16ga.com ~ View topic

Hi all

Found this article yesterday.

Article.
Why Remington, Winchester, Federal, Kent, and Fiocchi need to change their recipe on their shotgun hunting ammunition
By Gary Hubbell

In some American sporting circles, bigger is always better, and that’s why shotgun ammunition made for the American market always features words like “heavy field loads” and “magnum hunting loads”.

The belief among some bird hunters is that the more powder and pellets, the better the shotgun ammunition load, right? Wrong, says Jon Hollinger, owner of Aspen Outfitting Company, a professional shooting instructor, shotgun designer, and gunfitter with 40 years of professional experience in the world of shotgunning. I recently interviewed Mr. Hollinger about his perspective of the most efficient shotgun hunting ammunition, and his answers were surprising.

Many pheasant hunters, for example, look for “high brass loads” or “heavy field loads” to pursue tough rooster pheasants. A 12-gauge shotgun shell, for example, might be stuffed with 1½ ounces of shot and a 3¾-dram equivalent load of powder. The logic is that if you’re hunting pheasants, you’re better off with more pellets and more powder to punch all that lead through the air and put more pellets into a tough bird.

English pheasant shooters, who have shot more pheasants at further distances than we’ll ever know, are known for shooting what we call balanced, “low brass”, or light field loads, and they seem to have no problem knocking down the roosters. Why is that?

It’s because the light loads are balanced. “A balanced load,” says Jon Hollinger, “is what is called a ‘square’ load—the width of the shot column is approximately the same as its height.” Okay, so what? I thought.

“Inside every cartridge there is an inert mass of pellets called the shot column,” Hollinger explains. “When the powder ignites, an energy transfer happens. The less weight of shot that there is in the shotshell, the less energy is required to mobilize the shot to terminal velocity before it exits the muzzle of the shotgun.”

“Okay, I’m with you, but why does a balanced load kill more pheasants?” I asked the old shooting instructor.

“When there’s less energy transfer, there’s less pellet deformation,” Hollinger says. “You see, when you’ve got a heavy load with a lot of powder behind it, that big load of powder explodes and slams hard into that mass of lead. Quite a few of the pellets will be deformed, and they won’t fly well. Also, the shot column is longer, so many of the pellets on the side of the column will get scrubbed by the barrel and squared off. They won’t fly well, either. The ‘spreaders,’ or deformed pellets, will stray from the pattern, fly slowly, and then drop off. The result is that you have a long, spread-out shot string that doesn’t deliver a high percentage of the pellets on target.”

Hollinger mentions an English shotgun writer who took chronograph readings of heavy field loads and light field loads. “At 30 yards, the shot string from the heavy loads was 25-30 feet long!” he exclaims. “There’s a lot of room for a pheasant to fly through a 30-foot shot string and only take a couple of pellets.”

Aha. Everyone who’s spent time in a duck blind recalls a crippled duck floundering around in the decoys, and someone stands up to shoot it and finish the job. “The distance between the first pellet and last pellet striking the water is sometimes a very long way,” I noted. “Is that what you mean?”

“Exactly,” Hollinger says. “Most duck loads are heavy loads. The pellets on the side of the shot column are easily deformed, and since it’s a long shot column, many pellets are scrubbed out of round. They are also loaded with maximum dram equivalent of powder, so many are deformed from the initial concussion of the powder exploding. Not only is the load ineffective laterally—that is, the pattern spreads raggedly in diameter and is not uniform—but the pattern is ineffective longitudinally. The shot string is too long, with many gaps developing as it moves through the air.”

So what are the dynamics of a balanced field load? “The less energy transfer, i.e., less powder, combined with a light load, i.e., short shot column, the less pellet deformation occurs,” Hollinger explains. “The surface area of the shot column that comes into contact with the bore is reduced. The bottom pellets of the shot column are the ones that typically deform the most. With a balanced load, there’s less resistance and therefore less pellet deformation. When the shot column exits the barrel, a high percentage of the pellets are still elliptical—they fly true, and at the same speed. The shot string is like a fat pancake. The first pellet and the last pellet are only about two feet apart at 30 yards. Instead of a pheasant flying through a long shot string and taking a hit from two or three pellets, you put a pattern on him and hit him with 10 or 15 pellets. Birds fall from the sky like they’ve been hit with a hammer.”

Interesting. Very interesting. So what is the ideal load for hunting shotguns? “For a 12-gauge gun, 1 ounce of shot and 3 drams of powder,” Hollinger says. “For a 16-gauge, 15/16 of an ounce of shot and 2 ¾ drams of powder. For a 20-gauge, 7/8 ounce of shot and 2 ½ drams of powder. For a 28-gauge, ¾-ounce of shot and 2 drams of powder, and for a .410 bore, a half ounce of shot and 2 drams of powder.”

Those recipes are far lighter than the loads I see at all the sporting goods stores, I note. “Yes, that’s true,” Hollinger says. “But look at the target loads that all the major ammunition manufacturers produce. Winchester, Federal, Remington--they use their very best components and materials for their target loads. You’ll rarely see a 12-gauge load with more than 1 1/8 ounces of shot, and most of them are no heavier than a 3 ¼ dram equivalent of powder. If they made a target load that contributed to a lot of misses at the skeet and trap range, they wouldn’t be in business.”

So why do they continue to manufacture these foolish heavy game loads?

“That’s the big mystery,” Hollinger laughs. “It flies in the face of all ballistics knowledge. And it’s expensive, too! They charge a horrific amount for these heavy field loads, and you’re getting less performance for more money spent.”

What do you all think
Bye for now Wink

Member Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 1338

Joined: 19 Feb 2008 Posts: 443

Mike,

If all thing were otherwise equal, you would be correct. But they are not, heavier payloads mean higher pressures, more set back and more deformation.

I load from 3/4 ounce, through 7/8, 1 ounce and 1 1/8 ounce loads and as the payload drops, the pressure drops, and the pattern percentage rises along with the patterns being more uniform. All this through the same choke and barrel.

Just one man's opinion backed up by a small bit of anecdotal evidence.

sv

Member Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 1338

Member Joined: 06 Oct 2007 Posts: 2350 Location: West MI

It seems to me that most of our "rough" hunting style provides a going away shot. Where most of the articles I've read about Driven European Hunts and simulated DEH's I've witnessed at local put-n-take preserves presents an in-comming shot where the bird is most vulnerable. Also, I know that ducks and geese hit as in-commers or full-on side shots drop alot easier than going away shots. It makes sense to me that pellets that hit a bird from behind need a bit more energy to poke through to any vital organs.

Flyers from pellet scub in a duck load? Hmm......

Just my 2cents, take care. Mike

I like them flyers, Most of the time I pretty much miss and the "Golden BB" flyer is the only shot that brings em down Wink

Rooster

Its 50/50 some points are good some don't make sense. However more payload will not always put more shot on target. I did extensive pattern testing on all sorts of turkey loads and feild loads. I actually increased hits with lighter payloads in alot of cases. I think it has to do with choke and pellet collision through the choke just my theory. However one valid point he made was shot string length but I'm not sure how we measure that. Setback and barrel scrub I don't feel are valid because it happens in every load. Just my 2 cents.

The single most important factor in regard to improving shotshell ballistics today is the one piece plastic shotcup. Since its invention, much of the square load theory is passe. The one piece wad has made modern shotshells far more efficient and effective than those before its introduction

However, most shot shell manufactures are developing loads in exactly a 180 degree wrong direction. Shot loads should be getting smaller, not bigger. With the improvements in propellants and wadding, we can accomplish what we need to do with 75 to 80 percent less shot in all the gauges. The 12 ga. 24 gram international load is proof of this.

We can also do things with smaller bores and bigger loads that were impossible before the plastic wad was introduced. I've developed some 1 ounce 28 ga loads of number 6 shot that murder pheasant out to nearly 40 yards. Without a good wad to protect the shot, much of it would have been flattened and/or scrubbed flat. Its the same for my 16 gauge, 1-1/4 ounce #4 shot short magnum loads. They just about equal the old 1-1/4 ounce 12 ga express loads in actual performance on bigger, tougher birds. My loads would be impossible to duplicate without that all important shot cup.

The plastic wad has stretched our guns' performance for the better in both directions. The wisest shotgunners today know this. It is also one of the biggest reasons the 16 gauge is finally coming back into its own. We can use it to do everything we need to do from taking small birds with 3/4 ounce loads to dumping big tough cock birds and even waterfowl effectively out to the farthest ranges a good shotgunner can hit well and lethally at.

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

Mike's comments ought to be bronzed. He has the matter of payload effectiveness vs efficiency nailed.

Sam

the reason your pattern is long on the water is the lower edge of the pattern hits the water first upper edge last. has very little to do with shot string.
shot cups have done away with most barrel scrub.

booneh

Joined: 20 Dec 2006 Posts: 78 Location: Santiago

16gaugeguy,

you are right, the plastic shotcup has been revolutionary in this respect. This has extended the load range as you say. The only caveat to your analysis is that there are weight limits related to the Newton Laws. The 96 times rule set a limit to loads in small o light shotguns (When dealing in grams I like to apply the 100 rule for practical reasons). Usually 16 ga guns range in the 2800-3100 grams braket, making a 1-1/4oz load (35 gram) a tough proposition, specially in sxs shotguns.

Your comment on better efficiency achieved with the plastic shotcup is mostly a reflection of lesser damaged pellets. If this is the case, I would put it closer to a 10-15% improvement, thus on the whole the practical load range for a sxs 16GA would go from 24 grams to 32 grams (7/8oz to 1-1/8oz give or take). In a heavier O/U gun (7.7 lb) it may extend the upper load limit to 35 grams (1-1/4oz). So, my preliminary conclusion would be that waterfowling in 16ga should to be done with an O/U gun or a heavy specialised sxs.

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

Here is my two cents. (probably what all opinions are worth) I shoot mostly 1 oz loads. For pheasants, I generally load nothing under 1300fps. If I can get over 1400fps the better. My opinion, SPEED! Shot string theory and heavy payload vs light aside, speed kills. A late season pheasant shot out past 30 yds will need to drive pellet through feathers, meat, bone into vitals. Whether that be one pellet or 20, they need to get to the vitals.
Low velocity loads may only wound the bird. I also like to load up the hevi-shot when possible. At higher velocity, the hevi-shot penetrates.

Joined: 15 Oct 2004 Posts: 787 Location: Indiana

putz 463 makes a darn good point. The English in their driven shoots have squads of retrievers and bird "boys" or men to retrieve downed game-- and in the driven shoots the birds are incomers---very different from a going-away rooster with the afterburners on, blasting downwind amongst half a dozen hens in a 45 mph South Dakota gale with the tumbleweeds whipping past the gunner's head! In those instances I've used the 1 1/8 oz Heavy Game loads in my full choke Model 12 16 ga and was very glad to have them. Theory only goes so far in the field; then you've just gotta use what you know will work...

Well laid out info SS. I hear an engineer talking here. As for Newtonian laws of physics, I won't argue with the math. Anyone with enough brains to conceive modern calculus has my respect. By happenstance or otherwise, my favorite 16 ga guns all weigh right around 7.75 pounds or a bit over which is close enough to perfect for my uses. As far as the guns being too heavy for a good 16 ga double or O/U? All i can say is when they get too heavy for me to carry all day, I'll give up hunting and sit on the porch.

If any of you have not yet tried the 3/4 ounce loads in a 16, you should. Then comment on their effectiveness. Boy, are you in for a happy surprise.

Sometimes things are more than the sum of their parts. It is not magic or voodoo or fuzzy math. It is simply one of those serendipitous occasions when everything just comes together perfectly. The resurrection of the modern 16 gauge upland gun is one of those occurances. Everything came together at the right time and place from modern metallurgy, modern plastics, and better smokeless propellants to much improved pheasant hunting and the resulting increased demand for a good all round upland gauge gun again. Enter the Browning 16 gauge Citori at 7.75 pounds in 1987 and it was all a done deal. The ripple effects have been spreading out across the nation since then. Hooh-ray for serendipity.