16ga.com ~ View topic

Maybe the reason that square load bs never dies is because it isn't bs. If there wasn't something to it, I doubt it would have begun in the first place. Just sayin. Wink

As a Mason and a Shooter I stay "on the square."

I loved golfswithwolves reply. I couldn't resist.

ash

Joined: 06 Jun 2008 Posts: 44

Joined: 06 Aug 2009 Posts: 960

Hey flopez, how are you doing buddy?

Don't sit there in silence do enlighten us.

We're a bunch of Hillbilly Rednecks (I even have a membership in the club) over here on the 16 Ga. Society, unlike you upper crust "pa'tridge hunta's" from the Upland Journal. We are all just waiting with baited breath for your outstanding insights, as soon as we scrape the horse manure off our bare feet, and take the straw from between our 2 teeth. We will read your response.

Make sure you write real s-l-o-w like we don't read to good.

Joined: 06 Jun 2008 Posts: 44

Square loads have nothing to do with the height of the shot column being roughly equal to the diameter of the bore. Square loads also have nothing to do with an equal volume of powder and shot, nor any number of contrived descriptions you may have heard.

A square load is simply a load that proves most effecient at delivering its shot charge in a 30 inch circle at whatever range is being discussed. What happens when a shell is detonated is that there are tremendous forces that deform the shot. Now there are a couple of things to keep in mind here. First, the taller the shot columm, the more tendancy to damage shot. mostly due to Newton's laws of motion, a body at rest tends to stay at rest, etc. What happens is that these damaged pellets tend to fly out of the pattern and lag behind, thus lowering the efficiency of the pattern.

The second part of the equation is pressure. If the pressure on ignition is kept low enough, and the acceleration of the shot is more like a push rather than a hammer blow, the shot charge will suffer less damage.

The French ballistician General Journee worked this out in the early part of the last century. What he found was that by keeping the height of the shot column down to about 3/4 inch, roughly the bore diameter of a 12ga, and by keeping the pressure below 3 1/2 tonnes per square inch, the amount of damaged shot would be kept to a minimum and thus remain in the pattern, thereby boosting the efficiency of the pattern. There were also some other interesting factors. By applying more pressure to the shot charge, there were not only more damaged shot due to upset, but more due to increased sidewall pressure and bore scrub. Now, keep in mind that at the time of Journee's expirements, shot was very soft, and the wadding was inferior to that which we use today.

It should also be noted that Journee also did his expirements with black powder, and that if you wanted more velocity, you simply added more powder. Oddly, a shot dipper that produced a shot column height within these predescribed limits would also produce the correct powder charge. So, both common descriptions for a square load (bore diameter equal to the shot column height and equal volume of powder and shot) have their origins in fact. But today's ammunition is very different.

In the first place, today's shot shell ammunition uses a one piece wad that generally encloses the whole of the shot charge, thus protecting the sides from damage due to bore scrub. The wad base is also superior in dampening the base of the shot from the ravages of detonation. Further, we have progressive burning powders that tends to lessen the damage to shot. And lastly is the shot itself. Much harder than that used by Journee. Ever wonder why steel shot patterns so much tighter than lead?

The bottom line is this. The concept of a square load is still valid when discussing soft shot such as lead. Howevever, while the rules are the same, the parameters have changed. Harder shot, better wadding and progressive powders have allowed us to increase the height of the shot column beyond the generalizations set down by Journee.

Was that slow enough for you?

Frank

PS. By the way, I don't hunt pa'tridge. Habitat failure here on Long Island has force the closure of the season for a couple of decades now.

Joined: 06 Aug 2009 Posts: 960

"A square load is simply a load that proves most effecient at delivering its shot charge in a 30 inch circle at whatever range is being discussed."

That decribes any number of loads in any one shotgun.

BTW, shotshells to not detonate, if they did, you would be wearing your shotgun as a necklace.

The B.S. continues.....

Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 728

This thread has a lot of references to the protecting the shot from deformation, but spherical shot is not particularly aerodymanic. In fact a lot of card and turkey shooters use Hevi Shot, which is not even close to spherical, to achieve the tightest patterns at long ranges.

My question is why is so much attention paid to protecting lead shot from deformation when it seems inherently deformed shot patterns as well or better than spherical shot? Has anyone really studied the shape of fired lead pellets and empirically linked the amount of deformation to the pellets position in the pattern? Perhaps the dense/tight patterns achieved with Hevi Shot is related more to the wads used to protect the barrel or density of the shot?

Joined: 06 Jun 2008 Posts: 44

Joined: 06 Jun 2008 Posts: 44

Joined: 06 Aug 2009 Posts: 960

Hey Spike,

Not sure if anyone has studied it but, E.D. Lowry has made a few references to deformed shot. He never seemed all that concerned with it.

There supposedly were studies done where folks have color coded the shot by layer in a shot load, but I have never seen where the final outcome was a black and white answer..

I do know that heavier shot will pattern a little tighter than lighter shot like #5 compared to #8. Heavy shot falls into that category.

flopez

You have never patterned steel shot to any great extent, have you Frank?

Frank stop deflecting that was your quote on what a Square Load supposedly is. Don't hide behind Journee.

One more point, all powders burn within 3 - 5 milleseconds, and peak pressures occur before that, so what is a push and what is a hammer blow. A lot of the time the fastest powders with the highest peak chamber pressure will give the best patterns.

I throw the BS flag on the detonate statement.

I've patterned a lot of steel shot. The "steel shot patterns tighter because there is less deformation" group is not right either.

There is reference to a form factor difference between lead and steel in Brister's book. Lowery came up with it when the first steel shot lethality charts were made. What I don't remember though was if it was due to deformation or lack there of. I want to say it had more to do with shot diameter/mass relationships, but don't remember off hand.

Joined: 06 Aug 2009 Posts: 960

Citori,

Yes, I agree.....

and there is confusion over tight and what choke will give the best patterns. Improved Modified and Full are tough chokes to use with steel not because it will pattern so tight, but mostly because it disrupts the patterrn, especially with the larger shot sizes.

Joined: 06 Aug 2009 Posts: 960

Tony,

For the record.

Question #1 - None

Question #2 - It can't

Question #3 - NO

Question #4 - NO

I thought that the answers to these questions were so obvious you were asking them just to be a smarta**. Laughing

So I am answering them just to be a smarta**. Laughing

Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 184 Location: Dover-Foxcroft, ME

I try to avoid these discussions. I really do.

I could be incorrect, but I believe most everyone can agree that increasing shot column height decreases pattern "efficiency" when using lead shot. I think we all understand that there is such a thing as shot deformation.

Judging from some of the responses I think we all recognize that the expression, "square load", means different things to different people. Perhaps the expression is the problem? Perhaps we should simply use terms that describe shot column height. This approach would obviate some of the arguments proclaiming "gauge magic" - the belief that somehow a 3/4 oz 28 is better than a 1 ounce 20 possessed of the same shot column height.

My second........gripe?.........is that we take this all too seriously. I have every intention of continuing to use 3" .410s in the field. If I had a M-12 28 ga repro you can bet your bottom dollar I'd buy some 1 oz #6 for preserve work. The fact that these loadings are not as "efficient" as the 3/4 oz 28 and one ounce 16, respectively, is a fact. It is just as factual to note that those extra pellets confer a useful gain to the useable patterns. (Bruce Buck writes fearlessly about this - many seem disinclined to listen) Efficiency arguments do not/will not dissuade me from using tall loadings in platforms I like.

Sam