow as a condition of cashing the settlement payment check. In return, Settlement Class members who do not exclude themselves from the Class will release and dismiss with prejudice all claims asserted in the Lawsuit relating to the use of 1140M Steel in the barrels of the Shotguns.

But what does ANY of that have to do with the OPs question of using steel shot in his 58?

 

But what does ANY of that have to do with the OPs question of using steel shot in his 58?

Everything. 1140M was not designed or tested with steel, nor was the Model 58, nor are the forcing cones, and weak steel / stubby cones are a poor combination for steel loads. What would anyone expect from a shotgun made from 1956-1963? A 55 year +shotgun wasn't intended for steel loads, much less tested with them . . . and, why would it have been?

 

But what does ANY of that have to do with the OPs question of using steel shot in his 58?

Everything. 1140M was not designed or tested with steel, nor was the Model 58, nor are the forcing cones, and weak steel / stubby cones are a poor combination for steel loads. What would anyone expect from a shotgun made from 1956-1963? A 55 year +shotgun wasn't intended for steel loads, much less tested with them . . . and, why would it have been?

I'm not disagreeing that shooting steel in a 58 would be a poor choice. What I'm saying is that there is nothing in Garza that states that, so referring that is a moot point, interestingly by your own admission 7 years ago.

Interestingly I can find no reference on Google to "1140M steel". I can find 1140 steel, but there is no reason to assume they are the same thing, as they likely aren't. Perhaps something specifically blended for Remington alone at the time, dunno.

 

"from a different type of steel which can withstand higher pressure."

Just an observation here for discussion... If SAAMI's Maximum Average Pressure (MAP) voluntary standard for loads hasn't changed with the advent of steel shot and steel loads are manufactured within those standards; why would the pressure from properly loaded steel shells cause any issues for barrels?

And, if the shot is encased in a tough wad there should be no contact with the barrel, hence no barrel scoring.

That said, radial pressures from a steel load at the choke constriction area (muzzle) may be an issue for some tighter constricted barrels and can cause a ring bulge at the choke or expansion of the choke tube when the barrel or choke tube aren't able to withstand the radial pressures regardless of shot type. But, these radial pressures vary and are depend the load's payload, velocity, pellet size, pellet hardness, pellet shape, etc.

 

^^^ Nail head...meet hammer.

 

And, if the shot is encased in a tough wad there should be no contact with the barrel, hence no barrel scoring.

That ASSUMES all factory shotshells are perfect. Manufacturers make no such claim.

It also ignores mandatory CIP standards for steel and Steel Proof that did not exist during the manufacture of the Model 58: http://www.shotguns.se/html/steel_proof.html .

#2 steel, even launched at 1550 fps, is less lethal than #5 lead at all ranges. A common 1330 fps #5 lead load has 2.11 inches of penetration at 40 yards. #2 steel compares poorly, with 1.72 inches @ 40 yards with a 1400 fps muzzle velocity, 1.86 inches with 1550 fps muzzle velocity.

Steel often gives similar or lesser pattern percentages at 40 yards. Even if we assume the same pattern percentage, steel sucks and sucks badly. Assuming a 65% 40 yard pattern percentage for #2 steel and #5 lead, it is a percentage of "what" that matters. Lead #5 putting 65% of its 1-1/4 oz. pattern in a 30 inch circle at 40 yards is 65% of about 214 pellets. With 1-1/4 oz. of #2 steel, you only have 155 pellets to start with.

Steel #2 @ 65% = 100 pellets on target. Lead #5 @ 65% = 139 pellets on target. To say lead is at least 40% more lethal than steel is the best available version of the truth, for you have about 40% more pellets on target and those pellets all have better penetration than steel. If you try larger than #2 steel, the pellet count suffers even more. If you go with #3 steel, the already poor comparative penetration of #2 steel gets even worse.

Steel is a miserable, horrible pheasant-crippler at longer ranges. How could anyone think differently?

The CIP is a toothless tiger, the "United Nations" of firearms. They have no direct authority, what they do have is through a complicated set of treaties that are unenforceable in large measure. Some CIP proof houses are horribly corrupt. It isn't only the United States that has a corrupt bureaucracy, far from it. If you think there is no crime in Spain and Italy, you're delusional. Guns get shipped with proof marks on them that have never, ever been fired-- where the manufacturer applies their own "CIP" proof marks, yet the gun has never seen the inside of a proof house. The Eibar proof house is a known offender, admitted to in open court, and the CIP is feckless in the matter. When was the last time the CIP successfully fined or sanctioned a gun or ammo manufacturer for violations? :shock: There is more money in big Pharma violations or working to deceive the EPA mileage standards, that much is common knowledge.

Steel shot certainly can damage forcing cones and chokes. In fact, it says so right on the box of most steel shotshell loads. It is hard to miss. You use steel shot at your own risk, and while thicker plastic shot cups are designed to lessen or minimize the damage in modern shotshell barrels, they are not represented as guaranteed to do so and the shotshell manufacturers accept no responsibility for any damage to your barrel. They tell you this on every box, yet still some ask if steel can damage a shotgun barrel. Of course it can. If we don't understand the problems associated with steel, all we have to do is read Lyman's Shotshell Reloading Handbook, 4th Ed., Chapter 20. It is common knowledge, unless you've never heard of Lyman Ballistic Laboratories.

Smaller diameter steel shot (not letter sized) and moderate muzzle velocities help mitigate or at least slow down the rate of damage. Things like mylar wraps and generous over-shot wads make for better shells, but that adds substantial cost. It is never a good idea to have a pellet harder than a barrel to come in contact with a barrel. Mylar wraps are not used (they should be) simply because it cannot be done with high-speed factory machinery. It is anyone's choice, of course, and there is no guarantee of barrel scoring just like there is no guarantee of no barrel damage. Just like "when all else fails, read the instructions" it isn't a bad idea to consult the cautions and warnings printed on your shotshells from time to time. Ammo companies might hate to say, "I told you so," but in this case they clearly have.

CIP shotgun standards abysmally low, and what purported standards there are unenforced. Tungsten shot for example, which is harder than steel, is ignored.

CIP "High Performance Steel" is anything but. 355 m/s is an anemic 1164.7 fps. 36g is 1.26986 oz., and the 415 m/s is 1361.55 fps. The CIP "High Performance" notion was obsolete from its inception.

Steel shot needs a lot of velocity to work as well it can. The 1600 and 1635 fps Federal loads and the 1700 fps Remington Hypersonic loads are popular: they are well above what the CIP "High Performance Steel" spec of 1,410 fps allows for. It isn't "high performance" at all.

 

Good grief.....

 

It isn't safe for the gun.