Jump to content

42g #9


Guest cookoff013
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thought is read the title wrong at first.

 

Would like to see the resulting pattern hit a clay.

 

Had a sxs that had a trigger fault and fired both barrels together till I got it fixed, 56g of no8 shot is impressive but bloody hurts when not expecting it.

 

Figgy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought is read the title wrong at first.

 

Would like to see the resulting pattern hit a clay.

 

Had a sxs that had a trigger fault and fired both barrels together till I got it fixed, 56g of no8 shot is impressive but bloody hurts when not expecting it.

 

Figgy

had a zabala cardiener 3 1/2 inch with a double discharging facility 2 1/4 oz in each barrel ! very frightening 4 1/2 oz of 6 shot going down range out of a 12g peppered don't come in to it LOL. :yahoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've done some 35g 7s before thinking they'd be a fantastic pigeon load; I noticed next to no difference compared to 32g 6s - dead's still dead and if you're not pointing in the right place you still miss.

 

I've seen a lot written about smaller shot giving a better pattern and being "better" at the ranges we tend to shoot at but I've always found I get a lot of "winged" birds if I use any smaller than 6s. #7 shot through 1/4, cyl or imp.cyl seems to be the theoretical best, I certainly wouldn't go any smaller other than for woodcock, snipe etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought is read the title wrong at first.

 

Would like to see the resulting pattern hit a clay.

 

Had a sxs that had a trigger fault and fired both barrels together till I got it fixed, 56g of no8 shot is impressive but bloody hurts when not expecting it.

 

Figgy

I had the same on my old hide gun 64 gram of 5 shot in a light sbs really wakes you up like a slap across the face ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with motty on this, 42grams is 42grams, regardless of shot size. Unless I'm missing something else...

 

That is not an election or a referendum, you can't be with one party or another Cyrus!

 

This is physics ....and there are rules that cannot be altered!! Is either a matter of knowing the rules and their effects or taking a wild guess... in that, the american manuals so incensed in UK are not really helpful! :no:

 

There are really good books around that explain in a scentifc and unequivocal manner the phenomenon of ballistic.... if you're interested in what is really going on inside and outside your barrel/s:

Internal Ballistics (1889) byJames Atkinson ( a little dated but goes to show that physics never changes .... and cannot be interpreted) or the same title by F.R.W Hunt (more a revision of certain assumptions that anything else)

 

Terminal Ballistic: a text and atlas of gunshot wounds By M.J. Dod

An Attempt to Model the gun internal ballistic problem (1972) J F Setchell

Hunter's Guide to Ballistic (2001) Van Wayne Zwoll

 

 

People tend not to understand that ballistic as well as any other physically regulated matter is not a game and its rules cannot be changed at will, ignored or debated!

 

taking this approach we might as well all go on projecting bridges or other big infrastructures without a degree.... (why those fools spend years at unit studying physics...who knows)?!?

 

What is happening in the barrel in this case is fairly straight forward: by switching from #5 (2.8) to #9 (2.0)... you increase the number of pellets (hope this is not up for debate)! these in turn will reduce the voids inside the column of pellets when these are in the barrel (and more so when using fibre or plastic bio/disperser) and it will be more difficult for the gasses to escape.

 

since the gases cannot escape so freely, they will pile up behind the wad and increase the pressure!

 

So, if my shell produced 811-849 with #5 pellets, with #9 the pressure will go over the 900 bar (i can estimate 930 bar or thereabouts) which is a bit too much for this particular load.

By suggesting to reduce the powder i want to reduce the amount of gases generate when the powder is ignited, however, since the gases won't escape so freely (like in the original load) but will be retained behind the denser column in the barrel, it will generate roughly the same amount of pressure as if you had more power and less pellets.

 

another factor to be considered is that 42gr #9 will fill a bigger space in the shell, hence forcing you to close tighter and applying a bigger pressure to the wad: all elements that can result in an increase of pressure.

 

I suggested 2.10 x 42 as a starter recipe to be on the safe side, if no signs of high pressure are noted (hard kick, marked shell in the brass or its proximity and too concentrated patterns) it can be increased to 2.15. once you've shot both loads and comparing the patterns, you can decipher which load is the best!

 

My only concern would be that shot #9 will not deliver sufficient killing powder to take down the winter pigeons, or those a bit further out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is not an election or a referendum, you can't be with one party or another Cyrus!

 

This is physics ....and there are rules that cannot be altered!! Is either a matter of knowing the rules and their effects or taking a wild guess... in that, the american manuals so incensed in UK are not really helpful! :no:

 

There are really good books around that explain in a scentifc and unequivocal manner the phenomenon of ballistic.... if you're interested in what is really going on inside and outside your barrel/s:

Internal Ballistics (1889) byJames Atkinson ( a little dated but goes to show that physics never changes .... and cannot be interpreted) or the same title by F.R.W Hunt (more a revision of certain assumptions that anything else)

 

Terminal Ballistic: a text and atlas of gunshot wounds By M.J. Dod

An Attempt to Model the gun internal ballistic problem (1972) J F Setchell

Hunter's Guide to Ballistic (2001) Van Wayne Zwoll

 

 

People tend not to understand that ballistic as well as any other physically regulated matter is not a game and its rules cannot be changed at will, ignored or debated!

 

taking this approach we might as well all go on projecting bridges or other big infrastructures without a degree.... (why those fools spend years at unit studying physics...who knows)?!?

 

What is happening in the barrel in this case is fairly straight forward: by switching from #5 (2.8) to #9 (2.0)... you increase the number of pellets (hope this is not up for debate)! these in turn will reduce the voids inside the column of pellets when these are in the barrel (and more so when using fibre or plastic bio/disperser) and it will be more difficult for the gasses to escape.

 

since the gases cannot escape so freely, they will pile up behind the wad and increase the pressure!

 

So, if my shell produced 811-849 with #5 pellets, with #9 the pressure will go over the 900 bar (i can estimate 930 bar or thereabouts) which is a bit too much for this particular load.

By suggesting to reduce the powder i want to reduce the amount of gases generate when the powder is ignited, however, since the gases won't escape so freely (like in the original load) but will be retained behind the denser column in the barrel, it will generate roughly the same amount of pressure as if you had more power and less pellets.

 

another factor to be considered is that 42gr #9 will fill a bigger space in the shell, hence forcing you to close tighter and applying a bigger pressure to the wad: all elements that can result in an increase of pressure.

 

I suggested 2.10 x 42 as a starter recipe to be on the safe side, if no signs of high pressure are noted (hard kick, marked shell in the brass or its proximity and too concentrated patterns) it can be increased to 2.15. once you've shot both loads and comparing the patterns, you can decipher which load is the best!

 

My only concern would be that shot #9 will not deliver sufficient killing powder to take down the winter pigeons, or those a bit further out.

 

This is what I was missing.

 

Cheers Continental Shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm, not a reloader, but if the shot were in a shot cup in the wad then the spacing or otherwise would make no difference to any escape of gasses. Also, if the spacing between the individual pellets in #9 shot is less than #5 then the 42g of #9 shot would take up less physical space inside the case.

 

The volumetric density or mass of the lead doesn't change relative to pellet size and by your first argument is there is greater separation between #5 pellets, a function of geometry, then it must consume more space hence require a tighter closure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is not an election or a referendum, you can't be with one party or another Cyrus!

 

This is physics ....and there are rules that cannot be altered!! Is either a matter of knowing the rules and their effects or taking a wild guess... in that, the american manuals so incensed in UK are not really helpful! :no:

 

There are really good books around that explain in a scentifc and unequivocal manner the phenomenon of ballistic.... if you're interested in what is really going on inside and outside your barrel/s:

Internal Ballistics (1889) byJames Atkinson ( a little dated but goes to show that physics never changes .... and cannot be interpreted) or the same title by F.R.W Hunt (more a revision of certain assumptions that anything else)

 

Terminal Ballistic: a text and atlas of gunshot wounds By M.J. Dod

An Attempt to Model the gun internal ballistic problem (1972) J F Setchell

Hunter's Guide to Ballistic (2001) Van Wayne Zwoll

 

 

People tend not to understand that ballistic as well as any other physically regulated matter is not a game and its rules cannot be changed at will, ignored or debated!

 

taking this approach we might as well all go on projecting bridges or other big infrastructures without a degree.... (why those fools spend years at unit studying physics...who knows)?!?

 

What is happening in the barrel in this case is fairly straight forward: by switching from #5 (2.8) to #9 (2.0)... you increase the number of pellets (hope this is not up for debate)! these in turn will reduce the voids inside the column of pellets when these are in the barrel (and more so when using fibre or plastic bio/disperser) and it will be more difficult for the gasses to escape.

 

since the gases cannot escape so freely, they will pile up behind the wad and increase the pressure!

 

So, if my shell produced 811-849 with #5 pellets, with #9 the pressure will go over the 900 bar (i can estimate 930 bar or thereabouts) which is a bit too much for this particular load.

By suggesting to reduce the powder i want to reduce the amount of gases generate when the powder is ignited, however, since the gases won't escape so freely (like in the original load) but will be retained behind the denser column in the barrel, it will generate roughly the same amount of pressure as if you had more power and less pellets.

 

another factor to be considered is that 42gr #9 will fill a bigger space in the shell, hence forcing you to close tighter and applying a bigger pressure to the wad: all elements that can result in an increase of pressure.

 

I suggested 2.10 x 42 as a starter recipe to be on the safe side, if no signs of high pressure are noted (hard kick, marked shell in the brass or its proximity and too concentrated patterns) it can be increased to 2.15. once you've shot both loads and comparing the patterns, you can decipher which load is the best!

 

My only concern would be that shot #9 will not deliver sufficient killing powder to take down the winter pigeons, or those a bit further out.

I'm sorry, but I think you're totally wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have to agree with Continental Shooter as the shot size goes smaller the pressure increases (assuming all else is unchanged) not sure of the science but it looks to be a proven fact.

 

I do not think it is to do with escaping gas more to do with friction as the force is not only forward but sideways so may be more pellets trying to force their way out the side of the wad/barrel increasing the friction and hence pressure.

 

By how much the pressure increases? difficult to calculate would need test gear to determine it in practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cookoff013

How can you say that the pressure increases ?

You have no data to back that up, I don't have any to contradict that too.

There would be no more friction, the plaswads reduce friction, full stop.

 

Friction does not mean higher pressures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you say that the pressure increases ?

You have no data to back that up, I don't have any to contradict that too.

There would be no more friction, the plaswads reduce friction, full stop.

 

Friction does not mean higher pressures.

 

 

From "The Modern Shotgun Volume 2 - The Cartridge" By Major Sir Gerald Burrard Bt,, D.S.O., R.F.A (retired) = old book published 1955

 

Page 145 Factors Affecting Pressure

 

There are various factors which affect the pressure developed in a shotgun cartridge, some of which are obvious and some of which may not be, but all of which should be realised.

 

Shot Charge. The first of these is the weight of the shot charge, and this is one of the obvious ones,......................

 

Size of shot. Owing to the large number of pellets, very small shot sets up more friction on the sides of the bore and offers more resistance to movement. This results in a higher pressure. In the same way a few pellets of a very large shot are comparatively easy to move, and so the pressure is reduced. In actual practice there is little difference between the 1-inch pressure when cartridges are loaded with ordinary sizes, such as from No.4 to No.7. But No.9, for example, would result in quite a noticeable higher pressure being developed than by a very large size such as BB.

 

The book is old but the principle still applies?

 

The author was well respected - if you see a copy buy it.

Edited by rbrowning2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can i tell??

,,,,

I have 2 degrees one of which is in applied physic ... applied to what?? Internal ballistic, criminology &....shotgun cartridges!

My first degree in animal biology was from Rome university, the second one as well but with a post grad at Edinburgh university. As i said, i also know hundreds of people that work in the reloading industry (not like you and I) but in places like B&P, Cheddite, Gualandi, etc, or write books, specialised articles in magazines or teach at uni....

 

i had the pleasure to dine many times, as a kid, with G. Corsi, or P.L. Gallina or A. Granelli when they came round to my great grandpa's house and staiedd up late at night hearing discussion about ballistic, reloading and shooting.

 

I don't want to boast my curriculum, just a wee hindsight on why, sometimes, i say things, i don't need prove anything to anybody, i've done that through study and work but if you really have to check what i say, it can all be found in the physics books (basic ones are as good as any) and can be checked by any joe blogs.

 

On top of it, i have tested over a thousand shells, i've got friends that can do it for me whilst i am away from home (via proofing barrel, not chrony or other inaccurate means) and i would never mention something in here that it has not been proofed or proven! That is for two reasons: because i don't want to be held responsible if something goes wrong and second, because as a science man (or at least i believe i am), i don't believe in guesses (ignorance is bliss) and i only believe what i can see and prove.

 

Then, anyone is entitled to his own opinion, but hey, there's who has the knowledge and experience to back that up, and people that do it out of their own believes....it all a matter of whom do you trust!

 

RBrowning: the principle still applies but in more recent researches (Garolini, Paci, etc) have demonstrated that what increase the pressure is the forward movement which ballistically speaking reinforce the findings of Mjr Burrard.

 

In fat, if you couple what i explain, quite superficially, with the finding of Major Sir Gerald Burrard you will see that the reduce space + the amount of gas retained will increase the forward momentum of the column, however, due to the friction of the pellets that move sideways, this will exasperate the effort and cause the increase in pressure that is noticeable when proofing the load.

 

Hope this put things in contest.

 

BTW: thanks for the tip, that seems a great book and one that is missing from my collection.

 

Edited by Continental Shooter
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...