Cartridge Doubts

[propercartridges]

just treat yourself to some 32 gram 4.5 which is 2.9 mm use them for flighting and decoys but put your decoys well out when shooting flighting and not lammys over decoys as i have seen at 20 yards they dont get up from them please believe me i have shot all over this country and the comments i get from different people who i have never met in my live before astound me when i do set up hides and decoys and tell the chap to put them way out 40 yards looks a long way looking back to the hide but its actualy easier as thats where my half choke and the 32 4.5 work best for me everybody to thier own cheers george

[neutron619]

 

Why ? It seems absurdly simplistic and on the low side to me. Much of what you have written I actually agree with and is the reason WHY I believe you can't draw simplistic conclusions; 0.85 x 3 is 2.55 with a fair chance of at least one of them being delivered in the right spot yet time and again it fails, as do 5 pellets, proving that the formula is flawed and cannot be relied upon in the field. I call that flawed=wrong=pointless, others may wish to interpret it differently.

 

Ok - run that by me again. Why are you multiplying the minimum threshold penetrative kinetic energy (to call it what Burrard would have called it) by three?

 

Are you trying to calculate the total kinetic energy received by the bird (assuming of course that all the energy is spent inside the bird, which isn't guaranteed)?

 

If so - why!?

 

Of course this isn't what Wymberley is arguing (or me, for that matter) and of course it's completely stupid (and simplistic). We're not trying to shock the bird to death by simply hitting it very hard, otherwise we'd just drive cars at them and bounce them off the windscreen or try to hit them with cricket bats when they fly past at low altitude.

 

The 0.85ftlbs figure - let's try again - is an average minimum kinetic energy for a pellet of reasonable size to sufficiently penetrate through to the vitals of a the bird. It has nothing to do with how many pellets hit the bird, or where they hit, though those things are also important.

 

The important factor is not the total energy deposited into the bird, but that every pellet hitting it has sufficient kinetic energy to do the job intended.

 

Think of it this way - if I fire 32 grams of rock salt at a short range bird with a muzzle velocity of 1400fps, hundreds of grains might hit the bird. The total energy deposited into the bird will be a good proportion of the total kinetic energy of the projectiles - perhaps hundreds or thousands of foot pounds - way more than the average 5-6 hits of #6 at good speed. The effect is likely to be that bird will bounce, or fly off with a sore bottom, looking a bit miffed.

 

What's the problem? Why isn't the bird dead?

 

None of those grains of salt, by themselves, had sufficient energy to penetrate through the bird's feathers, skin, organs, to reach the heart / lungs / liver / brain and kill it. They couldn't overcome the resistance of the body of the bird to their flight and will have been stopped or deflected.

 

As Wymberley said, the 0.85ftlbs figure makes no mention of how many pellets hit, what size the shot is or from what distance it was fired. By itself, it is not sufficient to tell you how to reliably kill birds with a shotgun. However, it is a component part of what is required and describes that one component well and - to my mind - accurately in enough cases to make it valuable.

 

Think of it another way. Your car needs an exhaust pipe / catalytic converter sufficiently large that the combustion gases produced in the engine can be pushed out and detoxified at a rate fast enough not to choke the engine or create smog.

 

Your argument is basically equivalent to saying that owning an exhaust pipe doesn't make for a drivable car. It's true, but it's a nonsense and it's not a counter-argument to what Wymberley is saying.

 

Wymberley's argument is that the exhaust pipe must be sufficiently large such that the operation of the rest of the car doesn't choke the engine with exhaust. He's not specifying what kind of exhaust pipe it should be, or how big it should be, except that it should exceed the minimum capacity required to keep the engine going. He's not setting an upper limit of any kind - if you want that massive, chrome-plated tube that sticks 3 feet up the back of the car, you can have it - provided it's big enough.

Edited February 23, 2017 by neutron619

[Walker570]

Eley Impax 7s was the go to, fashionable cartridge for game shooting way back in the 70s even the 60s. I agree the main load you would find on the shelves of the local hardware or newspaper store in the 50s would be Eley Grand Prix 1 1/8 ounce and 5s the most purchased. Then the Maximum was introduced, but to be honest I didn't kill anything any better with those than the Grand Prixs back then. Just thought the word 'MAXIMUM' was bound to make them better . Today I shoot either 16grams or 18/19grms equivalent of 71/2 UK RC, Fiocchi or Clever and kill my share cleanly and efficiently out to 40yrds. If I have a runner it is not the cartridges fault, I just didn't put the bird where it should be, in the pattern.

If we only had a choice of one cartridge though, we would have nothing to talk about would we

Edited February 23, 2017 by Walker570

[Hamster]

 

Ok - run that by me again. Why are you multiplying the minimum threshold penetrative kinetic energy (to call it what Burrard would have called it) by three?

 

Are you trying to calculate the total kinetic energy received by the bird (assuming of course that all the energy is spent inside the bird, which isn't guaranteed)?

 

If so - why!?

 

Of course this isn't what Wymberley is arguing (or me, for that matter) and of course it's completely stupid (and simplistic). We're not trying to shock the bird to death by simply hitting it very hard, otherwise we'd just drive cars at them and bounce them off the windscreen or try to hit them with cricket bats when they fly past at low altitude.

 

The 0.85ftlbs figure - let's try again - is an average minimum kinetic energy for a pellet of reasonable size to sufficiently penetrate through to the vitals of a the bird. It has nothing to do with how many pellets hit the bird, or where they hit, though those things are also important.

 

The important factor is not the total energy deposited into the bird, but that every pellet hitting it has sufficient kinetic energy to do the job intended.

 

 

 

I'm not saying that (regardless of what I wrote), Burrard apparently has though ! You can't get away from the fact that he has placed an actual FIGURE on that one pellet and its "required" KE, therefore it is HE who has placed a quantitative value and somehow come to another FIGURE of how many pellets are needed to kill a given bird. I am merely arguing that you can't do so without massive (near undoable sets of tests).

 

Furthermore I am able through empirical observation to argue against it being of any real benefit. In other words it's just meaningless words in a book which the writer by all accounts believed and meant well when he penned them but which remain not only unproven but unable to stand close scrutiny.

[neutron619]

 

I'm not saying that (regardless of what I wrote), Burrard apparently has though ! You can't get away from the fact that he has placed an actual FIGURE on that one pellet and its "required" KE, therefore it is HE who has placed a quantitative value and somehow come to another FIGURE of how many pellets are needed to kill a given bird. I am merely arguing that you can't do so without massive (near undoable sets of tests).

 

Furthermore I am able through empirical observation to argue against it being of any real benefit. In other words it's just meaningless words in a book which the writer by all accounts believed and meant well when he penned them but which remain not only unproven but unable to stand close scrutiny.

 

Fair enough, but your own arguments remain likewise unable to withstand close scrutiny, for the very same reasons.

 

So you can't do enough experiments to show definitively what works and what doesn't? I agree with you there, but that is the reason for an entire branch of mathematics called probability.

 

We can argue about semantics as to whether what is described as an average - one derived empirically as we've all agreed - is actually quantitative, but let's go back to the more interesting question of probability.

 

We all know about simple probability. For an even, unweighted die, you've got a 1-in-6 chance of rolling any given number. The expectation is that you'll roll a "3½". Of course, there's no number called "3½" on a die, but lets say you roll the die a million times and predict for the audience every time you roll that you'll roll a 3½. In absolute terms you'll be wrong every time - there is no "3½" on the die - but in mathematical terms, closer to being right about the behavior of the die than anyone who guesses any other number even once. About this, you can have 100% confidence, in mathematical terms.

 

The trouble with the natural world is that things don't operate according to linear probability. Normal and Gaussian probability distributions are much more common, which means you have to introduce the concept of a confidence threshold for every variable.

 

To return to my car analogy above: being hit by a 1½ ton car at 58mph should kill most things, including people, most of the time. In fact, empirically, we know that it does so, about 9 times out of 10, because someone counted a large number of cases and found out the result. If we could ethically do the experiment however, and run a car at 58mph into ten people in turn, we wouldn't necessarily kill 9 of them. Two or three might survive, or more. We have a 90% probability of death, but if that probability was associated with low statistical confidence, we'd expect to see wide variation in the results. I.e. a large standard deviation from the mean.

 

If we repeated the experiment and run over 1000 people, we'd expect 900 of them to die. With a low statistical confidence, we might find 870 of them do, or 930. We might even find something statistically significant (i.e. a very large standard deviation) which would prompt us to recalculate what we expect to happen in the first place. More likely though, is that we have quite a high statistical confidence about what would happen and 897 would die, or 903 and our average would hold up pretty well.

 

Now we turn this around. Let's say that our average has to be "good to the amount of X" to be reliable. That we have to exceed some threshold of confidence that what we predict to happen, will happen at least certain proportion of the time. This, if my terminology isn't mistaken, is the confidence interval.

 

Expressed, in a sentence, it says something like: "something will happen, nine times out of ten attempts, with a 95% confidence". Let's say that imaginary test and the statistical result were true. We might be able to express the same result by saying "something will happen five times out of ten attempts, with a 99.99% confidence". On average, it'll usually happen 9 times out of 10, but whatever happens, we can be pretty damn sure we'll get at least five occasions when it does. The average and the confidence interval are related, but not the same thing.

 

Let's go back to our bird and the magical foot-pounds number.

 

Burrard probably did enough tests to be able to prove - to himself if no-one else - that 0.85ftlbs kinetic energy was sufficient to penetrate to a game bird's vitals 99 times out of 100, with a 90% confidence. Or something like that - I don't know the exact numbers. Perhaps Wymberley can fill us in?

 

Burrard could also have expressed his findings in a slightly more extreme way:

• "1000ftlbs kinetic energy is sufficient to penetrate to a game bird's vitals 99 times out of 100, with a 99.99999999% confidence."
• "0.01ftlbs kinetic energy is sufficient to penetrate to a game bird's vitals 99 times out of 100, with a 0.0001% confidence."

Mathematically, those figures (invented for the purpose of this example) aren't particularly useful. Shotgun pellets don't possess 1000ftlbs energy at ordinary velocities - unless they're slugs - and the range at which they have 0.01ftlbs kinetic energy is out towards 150-200 yards for most birdshot - out of reasonable range for most of us. They aren't much practical use. We know that shooting a pigeon with a .223 Remington is likely to put a bullet straight through it, so a 99.99999999% confidence doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know and most of us wouldn't shoot birds with a centre fire. Therefore, Burrard expresses his findings in a way which are likely to be useful in the situation to which they're applied.

 

Burrard is not saying that 0.85ftlbs is a threshold value above which all pellets will have sufficient penetrative capability. He's saying that, on average, (I'd guess) 90% of the time, it ought to be enough. He could have said that on average, 95% of the time, 1ftlb is enough. Or that 50% of the time, 0.5ftlbs is enough. Or whatever. The chances are, he simply asked himself, "how often am I prepared to despatch by hand a bird which I would have expected to be killed cleanly?" and set his confidence interval to the inverse of that number (i.e. 1-in-10 = 90%; 1-in-20 = 95%; etc.).

 

The use of a confidence interval in the scientific community is vitally important. Exceeding particular confidence intervals is a pre-requisite for a discovery or proof to be considered valid. It's likely that Burrard was working to the accepted intervals, as they were in his day.

Edited February 23, 2017 by neutron619

[Guerini Guy]

Hmmm - now my interest in this thread is unwavering . . . . . . . but my understanding of it is definitely starting to wobble.

 

But I'm trying to keep up . . . . . and bow to those with such amazing knowledge - thanks everybody

Edited February 23, 2017 by Guerini Guy

[wymberley]

I've continued reading this but with no intention of posting further. However, I've noticed a discrepancy which should perhaps be corrected. I was the first to mention the 0.85 ft/lbs at Post #20. This in turn was linked to Post #23.

 

At Post #58 I answered a question relating to the production of ballistic tables and who wrote them. It is worth noting that with regard to the specific 0.85 figure, this was not Burrards work. He actually used a different one. In fact, anyone who has a copy of his work and referring to Chap V111 - Velocity (continued) - Minimum Effective Velocities (and on Page 220 in my Edition) - will find it. Additionally, anyone who believes that his findings are out of order might well change their mind after reading it.

 

To return to the source of the 0.85 figure, this, as many will know, is the Eley Year Book. This was also the source of the other titbits given at Posts #20 and 23. However, they will not now be found as the relevant page was deleted some years back. I'm not certain of the reason for its removal but think it might have had something to do with the revisions for the performance of choke and patterns which came into being about the same time and which threw doubt upon their validity.

[Hamster]

 

Fair enough, but your own arguments remain likewise unable to withstand close scrutiny, for the very same reasons.

 

So you can't do enough experiments to show definitively what works and what doesn't? I agree with you there, but that is the reason for an entire branch of mathematics called probability.

 

We can argue about semantics as to whether what is described as an average - one derived empirically as we've all agreed - is actually quantitative, but let's go back to the more interesting question of probability.

 

We all know about simple probability. For an even, unweighted die, you've got a 1-in-6 chance of rolling any given number. The expectation is that you'll roll a "3½". Of course, there's no number called "3½" on a die, but lets say you roll the die a million times and predict for the audience every time you roll that you'll roll a 3½. In absolute terms you'll be wrong every time - there is no "3½" on the die - but in mathematical terms, closer to being right about the behavior of the die than anyone who guesses any other number even once. About this, you can have 100% confidence, in mathematical terms.

 

The trouble with the natural world is that things don't operate according to linear probability. Normal and Gaussian probability distributions are much more common, which means you have to introduce the concept of a confidence threshold for every variable.

 

To return to my car analogy above: being hit by a 1½ ton car at 58mph should kill most things, including people, most of the time. In fact, empirically, we know that it does so, about 9 times out of 10, because someone counted a large number of cases and found out the result. If we could ethically do the experiment however, and run a car at 58mph into ten people in turn, we wouldn't necessarily kill 9 of them. Two or three might survive, or more. We have a 90% probability of death, but if that probability was associated with low statistical confidence, we'd expect to see wide variation in the results. I.e. a large standard deviation from the mean.

 

If we repeated the experiment and run over 1000 people, we'd expect 900 of them to die. With a low statistical confidence, we might find 870 of them do, or 930. We might even find something statistically significant (i.e. a very large standard deviation) which would prompt us to recalculate what we expect to happen in the first place. More likely though, is that we have quite a high statistical confidence about what would happen and 897 would die, or 903 and our average would hold up pretty well.

 

Now we turn this around. Let's say that our average has to be "good to the amount of X" to be reliable. That we have to exceed some threshold of confidence that what we predict to happen, will happen at least certain proportion of the time. This, if my terminology isn't mistaken, is the confidence interval.

 

Expressed, in a sentence, it says something like: "something will happen, nine times out of ten attempts, with a 95% confidence". Let's say that imaginary test and the statistical result were true. We might be able to express the same result by saying "something will happen five times out of ten attempts, with a 99.99% confidence". On average, it'll usually happen 9 times out of 10, but whatever happens, we can be pretty damn sure we'll get at least five occasions when it does. The average and the confidence interval are related, but not the same thing.

 

Let's go back to our bird and the magical foot-pounds number.

 

Burrard probably did enough tests to be able to prove - to himself if no-one else - that 0.85ftlbs kinetic energy was sufficient to penetrate to a game bird's vitals 99 times out of 100, with a 90% confidence. Or something like that - I don't know the exact numbers. Perhaps Wymberley can fill us in?

 

Burrard could also have expressed his findings in a slightly more extreme way:

• "1000ftlbs kinetic energy is sufficient to penetrate to a game bird's vitals 99 times out of 100, with a 99.99999999% confidence."
• "0.01ftlbs kinetic energy is sufficient to penetrate to a game bird's vitals 99 times out of 100, with a 0.0001% confidence."

Mathematically, those figures (invented for the purpose of this example) aren't particularly useful. Shotgun pellets don't possess 1000ftlbs energy at ordinary velocities - unless they're slugs - and the range at which they have 0.01ftlbs kinetic energy is out towards 150-200 yards for most birdshot - out of reasonable range for most of us. They aren't much practical use. We know that shooting a pigeon with a .223 Remington is likely to put a bullet straight through it, so a 99.99999999% confidence doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know and most of us wouldn't shoot birds with a centre fire. Therefore, Burrard expresses his findings in a way which are likely to be useful in the situation to which they're applied.

 

Burrard is not saying that 0.85ftlbs is a threshold value above which all pellets will have sufficient penetrative capability. He's saying that, on average, (I'd guess) 90% of the time, it ought to be enough. He could have said that on average, 95% of the time, 1ftlb is enough. Or that 50% of the time, 0.5ftlbs is enough. Or whatever. The chances are, he simply asked himself, "how often am I prepared to despatch by hand a bird which I would have expected to be killed cleanly?" and set his confidence interval to the inverse of that number (i.e. 1-in-10 = 90%; 1-in-20 = 95%; etc.).

 

The use of a confidence interval in the scientific community is vitally important. Exceeding particular confidence intervals is a pre-requisite for a discovery or proof to be considered valid. It's likely that Burrard was working to the accepted intervals, as they were in his day.

 

Very good. Statistically significant is all I've ever tried to apply to all things ballistic and again have to say based on my sample of experience in 35 years, his figures don't stand scrutiny. In fact much of what are deemed standard assertions have to me at any rate proved highly questionable. How did he come to arrive at that figure and not say 1.8 ft lbs could it be he simply took a stab at a figure he knew most small shot delivered at ordinary yardages ? He arrived at a conclusion we all agree, my interest lies in his skipping the need to scientifically measure/test/quantify hence any such conclusions are open to debate.

 

If you watch video's of GD shooting pigeon for instance he makes a point about the orientation of the bird relative to your shooting position of being rather important, most of us who have hunted with air guns both normal and FAC power levels will also be familiar with the concept particularly with regards to bigger birds such as pigeon, all of which makes simplistic attachment to figure (whoever wrote them) a tad imprecise.

[wj939]

just treat yourself to some 32 gram 4.5 which is 2.9 mm use them for flighting and decoys but put your decoys well out when shooting flighting and not lammys over decoys as i have seen at 20 yards they dont get up from them please believe me i have shot all over this country and the comments i get from different people who i have never met in my live before astound me when i do set up hides and decoys and tell the chap to put them way out 40 yards looks a long way looking back to the hide but its actualy easier as thats where my half choke and the 32 4.5 work best for me everybody to thier own cheers george

There isn't a lot of science here, but shooting is a simple sport far too easily complicated. Never one to miss an opportunity the point George makes if we analyse this is pretty accurate- folks can't guess range accurately. Most folks shooting consistently at 40+ yards will use bigger shot sizes. Doesn't mean it can't be done with smaller shot, but it does not make it easier, that is a fact. I'll second the use of 32g 4.5s- I use them all year round and have done for two years now. I don't hit the close ones any harder or eat any less of them- but the long ones certainly are cleaner kills. George will have a following for those shells soon.....

[wymberley]

This has gone from one extreme to the other and is, in reality, another thread. I have no doubt that many have heard enough from me so I'll be brief and won't push my point of view.

 

Let's assume that Stonepark is in the ballpark with his need for 180 pellets in the 30" circle and with his example this will reflect a need for some 100 pellets in the central effective area of the pattern. With 32g of No4.5s, there'll be 225 pellets all told and therefore c44% of them will be needed in this area. This equates to an overall pattern of c73% which we recognise will be achieved at c38 yards. Never mind 38 yards, could someone explain to me how that (73%) can be achieved at a range beyond that which a No 6 ceases to be effective? As Burrard appears to be under-selling things, we'll use his figure at which this occurs - 55 yards - at which point any conventional full choke can only muster 40%.

[rbrowning2]

I wondered who would be the first to reply.

 

As wymberley has just said, actually smaller shot will make it easier because it is both pattern and energy that kill so if going to 4.5 shot you will need more shot than 32gm.

[neutron619]

I wondered who would be the first to reply.

 

As wymberley has just said, actually smaller shot will make it easier because it is both pattern and energy that kill so if going to 4.5 shot you will need more shot than 32gm.

 

I rarely shoot a 12 gauge any more, but when I do, it's with homeloaded 39½g of #5.

 

Roughly the same number of pellets (or perhaps a few more - I seem to remember it's around 300-310) as the ounce of #6 (c. 270-280) I use in my "usual" gun.

 

There - pattern and energy both maintained. It'll kill way beyond what I can hit, at any rate.

 

You'd need a bloody big shell to keep that pattern density up with #4½s or #4s though. 3"... 3½"...?

Edited February 25, 2017 by neutron619

[Hamster]

This has gone from one extreme to the other and is, in reality, another thread. I have no doubt that many have heard enough from me so I'll be brief and won't push my point of view.

 

Let's assume that Stonepark is in the ballpark with his need for 180 pellets in the 30" circle and with his example this will reflect a need for some 100 pellets in the central effective area of the pattern. With 32g of No4.5s, there'll be 225 pellets all told and therefore c44% of them will be needed in this area. This equates to an overall pattern of c73% which we recognise will be achieved at c38 yards. Never mind 38 yards, could someone explain to me how that (73%) can be achieved at a range beyond that which a No 6 ceases to be effective? As Burrard appears to be under-selling things, we'll use his figure at which this occurs - 55 yards - at which point any conventional full choke can only muster 40%.

 

 

I have shot high pigeon well with 28g Superb 7.5's through 1/2 & 3/4, it's my belief that people who place great faith in big shot at big range are being impressed not by the pattern they hold but the inevitable "lucky" strike of which you only need one.

[wj939]

I wondered who would be the first to reply.

 

As wymberley has just said, actually smaller shot will make it easier because it is both pattern and energy that kill so if going to 4.5 shot you will need more shot than 32gm.

And what ratio of pattern vs energy are you applying? I would assume all can agree power is significantly more important at ranges beyond where a smaller pellet loses the power- considering all angle of penetration.

 

Given a lack of actual scientific study, all of this is subjective ( although there is a US study into bird shot penetration in ballistic jelly) and therefore I invite you all to give it a try in the field, where you too may get consistently lucky with the rouge pellet strike.

[Hamster]

The trouble with lucky strikes is that the wonder of watching a massive distance bird fall from the sky washes over the previous five bangs :

 

http://www.thefield.co.uk/shooting/shoot-pheasants-like-george-digweed-37727

 

It's not entirely dissimilar to folk who shoot 6.5's at what they deem beyond the reach of a 7.5 in competition, sure they'll break their share but they're merely interpreting random strikes as a sign of the combinations superiority (in fact random/lucky strikes are what we need even with the small shot at times), the fact that a dozen people on the same day will have broken as many if not more of that same target using 7.5's (or gasp even 8's) seems to escape their attention.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Hamster

[wj939]

The trouble with lucky strikes is that the wonder of watching a massive distance bird fall from the sky washes over the previous five bangs :

 

http://www.thefield.co.uk/shooting/shoot-pheasants-like-george-digweed-37727

 

It's not entirely dissimilar to folk who shoot 6.5's at what they deem beyond the reach of a 7.5 in competition, sure they'll break their share but they're merely interpreting random strikes as a sign of the combinations superiority (in fact random/lucky strikes are what we need even with the small shot at times), the fact that a dozen people on the same day will have broken as many if not more of that same target using 7.5's (or gasp even 8's) seems to escape their attention.

Isn't all shotgun shooting seemingly random strikes?

[Stonepark]

And what ratio of pattern vs energy are you applying? I would assume all can agree power is significantly more important at ranges beyond where a smaller pellet loses the power- considering all angle of penetration.

 

Given a lack of actual scientific study, all of this is subjective ( although there is a US study into bird shot penetration in ballistic jelly) and therefore I invite you all to give it a try in the field, where you too may get consistently lucky with the rouge pellet strike.

 

It is always a trade off between penetration (power) and no of strikes to achieve a vital shutdown of organs (pattern), and as you allude to and as tabled above, the gel block tests do provide data and are helpful.

 

A rogue pellet with sufficient energy may strike and penetrate at a significant range and if you fire 3 shots on target, it is likely one of those shots will contain a rogue pellet that kills a bird and in a lot of circles 3 shots to one kill is acceptable on 'challenging birds' with those other birds either not being struck at all or pricked by a non lethal strike but the shooters are not relying on a high confidence level of 99% certainty of a kill, but probably around 60% (two shots on 1 bird and third shot after reload on another bird).

 

The comparative figures for No4 for pheasant at 60 yards is 3 7/16oz and for 4.5 at 55 yards 2.5oz as they have excess power but that loading is what I would require to meet my minimum pattern requirements and simply cannot be stuffed into a 12 bore.

 

However, I sit in a spot where if I do my job, I expect my choke/cartridge combination to kill each and every time.

 

I like the load to be balanced so that power and pattern fail at the same time so that the efficiency of any loading is maximized.

 

So in 12 bore lead and full choke in Scotland and in descending vital area size , 50g No2 for geese (57 yards), 50g No5 for pheasant (55 yards), 42g No6 for pigeon (50 yards), 32g No6.5 for pigeon (45 yards), 28g No7 for snipe (40 yards).

 

However this does not mean other unbalanced loads will not kill with a lower confidence level, and also as the range drops, more and more loads become effective (meets my preferred minimum energy and pattern requirements), so for geese: -

 

57 yards 1 combination of shot size (commercially available), loading weight (commercially available i.e. 50g 46g. 42g 40g, etc) and choke size (6 english chokes)

55 yards 3 combinations 1 shot size, 2 chokings 2 loadings

50 yards 30 combinations 3 shot sizes, 5 chokings, 6 loadings

45 yards 59 combinations 3 shot sizes, 6 chokings, 8 loadings

40 yards 153 combinations 5 shot sizes, 6 chokings, 10 loadingss

[propercartridges]

there is a difference between a decoyed pigeon at 25 yards and a high flighting pigeon over tall trees in a hell of a wind especialy if you are shooting through the trees i think this thread can be cut short by simply saying tools for the job take on the day whatever your going to do deeks or flighting its no big deal when you pack in to go to the car and change carts is it on deliberate high stuff i use 36 gram 4s but i mean high why is there so many different cars on the road and colours of cars the new hi lux is a parrot green when you order a green car i expect the old landrover green to be looking at me not a light coloured parrot but people r buying so i will end by simply saying tools for the job and its whatever you think works best for you away now to make sum more 32 gram 4.5 in 2.9mm as people r loving them especially at my old prices cheers george 07714 323 909

[wymberley]

And what ratio of pattern vs energy are you applying? I would assume all can agree power is significantly more important at ranges beyond where a smaller pellet loses the power- considering all angle of penetration.

 

Given a lack of actual scientific study, all of this is subjective ( although there is a US study into bird shot penetration in ballistic jelly) and therefore I invite you all to give it a try in the field, where you too may get consistently lucky with the rouge pellet strike.

What I always wondered is what input regarding the effective energy range regarding shot sizes the the sport of live pigeon shooting had. This had very tight rules regarding distance and lost (wounded) birds which did not count as a score - even the handicap system could be measured in 1/2 yards. Countless thousands of birds were shot over strictly controlled distances. I simply can't imagine that the experience and knowledge gained as a result was ignored.

[motty]

George. I don't think 36 gm 4 is a good choice for high pigeons. Penetration far outweighs pattern at all but medium distances.

[wj939]

 

It is always a trade off between penetration (power) and no of strikes to achieve a vital shutdown of organs (pattern), and as you allude to and as tabled above, the gel block tests do provide data and are helpful.

 

A rogue pellet with sufficient energy may strike and penetrate at a significant range and if you fire 3 shots on target, it is likely one of those shots will contain a rogue pellet that kills a bird and in a lot of circles 3 shots to one kill is acceptable on 'challenging birds' with those other birds either not being struck at all or pricked by a non lethal strike but the shooters are not relying on a high confidence level of 99% certainty of a kill, but probably around 60% (two shots on 1 bird and third shot after reload on another bird).

 

The comparative figures for No4 for pheasant at 60 yards is 3 7/16oz and for 4.5 at 55 yards 2.5oz as they have excess power but that loading is what I would require to meet my minimum pattern requirements and simply cannot be stuffed into a 12 bore.

 

However, I sit in a spot where if I do my job, I expect my choke/cartridge combination to kill each and every time.

 

I like the load to be balanced so that power and pattern fail at the same time so that the efficiency of any loading is maximized.

 

So in 12 bore lead and full choke in Scotland and in descending vital area size , 50g No2 for geese (57 yards), 50g No5 for pheasant (55 yards), 42g No6 for pigeon (50 yards), 32g No6.5 for pigeon (45 yards), 28g No7 for snipe (40 yards).

 

However this does not mean other unbalanced loads will not kill with a lower confidence level, and also as the range drops, more and more loads become effective (meets my preferred minimum energy and pattern requirements), so for geese: -

 

57 yards 1 combination of shot size (commercially available), loading weight (commercially available i.e. 50g 46g. 42g 40g, etc) and choke size (6 english chokes)

55 yards 3 combinations 1 shot size, 2 chokings 2 loadings

50 yards 30 combinations 3 shot sizes, 5 chokings, 6 loadings

45 yards 59 combinations 3 shot sizes, 6 chokings, 8 loadings

40 yards 153 combinations 5 shot sizes, 6 chokings, 10 loadingss

And at what level of consistency do they stop being rouge pellets? Or at what point do they start?

All a matter of perspective as to what works- there are too many variables for your calculations to be accurate. Lethality in the absence of applied test rules can only be measured subjectively, that being said no one here is arguing that a larger pellet holds more energy over a longer distance- so in summary, if I do my bit and put pellets on target- by 'luck' or judgment, I am more lethal over a greater range of quarry and distances than with a smaller pellet.

Perhaps it is not the kinetic energy value required to kill a pigeon that should be the focus but questioning how accurate the suggested choke to pattern relationship is- certainly in my chosen equipment my pattern plates have put more than enough 4.5's and 5.5's in a circle to dispatch what was behind them. Also worth noting that most of you will have used 5's at some time or another that are really a 4.5UK 2.9mm, so it's not that odd a shell in reality.....

[wymberley]

And at what level of consistency do they stop being rouge pellets? Or at what point do they start?

All a matter of perspective as to what works- there are too many variables for your calculations to be accurate. Lethality in the absence of applied test rules can only be measured subjectively, that being said no one here is arguing that a larger pellet holds more energy over a longer distance- so in summary, if I do my bit and put pellets on target- by 'luck' or judgment, I am more lethal over a greater range of quarry and distances than with a smaller pellet.

Perhaps it is not the kinetic energy value required to kill a pigeon that should be the focus but questioning how accurate the suggested choke to pattern relationship is- certainly in my chosen equipment my pattern plates have put more than enough 4.5's and 5.5's in a circle to dispatch what was behind them. Also worth noting that most of you will have used 5's at some time or another that are really a 4.5UK 2.9mm, so it's not that odd a shell in reality.....

Arguably at a distance where the pattern fails to meet the density deemed necessary by the individual shooter.

Which brings us back to the tried and tested saying that "pattern kills".

[6.5x55SE]

 

No

Pattern AND Penetration

[wymberley]

No

Pattern AND Penetration

YES and no.

The saying when taken in context originally inferred that the energy was sufficient. This because, with the exception of the smaller pellet sizes, in the vast majority of cases the pattern would fail before the energy. Sorry about the history lesson, but that's the truth of it.

[propercartridges]

i make carts and badge them to what i think i call a 2.9 mm shot a four and half then people tell me they shoot a italian make badged 5 then they say i dont want 4.5 i want a 5 like my eye tie stuff wot i am shooting so i say are u sackless stupid or just a divvy coz thats wot you are shooting now look on the box it tells u 2.9mm thats 4 and a half so the morale is plain folk just do not no wot they are shooting i could not give a monkeys as reguards wot people want the lead price is all the same to me from 1.9mm to 3.3mm its all the same price per ton so you want 10 k carts loaded with your name on any size shot you want if i have it but for me 32 gram 4.5 in 2.9 mm i can load and try owt i want thats my swag thats all folks cheers george 07714 323 909