16ga.com ~ View topic - So just when does all of this ballistics crap matter?

Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Posts: 2124 Location: Hudson,Wy

The title pretty much sets the stage here. There is plenty of discussion, and sometimes heated debate, over shotshell ballistics, especially since every once in a while some factory comes up with a new load "sprinkled with fairy dust" that marketing says is the end all answer to every bird hunter's prayer. Well, such a load will never exist but there is such a thing as pattern efficiency which for the sake of simplicity can be defined as a shot charge maintaining as tight a pattern and as short a shot string as possible.

I will be first to admit that when I was new to this game, I was swept away by one of those silly marketing campaigns, one that would have made P.T. Barnum proud. Yes I was "suckered". However, thanks to the efforts of men who knew a lot more about this stuff than I did, the ignorance that I am embarrassed to think about, was cured. Bob Brister and Tom Roster were largely responsible for this and in my zeal I conducted a lot of tests on my own, even though they had already proven things. I am grateful that people like them were willing to share what they learned and it made my days with a shotgun more enjoyable. Hopefully my efforts can do the same for others.

So, back to the theme; when does pattern efficiency matter? It depends on each hunter's needs. The answer may be "most of the time", "seldom", or even "never". There are even times when a highly efficient pattern is the worst thing you can possibly have. Allow me to elaborate.

I spend plenty of time hunting blue and ruffed grouse where my average shot taken is 12-15 yards. This is not the proper situation for a dense, compact pattern. Especially if I wish to have a bearable shooting average and acceptable damage done to the bird I wish to later dine on. A long shot string can even be helpful in helping me hit a crossing shot, but at this range a string only has so much time to "stretch out" Still, another 6" can make a difference. Spreader loads with soft shot, wads without a protective shot cup, and high velocities all enter the picture here to help me achieve a desired result.

At the other end of the yardstick, I have spent countless hours with wild flushing huns, sharptails, and sage grouse in open country. Weak pattern performance is disastrous here and a load that still patterns with sufficient density at 50-60 yards is important to insure clean results. Very few loads ever measure up to this standard. I also tend to lean this way with pheasants once the expected shots get to averaging 40+ yards since a rooster is all too likely to escape on his legs if not hammered down hard.

Every scenario has an "ideal solution". However, a lot of the time it does not matter at all. If you are shooting a 12, 16, or 20 ga. at ranges between 25-40 yards with even remotely the appropriate choke, almost everything (within reason) is going to work absolutely fine. That's right, there is a lot of latitude in terms of what will do the job for shots taken at "average" distances. If I get a weak hit at 35 yards, I know it wasn't the shell. I still gotta hit 'em to get 'em.

WyoChukar,

Every point you made is absolutely correct, and I will add this to it. I am grateful to the RST and Poly companies for bringing out the SpredR shells for my Classic American and German double guns, especially the 2 1/2" shells that I no longer have to build.

Most of my gunning on Grouse and Woodcock is under the 40 yard mark, repeat patterns to me are the mark of a quality shell. The shells must be able to kill the birds outright when the gunner does his job correctly.

Having 16 gauge shells like these on the market today, makes it possible for our old double guns to pattern the same as the did when the old slow burning shells were available. In reality the new RST and Poly SpredR shells are better. IMO they kill Grouse & Woodcock even better than the old slow burning powder shells. Further they make it possible to leave the old guns choked as original. No need to have the choke opened up for the Nitro shells unless you really want to.

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Member Joined: 06 Oct 2007 Posts: 2346 Location: West MI

By and large agree, marketing hype gets old and in the middle most stuff works, and agree also it's the fringes of normal shotgun patterns where the devilish details come up. Brush busting Grouse or Snowshoes or stations 1L,7H or both (or for some all 3) 8's low gun it can't get wide enough fast enough. OR late season Honkers or Quackers that refuse to visit any closer than 50-70y, gotta have tools and skills polished up and ready to handle those jobs.

Joined: 04 Mar 2019 Posts: 1837 Location: Central ND

The following is NOT to argue with what Wyochukar has offered, it is just my 2 cents.

Here is my take after patterning since 1978 or so (I have lost track), from 1992 to 2001 as a part of my job and right up to last fall 2019. I am on the Ed Lowry team, the man who worked for Winchester Olin and did work on small arms projectiles for the DOD. Was extremely intelligent, wasn't a shooter and defined patterns using math and statistics. He also backed up what many who came before him had written, Burrard for one and expanded our knowledge base. He also developed a Windows based program, after his retirement from Winchester, that accurately gives tons of information on downrange ballistics of shotshells using 3 different types of shot and the complete range of shot sizes. I was fortunate enough to get to speak with him on several occasions concerning the ballistics program.

So let's talk about shot string. The biggest influences on shotstring are pellet roundness once in free flight and to a lesser degree air density. We can't do anything about air density but we can use the best roundest shot we can find and use solid reloading techniques to keep it as round as possible before it is exposed to the atmosphere. Shot string does not have any real affect on external ballistics of a shot swarm, where the shooter is concerned, until the swarm reaches 40 yards and affects more as the yardage increases. Shotstring is a fact of shotgunning with few 'fixes'. My thoughts are to forget about it once the shells are loaded. The ONLY time shotstring is your friend is when you over lead the bird.

Pattern density, is to use enough pellets and choke to keep the central thickening ratio at 1.5 to 1 or better. Which is calculated by drawing two circles one 30" and one 21" that are concentric and centered in the pattern. 1.5 is the 21" core the 1 is the outer 21"to 30" area.

Pellet energy, to use a pellet with enough energy at the range you are killing birds. For pheasants many will tell you that number is 1.5 ft lbs. of energy. I have always used that number for all upland birds.

Pellet size has always been a bit of an issue with the 16 when that size gets to pellet sizes #4 and larger. I have never really gotten a great pattern using #4 and larger using steel, lead or bismuth.

As far as choke goes, I had a conversation with the late Wayne Mayes years ago. His thought was to use enough choke to anchor the target reliably for any target he properly pointed. That statement is what I have used to guide my choke choices and it has never let me down. Choke is different for live birds than clay targets. Like Wyochukar I like to eat what I kill so I put a lot more thought into choke when hunting. For clay targets the harder I hit them the better.

My last thought is this...... Ya' gotta be able to shoot before any of the above BS means anything.

That last sentence is MUCH more important than anything else I can offer.

Joined: 18 Feb 2018 Posts: 621 Location: va, ct, mo

gun companies hire and pay engineers to make stuff.
they make it safe.
I trust them.
I shoot the stuff.

companies make stuff for people to make their own stuff.

we....tend to like to tinker and try other stuff (that the engineers most likely tried already) AND CLAIM IT TO BE BETTER.
such is the American way.
but I can assure you......I got tired of all that data this data that...and just put stuff in now and fire it.
no worry, no hassle, goes bang. done deal.

heck, they even make it easier now. cheaper to buy factory ammo and just toss it away.
because of this, companies now have your attention and get to hype their ammo with fads, gizmos, and gadgets to get you to bite. capitalism 101.

but diehards wont give up their presses.
the vicious cycle continues.
pride? determination? all the above.

whoever gets you to bend your wallet.....wins.

Member Joined: 30 Nov 2011 Posts: 1695 Location: Minnesota

When does ballistics crap matter? When the shooter has the ability to ACCURATELY determine at the flush, how far away the target is and how fast its going. Very few, myself included, can. The difficulty of this increases with distance.

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

Cant control, distance, type of shot presented etc, but I can control my loads. SO I load to whatever I believe is the best performing load. Why would I use anything less ?

Fretting over ballistic crap...or choke shape....or 7s vs. 7 1/2s?
Choosing a tiny gauge for some reason, like fitting in?
Uncasing an extremely light or extremely heavy weight of shotgun, just because it's new?
Maybe hoisting a hammergun with a different manual of arms appeals?
Lots of ways to up the odds of mistakes into a day.....not guaranteed worse odds but, mebbe.

At the core, we can indeed control distance and shot presentation, as most are not swatting to survive.
As deciding to shoot is reality.
Being willing to not shoot is the real deal.
Accepting worst case re wounding or missing is real world.
We all do our best, eh?

Basically, I suspect most fret about stuff simply out of boredom rather than due to worry or wonder.
When does such a consideration matter?.....when the shooter needs it to matter.

Joined: 09 Aug 2007 Posts: 444 Location: WI

Some really great input here!

There’s been a lot of debate over the years over the “perfect” load, and I agree with everything and everyone that has tested and shown that a short shot string is the most effective.

What’s more, everyone has an opinion about what’s best, and many are more than willing to tell you they are right.

I’ve found that practice and good eyesight are far more important than ballistics.

Gun fit is also important, and although everybody talks about it, I don’t know a single person that’s ever been to a gun fitter. Just because you throw The gun to your shoulder and the beads line up does’t mean the gun fits you, it just means it lines up for you.

Well, there are a number of factors involved ain't there!!!!

My comments are mostly on one item. Several of the above commenters have brought up the subject of "you got to hit them" including the last sentence of WyoChukar's original post. ("If I get a weak hit at 35 yards, I know it wasn't the shell. I still gotta hit 'em to get 'em.")

Well, one can "hit 'em," including centering the pattern of modern efficient shell and reloads at moderate distances, including distances far less than 35 yards, as still not "get 'em." For one reason, there is this little item of random placement of shot in the pattern, which varies somewhat with each and every shell that goes down a tube. Look at any target pattern and some shot hits within half an inch of another shot while some are separated 2-4 inches from the closest shot.

Tom Roster (and others such as Nilo Farms, etc.) have examined live birds (mainly ducks and pheasants I believe) with steel shot and come up with data that shows, for example, that #2 and #6 steel shot are better than #4s. The former because a few large pellets can result in enough penetration and damage to vitals; the latter because larger numbers of small shot on target can result in a similar pattern of damage to vitals.

Regardless, in live bird tests at known distances, there was still crippling with all sot sizes. In the field, this may result in lost birds--those streaming feathers as they fly off, those hitting the ground and latter running off, etc.

The simple fact of the matter is that downrange shot does not hit the target in a perfect grid, and even a normally sufficient number of hits on a bird may be peripheral or intestinal hits that do not result in ultimately reducing the bird to the bag.

I firmly believe that you can center the pattern at times on a game bird at nominal distances with the correct shot size and correct choke in the gun, and still be subjected to the laws of randomness in terms of actual individual shot flight--which may result in loss of the bird. Add in the position of the bird (straight away shots primarily expose the intestines), whether it is a crossing shot (with individual shot arriving on target at slightly different times), wind, etc. and the chances of loss increase.

In 60 years of hunting, mostly ducks, bobwhites and pheasants, I watched too many birds hit with what appears to have been a "cold-cocked" shot at 15 to 30 yards (and wondered if they would be edible) get away. If you have hunted, I suspect you have too.

But being able to hit what one shoots at will reduce that. Good shots cripple fewer birds--they fringe fewer and usually use the proper equipment. But nobody that I know of gets all that they hit, even when dead on, because of the vagrancies such as random individual shot flight, choke, distance, payload,wind, woody brush, and other factors.

But reading all the exploits of WyoChukar, maybe I'm wrong on that last statement!

Guest

Learning to shoot well = Pacific Ocean

Ballistic minutia = bath tub

🤗

Ain't it grand !!!

I love my shotgun .

I love my dogs !

I love BIRDS.

Squirrel's too.

Regards Nick

Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Posts: 2124 Location: Hudson,Wy

Charles, thank you for making think of Tom.T. Hall. Your comment reminds me very much of his song "I love". I imagine you could even include little baby ducks and old pickup truck in that list of yours.

If it wasn't for blown patterns, most OLD farts would never kill a bird...

Joined: 11 Jan 2018 Posts: 36 Location: Eastern NC

For me it's interesting information. I like ballistics, and studying different load possibilities, choke variances, and other factors related. But most of the older hunters I know were at one end of the spectrum or the other, either cylinder/ic or full/extra full, bought what was affordable and available for ammo and all killed the game they were after. But when they missed, whiffed, or just drew feathers it wasn't the load, gun or choke, it was the shooter. I think the older generation with less technology to boggle their mind were actually better fieldsman and better shots as well.