Jump to content

Steel or lead for pigeons?


mick morton
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well posted.

 

As I see it, we have three choices. We can ignore any useful cross referencing to lead and spend several decades finding out how steel performs (as we did with lead) before we reach a conclusion. We can engage in testosterone fueled arguments laughingly called a debate and get absolutely nowhere. The stupidity of this option is only exceeded by the clown who originally said, "just go up two sizes for steel from lead". Or we can use reason.

 

Kitchrat said, "A larger pellet will also penetrate less well.... (than lead) (my brackets). There's the problem which only when known can a solution be found.

 

Although lead and steel cannot be compared like for like, never-the-less, there is a link. Ballistically speaking, unlike bullets which can have various different profiles, all shot is a sphere which is fortunate that it makes calculating the BC for any given pellet size of any given material quite straight forward and which makes number crunching quite simple. A few months back we nearly had a table pinned on this site which would have put PW to the fore regarding the understanding of steel shot capability.But sadly, this was not to be.

 

If we settle for production shot of, say, 1425 ft/sec MV for both lead and steel, it is simple to show that a steel No 3 performs as a lead No 6. This is because the (lack of) penetration of the steel shot even though its energy is higher is not backed by the necessary velocity. Similarly, it can be shown that with the lead having the same MV but upping the steel to 1600, a steel No 5 will perform as a lead No 6. This knowledge has been available for over 20 years, and probably far longer, that I know of. The earliest that it appeared in the UK as far as I'm aware was in 1996 (but I knew it was coming). Again, to my mind, it seems that we've wasted a lot of time and hot air.

 

If you take the energy of any shot size and divide it by the shot's cross sectional area, you will obtain its Energy Density. Should any different shot material/size produce a like figure, then you can be reasonably sure that their terminal ballistic performance on any given target will be pretty much the same. Our friends across the pond take it a stage further and deduct what is termed the Threshold Energy - that required to punch through feather and skin (0.4 ft/lbs for mallard for example) before doing the calculation.

 

Anyone enjoying number crunching might like to give it a go. Using Imperial measurements can be a pain because of the number of decimal places involved so metric units are far easier. If you do have a go but hit a problem with finding the velocity of any given pellet at any given range, I can help.

 

NB The shot sizes detailed above are English to avoid any manufacturers' differing ideas.

 

 

The Bumble Bee says Nah, you can estimate but you cannot calculate dead. One needs to go and shoot some stuff coz there are people out there killing pigeon just fine and Ducks and Geese are falling every season. I have one mate who kills more Pintail, widgeon etc. in a season with number 5 clay shells than many fowlers even get to see and yet the numbers say it aint true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gents,

 

When I was invited by actionpigeons to shoot on his permissions, we used steel, with my 20 gauge, I noticed very little difference in kill/wounded ratio, then again, I was shooting in the 35 yard range.

 

Mark

 

Do we need the BC, spherical form factor, muzzle velocity before we believe you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:| Errrmmmm you lost me at...BC, I'm no scientist, my theory its very much based on a very basic formula, as follow:

 

If the cartridge goes BOOOOMMM= good one, birds go down= great cartridge

:good: as above.

what is this all about.

I and the small group I shoot with use nothing but steel, and we dont have a problem killing pigeon

Edited by Actionpigeons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

what is this all about.

I and the small group I shoot with use nothing but steel, and we dont have a problem killing pigeon

Of course you don't have a problem.

 

What it's all about is providing the information for the few (I don't care if it's just one person if he benefits from the info') that might like to know why they can kill a pigeon at some 30 yards with a 71/2 shot steel cartridge. Or, alternatively, work out the effective range of any other shot for any given species. After all, it's hardly rocket science, is it?

 

Edit: PS Oh, to answer the OP question - lead.

Edited by wymberley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kettle pot, pot kettle, surely!

 

 

Not really its theory, as the military put we also need "real world data" BOOOOMMM= good one, birds go down= great cartridge. Basic but effective and what is more dead birds and low rates of wounding are total evidence just like the bumble bee can be seen each summer in flight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Not really its theory, as the military put we also need "real world data" BOOOOMMM= good one, birds go down= great cartridge. Basic but effective and what is more dead birds and low rates of wounding are total evidence just like the bumble bee can be seen each summer in flight

Theory is what you seem to spend most of your time spouting - usually bearing no relationship to the topic in hand. When it comes to practical applications, it's more often than not what your "friend" has achieved, hardly ever yourself. Surely, what usually happens is that theory is put to the test - it's how the military get there big bangs not simply plucked from the ether in the vain hope that it might just work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theory is what you seem to spend most of your time spouting - usually bearing no relationship to the topic in hand. When it comes to practical applications, it's more often than not what your "friend" has achieved, hardly ever yourself. Surely, what usually happens is that theory is put to the test - it's how the military get there big bangs not simply plucked from the ether in the vain hope that it might just work.

:whistling: wait for it..... :lol:

Edited by Actionpigeons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well posted.

 

As I see it, we have three choices. We can ignore any useful cross referencing to lead and spend several decades finding out how steel performs (as we did with lead) before we reach a conclusion. We can engage in testosterone fueled arguments laughingly called a debate and get absolutely nowhere. The stupidity of this option is only exceeded by the clown who originally said, "just go up two sizes for steel from lead". Or we can use reason.

 

Kitchrat said, "A larger pellet will also penetrate less well.... (than lead) (my brackets). There's the problem which only when known can a solution be found.

 

Although lead and steel cannot be compared like for like, never-the-less, there is a link. Ballistically speaking, unlike bullets which can have various different profiles, all shot is a sphere which is fortunate that it makes calculating the BC for any given pellet size of any given material quite straight forward and which makes number crunching quite simple. A few months back we nearly had a table pinned on this site which would have put PW to the fore regarding the understanding of steel shot capability.But sadly, this was not to be.

 

If we settle for production shot of, say, 1425 ft/sec MV for both lead and steel, it is simple to show that a steel No 3 performs as a lead No 6. This is because the (lack of) penetration of the steel shot even though its energy is higher is not backed by the necessary velocity. Similarly, it can be shown that with the lead having the same MV but upping the steel to 1600, a steel No 5 will perform as a lead No 6. This knowledge has been available for over 20 years, and probably far longer, that I know of. The earliest that it appeared in the UK as far as I'm aware was in 1996 (but I knew it was coming). Again, to my mind, it seems that we've wasted a lot of time and hot air.

 

If you take the energy of any shot size and divide it by the shot's cross sectional area, you will obtain its Energy Density. Should any different shot material/size produce a like figure, then you can be reasonably sure that their terminal ballistic performance on any given target will be pretty much the same. Our friends across the pond take it a stage further and deduct what is termed the Threshold Energy - that required to punch through feather and skin (0.4 ft/lbs for mallard for example) before doing the calculation.

 

Anyone enjoying number crunching might like to give it a go. Using Imperial measurements can be a pain because of the number of decimal places involved so metric units are far easier. If you do have a go but hit a problem with finding the velocity of any given pellet at any given range, I can help.

 

NB The shot sizes detailed above are English to avoid any manufacturers' differing ideas.

Good, sensible post, may be beyond some member's comprehension!! (Mine inc??)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theory is what you seem to spend most of your time spouting - usually bearing no relationship to the topic in hand. When it comes to practical applications, it's more often than not what your "friend" has achieved, hardly ever yourself. Surely, what usually happens is that theory is put to the test - it's how the military get there big bangs not simply plucked from the ether in the vain hope that it might just work.

Well they do say that the guilty are the most vociferous at accusing others of the crime committed. now if I was a lot older and less able than I am now physically and had to live in a suburban bungalow instead of a shooting lodge in the middle of prime shooting territory were I only have to walk outside to test a theory (for all but pigeon) and an active member of three NW wildfowling clubs your point might be a very valid one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use lead or steel, have the same success/failure with both. Most importantly, far more then the bollistics, is enjoyment ... l gauge my shooting as a pastime regards a pleasurable days shoot. How pointless bickering between grown men"who claim its dedicated and an interest" is beyond me ...why not grow up, get your gun out and go shooting. If you haven't anything to do, take up volunteer work or clean out the gutters or something useful. Even the entertainmet value, laughing at bickering men, runs thin .. its pathetic really!

 

People lve met off this site have mentioned the dross on PW spoils an otherwise good site ... bicker via PM's and grow up.

Edited by hoggysreels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done hoggysreels , its alright proving a point but at times it get boring to read about P W members trying to out smart each other, well that's what it looks like to me. I know some of you haven't got many pigeons to go after but the country side is at his best now so get out there and enjoy it while it lasts instead of putting facts that half of us cant understand or don't want to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use lead or steel, have the same success/failure with both. Most importantly, far more then the bollistics, is enjoyment ... l gauge my shooting as a pastime regards a pleasurable days shoot. How pointless bickering between grown men"who claim its dedicated and an interest" is beyond me ...why not grow up, get your gun out and go shooting. If you haven't anything to do, take up volunteer work or clean out the gutters or something useful. Even the entertainmet value, laughing at bickering men, runs thin .. its pathetic really!

 

People lve met off this site have mentioned the dross on PW spoils an otherwise good site ... bicker via PM's and grow up.

You're not wrong there!! My excuse for getting involved in the slanging matches is that I've been laid up with a hip replacement for the last 5 weeks, so slanging on PW makes a change from watching antiques, home repair and cooking programmes on TV.

However, I was fit enough to get out yesterday, (disappointing 14 but with my leg handicaps that's OK) - (don't tell my surgeon), so I can get back to real life now!!

Over and out!!

Kitchrat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not wrong there!! My excuse for getting involved in the slanging matches is that I've been laid up with a hip replacement for the last 5 weeks, so slanging on PW makes a change from watching antiques, home repair and cooking programmes on TV.

However, I was fit enough to get out yesterday, (disappointing 14 but with my leg handicaps that's OK) - (don't tell my surgeon), so I can get back to real life now!!

Over and out!!

Kitchrat

did you use lead or steel :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...