| Author |
Message |
| < 16ga. Ammunition & Reloading ~ Shot Stringing -- BS or Not? |
| Is shot stringing important to shotgun performance |
| Yes |
|
53% |
[ 14 ] |
| No |
|
46% |
[ 12 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 26 |
|
 |
|
 Posted:
Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:21 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 1550
Location: Minnesota and Florida
|
|
 |
Last edited by MaximumSmoke on Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:41 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 495
Location: Kenosha, WI
|
|
Yes, shot string is a non-issue.
3. a person still needs to get the shot in the front half of the bird. If they don't the prettiest pattern in the world is just a worthless as one you can throw a Golden Retriever through. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:43 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Aug 2009
Posts: 960
|
|
Tony,
What a comedian, good luck with this one!!
What have you been doing? Going thru every subject, finding the ones, that are difficult for the average guy to prove, and start a thread to stir the pot?? 
You got me last time. This time, shame on you!!
You even asked a loaded question for the poll!!! |
_________________
Mark |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:55 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 44
|
|
There's some good information in that article. However, there's also some bad information that the author uses to stress his points. The first thing that alerted me was his very detailed explainations of Burrard's expirements. The one glaring problem I had with that is that the Major's testing was conducted at 30mph, not 40, and Burrard never did fully satisfy his own curiosity on the subject. Basically, he just plain gave up and stated that shot string didn't matter.
The second issue is the author's examples of using relatively high speed loads commonly used in waterfowling. While his math is certainly valid, his concept of a shot string's physical make up is severely lacking. Shot strings are not unirormly dense. For the most part, two thirds or the total number of pellets in the load tend to reside in the front one third of the shot string. And shot strings tend to be conical in shape, not cigar shaped. What all this means is that if you happen to miss a target in front, it is quite possible for the target to still be within the 30 inch circle and escape withour a single pellet strike, simply by passing through the large voids in the rear of the pattern.
Shot string is a factor in shooting, even today. However, as Brister stated, the effect of shot string is pretty much minimized by using the very best ammunition available.
Frank |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:47 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 495
Location: Kenosha, WI
|
|
Ok Frank. If that is truely what Burrard and Brister found, then what explains this article?
http://www.randywakeman.com/lowryshotstring.pdf
For the leading ballisticain at the leading ammunititon manufacturer to come out and write an article that pretty much says shot string is irrelevant, makes me believe that for all those years, it was and still is just marketing hype.
Losing only 6% at most of ones pattern density due to shotstring is not much of a factor until you get to very large shot sizes and/or small payload weights of the larger shot sizes. Both problems not often a factor in Upland gunning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:55 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 1550
Location: Minnesota and Florida
|
|
|
Last edited by MaximumSmoke on Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:23 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 1550
Location: Minnesota and Florida
|
|
|
Last edited by MaximumSmoke on Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:58 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Aug 2009
Posts: 960
|
|
| Good Luck, Tony!! |
_________________
Mark |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:24 am
|
|
|
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Posts: 728
|
|
| I know shooting a shotgun from a "fixture" makes it easier to measure velocities, etc. but any one who has shot more than a round of skeet will tell you that "stopping the gun" is the best way to miss a crossing target. The test in this article does not simulate a shot string produced by swinging the gun through the path of the target. That doesn't mean that the author's conclusion is wrong, just that his methodolgy is seriously flawed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:10 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 1550
Location: Minnesota and Florida
|
|
|
Last edited by MaximumSmoke on Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:50 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 160
Location: central oregon
|
|
"Yes" means "no" is a form of question we in Oregon are used to seeing. In our state the people (with enough signatures) can submit an Initiative Petition for referendum in a general election. If it passes, it becomes law.
But then the Legislature can put a question on the ballot asking the voters to affirm the Petition. They always phrase the question so that a "Yes" vote does not affirm the Petition. Seems they don't like the voters to actually participate in the construction of the laws of the state.
Tom |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:24 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 44
|
|
| Citori_16 wrote: |
Ok Frank. If that is truely what Burrard and Brister found, then what explains this article?
http://www.randywakeman.com/lowryshotstring.pdf
For the leading ballisticain at the leading ammunititon manufacturer to come out and write an article that pretty much says shot string is irrelevant, makes me believe that for all those years, it was and still is just marketing hype.
Losing only 6% at most of ones pattern density due to shotstring is not much of a factor until you get to very large shot sizes and/or small payload weights of the larger shot sizes. Both problems not often a factor in Upland gunning.
|
Marketing hype!? John Olin worked hard at ways to reduce shot string length and improve pattern performance since the beginning of his association with Winchester. His work was directly responsible for the famed Super X Lubaloy shells.
By the time Lowery wrote that article, shotshell technology had improved to the point that it minimized the effects of shot string. But it did not eliminate it. A real simimple test for you is to shoot 40 yard crossers with premium loads (AAs, STS, etc) and then shoot the same target with 100 pack promo loads. Study the breaks and tell me which shells are delivering the better, more authoritative breaks!
Frank
Frank |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:33 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Posts: 728
|
|
| When someone tests the affect of shot fired at a pattern board 30-30 yards away moving 40mph from a gun swinging faster and ahead of a target and presents the results I will become a believer in the (ir)relevance of shot string length. All the rest is hogwash. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:49 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 44
|
|
| shootingsioux wrote: |
|
If the shot is distributed more to the front of the shot string, stringing matters less, not more! The "string" is effectively shorter if the distribution is anything other than a long uniform cylinder. Long uniform cylinder is the worst case, and not realistic, evidently as shown by tests.
|
Tony, On the surface, it would seem that you are correct. However, examining the shot string reveals that the front part of the string contains a somewhat smaller efective diameter. While it is true that most of the shot is to the front, it is also mostly in the central 15 to 20 inch central portion of he pattern. So, if the target is centered, basically it doesnot matter, There is sufficient density to break the target or kill the bird. However, if the target is "fringed", it is very conceiveable that the target could slip through voids in the shot string that would not be evident when examining a standard 2 dimensional pattern.
| shootingsioux wrote: |
|
And the article wasn't about Burrard's test and conclusions, it was about some tests done with more up-to-date instrumentation meant to detect the distribution of the shot a little better.
|
No, it wasn't. But, when you qoute something wrong, it raises flags to your own work.
| shootingsioux wrote: |
And about the velocity -- what's important is the velocity at the target. The manufacturers load to muzzle velocities that insure sufficient velocities (energies) at the target. Barrel strength limits the muzzle energy, by reason of maximum chamber pressures. This means that if you have to increase muzzle velocity to get sufficient energy at the target, you have to go down in shot charge weight to stay within barrel strength limits. We launch steel at a higher velocity is so that those less dense pellets with their poorer section density (the major factor in ballistic coefficient, besides coefficient of drag) maintain higher velocities at targets of 40 plus yards. It is also possible to launch low density pellets faster because the charge weights are low and you really can't get much more in the shells, unless you go to really long shells, and that has its point of diminishing returns in pattern efficiency, but I digress, slightly.
Anyway, what velocity do you think your favorite loads exhibit at your target ranges? I bet they are in that same 600 to 900 fps neighborhood mentioned in the article -- fast enough to negate concerns about shot stringing unless your targets are going about 200 mph. If you need convincing, get Lowry's ballistics performance software, input the muzzle velocity and the shot size and material density, and calculate what the velocity will be. Send me an example if you want. I have Lowry's software.
|
The point about the velocity is that there is a 50% difference in velocity between 600fps that Burrard was faced with and the 900 fps that was used in this study which would skew the results in favor of the study. As far as the calculated velocity, I am well aware of the formulea and have used them many times.
| shootingsioux wrote: |
|
Remember, this article, as well as all others on the subject, consider only the worst case shot -- a 90 degree crosser. The less the deflection angle, the less stringing matters. There have been many articles, all with slightly different test methods, as technology advances have made possible over time. This is just one of those articles. There is a lot of concurrence across those articles if you read them.
|
Here again, if you consider only centered targets, it really doesn't matter. But, it wwe could all consistantly center our targets, we'd be using rifles and taking advantage of extended range. But a shotgun is a tool of "almosts", so to speak. Considering that conical shape that I spoke of earlier, if a quartering shot is missed in front, it is possible for the target to spend more time in the shot string (diagonal vs straight cross section), yet being in the back end of this shot string, the thinner part, the target can escape unscathed or with minimal hits that do not produce a break.
Like I stated above, try some 40 yard crossers and quartering shots with both premium and promo ammunition and see how much difference there is in the breaks.
Frank |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:52 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 44
|
|
| Spike McQuail wrote: |
|
When someone tests the affect of shot fired at a pattern board 30-30 yards away moving 40mph from a gun swinging faster and ahead of a target and presents the results I will become a believer in the (ir)relevance of shot string length. All the rest is hogwash.
|
Bob and Sandy Brister, c 1975. 
For the results see "Shotgunning, the Art and the Science", recently released in reprint!
Frank |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
