16ga.com ~ View topic

Why the need for Speed? I am trying to understand why so much discussion is on pushing loads past 1300 FPS to include light 3/4 and 7/8 loads (which I had thought were primarily being selected to give lighter recoil)

For years I have loaded both target and hunting loads in the 1150>1200 FPS range and I have been satisfied with the results downrange. I have shoot Golden Pheasant loads and I have loaded and shoot 1350 FPS loads of nickel silver for Pheasant. While faster was effective, I did not find it that is quantifiably more effective than standard 1150 loads. It maybe because I am an open choke usually sub 30 yard shooter in the field on live game, or it may be my body and reflexes are tuned to the leads and feel of the slower speeds.

Is killing force that much greater for the faster loads?
Is effective killing range significantly increased?
Does the use of smaller shot negate the increases in energy (smaller shot lose velocity faster)?

Years ago shooters were trying to stuff as much shot as they could in a shell, now we appear to be stuffing as much speed as we can (maybe because newer powders support it now even in light guns). Previous generations may have been tied to what the powder and metal of their day could support and selected the load 1100 to 1200 load range by default, or they may stumbled on it and once determined it worked well enough left it alone

What is the intent of 3/4 a & 7/8 ounce loadings reduce payload so it can be shoot at faster speeds giving the same recoil as a slower 1 ounce load?

What pattern degradation is there with faster feet per second loadings vs the 1150>1200 range because of the speed?

What pattern degradation is there in the lighter but faster loadings?

I realize I open myself to attack as perhaps ignorant of the latest and greatest ideas. That said I am trying to understand the relative benefit.

I too have found the question of speed and load size interesting and the answers even more so. I have seen the same type discussions on game bullets when one group supports small bullets at high velocity and the other heavy bullets at moderate velocity. While there is evidence to support both lines of thought the debate often times is heated. I view the newest shotgun shell interests the same way. The support is there for either view and the outcome of a dead bird is the same under normal shooting situations. The debate will continue long after our eyes have glazed over and we have collapsed from exaustion.
Best,
Ron

Guest

There are learned and experienced disciples for each school of thought on this board. I sometimes shake my head, agreeing with some disagreeing with others but admit I have become more open minded on the subject. For my part as long is game is responsible and humanely taken I have absolutely no problem with whatever anyone chooses to shoot. But the discussions are lively and I think good for the sport, at least it is showing that people are thinking.

Joined: 28 Mar 2008 Posts: 1460 Location: Eagle, Nebraska

velocity and pattern degradation is way overblown. Maybe many years ago, when the only way to increase velocity was to pound more of the same powder into the hull. But with today's powder, higher velocities easier to achieve and still have manageable pressures.

Recoil is another topic blown out of proportion. Maybe it matters if you shoot competitively and shoot 500 rounds a day. But if you can't handle recoil, move to smaller gauge. I have been shooting Longshot (notorious on forums as heavy recoiler) through my 24ga w/7/8oz of shot. You don't even know you are shooting a gun. Recoil and high velocity are way overblown. And w/exception of A-5's (sweet 16 and light 12) all of my guns are light weight.

Some of the problem w/higher velocity shells is the Mfg'er. Federal, bless their hearts for tyring, but why put the Hi-velocity shell in a 1 1/8oz pkg?
1oz would have been fine. Same with their 12ga, 1500fps but with 1 3/8oz. Why not 1 1/4 same speed?

It will be your payload that is hard on your shotgun (or your shoulder).

Speed kills. I have expressed my opinion many times on velocity. Better penetration.

old colonel.

A most excellent post!

You have several direct questions posed to the group based on your experience and no one has tried or bothered to answer them for you.
Direct questions demand direct answers and it is a shame that a post like this got little response.

I invite you to visit a new thread "Hallucinating over High Velocity" I am about to post that does answer some of your questions with data instead of talk. Hopefully, all your questions can be answered over time if enough "experience" is tickled into responding!

Slidehammer

Joined: 06 Jun 2008 Posts: 44

A long time ago, Gough Thomas pondered, "Why is it necessary for each new generation to relearn the finding of its' previous generations?" He was specifically talking about this very argument. It was his belief that a standard game load of approximately 1200fps with the rough equivilent of US # 6.5 shot (British #7s) was all that was needed for pheasants out to 40 yards.

The sad truth about today's high velocity loads is that the faster you start a round projectile off, the faster it slows down, to the point where at thirty to 40 yards, any perceived advantage to the faster loads will minimal or imperceivable at best.

Frank

Guest

Old Colonel, you make good sense! I think Slidehammer may have struck on something with his analogy to the high velociity rifle rounds in his ""Hallucinating... " thread. I've never considered that the "long range mindset" of the rifle crowd is infiltrating the minds of the pheasant hunter. When I see the market though, which is the one-week-a-year crowd who line up in formation and march through the fields of South Dakota with their gas autos screaming "ROOTSER" (pop-pop-pop-pop), I get the picture.

The only time I have noticed increased energy is when I've move up in shot size. I haven't experimented with ultra high velocity loads, so in fairness I can't comment on those. I know a load of 5's hits a rooster pheasant hard.

Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 728

I prefer a 1-1/8 or 1-1/4oz loads at 1150-1200fps in slightly larger shot sizes for my waterfowling, because I believe I get more lethal pellet strikes with heavier/slower loads. I also thank both Nash Buckingham and the high expense of non toxic shot for making me a lot more selective about the shots I (don't) take at game. I used to average about 5 birds/box of 25 shells. Now I average about 5 birds/8 shells. I don't shoot as often as my duck hunting buddies, but I often bring home more birds.