16ga.com ~ View topic

Joined: 06 Mar 2008 Posts: 596 Location: 17603

Slide,
Nice work sir! Love your penetration box setup, very clever with the manila cardboard. I for one would be interested in a additional series of tests, same loads, setup, etc, at 20 & 30 yards.
Cheers,
R*2

Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 52

Guest

With the exception of the differences in pattern density, 20 and 30 yd penetration tests are a waste of Slidehammer's time.

Member Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 1545 Location: Michigan

Guest

I also believe, looking at comments from other threads, that folks really don't understand the need for heavier shot charges. Nor do they understand how patterns develop and fall apart or the understanding of central thickening ratio etc. Then we also have the issue of how each of us perceives lead and that veloctiy fast or slow does affect if we hit the target or not especially at the longer ranges.

This whole subject is very involved and has a never ending amount of variables.

I wish that Slidehammer had used #6 shot in his own 1 1/8 oz. load as a direct comparison, with the 3/4 oz. load would have been nice. However his load did serve the purpose.

Joined: 06 Mar 2008 Posts: 596 Location: 17603

Guest

If you have penetration at 40 yards it isn't gonna change at 20 or 30 yards, and penetration at short yardage is not usually an issue.

Guest

Dave Miles,

I have probably, in a relatively short period of time, pissed off everybody on this site off at one time or another. So raising eyebrows seems minor.

BTW just so there is no confusion, I do have an opinion about shot size, velocity and payload weight. The loads I use:

Pheasants, prairie chicken and sharptail, 1 1/8 oz. 1275 FPS, #6 shot

Quail, woodcock, ruffed grouse, 1 oz. 1,275 FPS, #7 1/2 shot

I probably will change the load for quail and woodcock to 7/8 oz. now that we have the DR16.

Member Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 1545 Location: Michigan

Guest

Dave,

That was my point.

Some folks think that they can use the added velocity to open up the pattern to get a more evenly distributed pattern. The problem with that thinking is you will create a load that will be useless past what ever distance you have set the load choke combination up for. Bad idea.

Joined: 06 Mar 2008 Posts: 596 Location: 17603

Gents,
There's a clear tradeoff with shot size and penetration at distance. Slide's test shows #9's at 40yds, in spite of different MV's, ending up being ~ =. BC is clearly doing its work,,,,. At closer ranges pattern density with the smaller pellet I would think would be noticeably improved, and I'm guessing that penetration would also.
Cheers,
R*2

Guest

More questions:

I wonder how many manila sheet penetrations are needed for a good, clean kill? I know the number would change with a nice crosser, head shot, or up the bum of the departing pheasant, and of course game bird specific. Phez seems tougher than a quail.

Isn't the pattern at a given range more important? You've decided that the speed at muzzle doesn't really amount to a significant difference in delivered energy at 40yds and over. (Those are numbers I could crunch). It seems to me then that the only important question is what quality of pattern your gun delivers at a known range/ranges based upon load wt, componets- wad, powder, shotsize.

Does Hammacks speed demons deliver crisp patterns at range? 50yds, 60?

Do your (that is any of y'all) slower more traditional load deliver quality patterns at range?

what about the patterning of the Low Pressure Group?

Charles is shooting zippy rounds of 5/8 oz. Maybe the lighter payload doesn't have the pattern deformity that an 1oz or heavier load would show at equivilant speeds. (Safe pressures assumed of course).

I don't have any answers. I just enjoy the discussions, I'm sure we will all settle this in a timely fashion- maybe in the next mellinia....

I'm just glad that I can hunt and kill a few birds each year. I'll keep patterning my gun till I find a balance for me, the gun, and the game.

Ash

Guest

Ash,

The old rule of thumb was a pellet needed a MINIMUM 1.50 ft lbs of energy to penetrate most pheasant and/or mallard sized birds. It is very difficult to get anyone to make a lethality statement any longer.

If you follow E.D.Lowry's ballistic tables, that falls in line pretty well with #7, #6 and #5 shot.

Ash, as far as the other questions go, I have had some discussions with Mr. Hammack about this. He is a very exceptional shot, it will be very hard for the rest of us average shooters to duplicate his shooting feats. However even Mr. Hammack agrees that a dead going away shot on a pheasant should not be taken with the smaller shot sizes.

No matter the shot size, 3 components are needed:

1) Sufficient pattern density.
2) Sufficient pellet energy.
3) Target is well centered.

There is NO MAGIC.

Member Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 665 Location: Louisiana

The Thrilla' in Manilla!
I can hear Cosell now.........

Embarassed

Sorry, I couldn't resist Embarassed

I too like data, and in the case of shotgun data, nothing is so likely to protract an argument, obsfucate a result, or provide endless opportunities for ballistic recreation. Wink

Like many of you, I have a load that seems to work for me--the way I shoot, the game I shoot, the distances I shoot, etc.---and, with the exception of using smokless powder, it's pretty close to what has apparently worked for shotgunners for a hundred years or so now . Very Happy