Author |
Message |
< 16ga. Ammunition & Reloading ~ "Hallucinating" over High Velocity... |
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:41 am
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:00 am
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 52
|
|
mike campbell wrote: |
These results show that you should not simply trust that small shot and high velocity will translate to downrange performance. On the other hand, I would caution the reader not to conclude that these results are a sweeping condemnation of higher velocity.
|
I guess that I got something different out of it than you did, Mike, as I didn't take it as a blanket condemnation of high speed shells at all.
Rather, I see it more as a (presently) limited, if fairly conclusive demonstration that minimum amounts of small shot (say, #8-9's) pushed at super high speeds do not yield the downrange foot-lbs. to consistently kill our larger upland species, as a few here have been suggesting recently.
I won't pretend to be in your league as a shooter (btw, Congrats' on yet another Bo-Whoop trophy), but I've shot enough Annie Oakleys to know as you do that faster shells have their merits in certain applications. I just don't believe that they offer much of anything over a more practical load of bigger shot with more pellets from a 'conservation' standpoint. And I hope that this is what it is still about for all of us.
To achieve the very slight advantage of reduced flight-times on long-range gamebirds by flinging small pellets at 1500 fps does a great disservice to the practical energy delivered 'on target', and I think this experiment of Slidehammer's adequately shows that, as presented. Great discussion so far......
Rob Harris |
Last edited by robt. harris on Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:05 am
|
|
|
|
With the exception of the differences in pattern density, 20 and 30 yd penetration tests are a waste of Slidehammer's time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:06 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 1545
Location: Michigan
|
|
dogchaser37 wrote: |
With the exception of the differences in pattern density, 20 and 30 yd penetration tests are a waste of Slidehammer's time.
|
Mark, that was my thinking also.
But I figured I'd raise a few eyebrows, by saying that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:15 am
|
|
|
|
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. |
Last edited by dogchaser37 on Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:28 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:15 am
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 596
Location: 17603
|
|
dogchaser37 wrote: |
With the exception of the differences in pattern density, 20 and 30 yd penetration tests are a waste of Slidehammer's time.
|
If I may be so bold to ask, Why? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:31 am
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:34 am
|
|
|
|
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. |
Last edited by dogchaser37 on Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:45 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 1545
Location: Michigan
|
|
dogchaser37 wrote: |
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.
|
Even if you get deeper penetration at 20 yds. Who cares?
Why in the world would you need 1500 fps at such close ranges? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:52 am
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:58 am
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:10 pm
|
|
|
|
dogchaser37 wrote: |
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.
|
DC I agree with all of your shot/velocity selections, however, I find that when hunting mixed bag areas such as here in North Central Kansas that #7 makes a great first barrel choice. Not too big for quail but substantial enough to put down an early season pheasant or prairie chicken shot over a pointing dog. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:55 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 223
Location: NW Arkansas
|
|
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 |
_________________ Malam cerevisiam facieus in cathedram stercoris--Danzig Ord. c1260
Because, without beer, things do not seem to go as well- Diary of Brother Epp, Capuchin Monastery Munjor, KS 1902 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 pm
|
|
|
|
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. |
Last edited by dogchaser37 on Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:22 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 665
Location: Louisiana
|
|
The Thrilla' in Manilla!
I can hear Cosell now.........
Sorry, I couldn't resist
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.
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 . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 7 Hours |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|