Drop to 24g for home competition?

[clayman]

Personally I dropped to 24g about 10yrs ago when I found that my practice scores with lighter loads were better than my competition averages with super bang 28s. It made me realise that the extra recoil impact and shock wave through the body and into the brain lowered my ability to concentrate on delivery of the load in the right place.

 

Its certainly not an opinion held by some people who will fight tooth and nail to retain the current 28g 6 - 9 clay ruling on acceptable shot sizes and max load, but I think 24g 7-9s would help the sport in many ways.

 

Less noise, less lead, lower costs, decreased max range for exclusion zone increasing safety ( 6s need 275m, but 7s up 250m, already scientifically established by Dr Allsop's report).

 

There will always be schools of thought opposing such ideas. One is the group who beleive that unless they have max pellets in the air, usually with amazingly fast and expensive cartridges, that they wont hit anything. Truth is these people are blaming equipment for handicapping scores and try to replace, for instance, a poor understanding of lead and sight picture with something so fast they think they dont need lead. Another group will immediately say, my averages will drop and/or the targets at XXX ground will be unhittable. This seems to overlook any competent course setter can reset the range and difficulty to be exactly the same - so the true skill factor need not change at all.

 

And, as observed by many, scores have actually gone UP in disciplines where there have been compulsory load size drops, ie ISSF sores averages improved. Interestingly as well, with lead an issue, we could end up with steel and the same negative arguments about its use surface despite the known fact that the Skeet Ground that has compulsory steel as the fall out is over an SSSI wetlands, saw an improvement in scores overall as extra pellets and better evenness of pattern and less stray fliers from a steel load would appear to more than compensate for the reduction in inertia the individual pellet has. Steel has supposed safety issues, but a recent comprehensive test, again using Dr Allsop, has found almost no difference in the ricochet potential of both lead and steel. The findings suggest that far from steel being a much more serious ricochet risk than lead, std lead carts in use today have ricochet potentials that are just as high as steel.

 

Its international discipline specifics that are likely to push changes back to club shooting. With lead bans or restrictions already in place in some other countries, I can envisage some international discipline rules being changed to not allow lead loads. There will be a massive outcry from the pro-leads if this happens, but difficulty factors can be reset in the layouts to maintain averages, steel appears to be no more dangerous than lead, indeed the down range factor must be safer was I would guess that the fallout range and safety zone could be less than lead, contributing to safety and allowing smaller areas of exclusion for shooting grounds ( no stats I'm aware of, anyone know of any steel fallout reports?), and with everyone unhappy with spiralling lead shot costs, steel is a nice surprise to the wallet too.

 

Something that does not seem to be generally appreciated is that there is a study in progress by the Lead Trade Industry that suggests that steel is more toxic than lead - contrary to most environmentalist's thoughts. The study finds that steel has 100% degradation within 12 months, and while iron into the soil and watercourses is not much of an issue, its steel alloy we shoot. The degradation introduces all sorts of other heavy metals like nickel, cadmium, barium, cobalt, chrome depending on the alloy used, into the ecology within a year. Lead on the other hand, has a self sealing oxidisation process that slows the leeching down and degradation is shown to take many years 30 - 100 if I recall right. There is a suggestion that as lead poisoning is readily identifiable by medical science, and centuries of knowledge and treatments well established - while the effects and diagnosis of heavy metal poisoning are much less understood - that on an environmental platform lead is actually safer than steel.

Edited January 22, 2011 by clayman

[twitchynik]

Interesting thoughts. I've been thinking for a while about dropping to 21 or 24 for practice. Idea being with less force and lead it would perhaps stimulate an improvement in technique. Then when it came to a competitive shoot I'd use 28 and reap the benefits. Added bonus would of course be a cheaper practice session. Hadn't thought about the reduced recoil side of things.

[poontang]

Clayman,

 

I normally enjoy reading your posts, finding them informative and interesting.

 

BUT, please don't start banging on about the virtues of steel. It may be ok for skeet, but that's about it as far as clay shooting goes. It's bad enough that BASC are selling us down the river with regards to lead shot without the CPSA starting too.

 

There's a steel pattern plate at my local ground, Dr. Allsop's more than welcome to let loose at that with steel loads, I'm damn sure no-one else will.

[Mungler]

I think a lot of people like to buy 28g of 7.5 in lead because it will do for both clays and decoying.

[clayman]

I'm not personally advocating steel - my post is a list of pros and cons, and intended to be informative, and invite some healthy debate over the whole concept of why changes could occur and what might happen if they did in terms of scores / safety etc.

[beretta]

one or two points i cant say i agree with here.

steel does ricochet more than lead thats been proved before somewhere, and dr allsop wont convince me otherwise im afraid.

using lighter carts for practice will mean you are more likely to get tired half way through a comp if useing 28g normal loads as your body is not used to it.

if you have to bring targets in closer and reset layouts to compensate for steel and light loads to keep the averages the same, then that says that they not up to the job for some disciplines. it would not be in the best interests to bring sporting targets to within skeet ranges just so some people want to shoot steel or very light loads.

 

personally, i have shot some 24gms that have more recoil than some 28s so thats no excuse.

 

im not against steel or lighter loads as each has its own place in shooting but lead is the best for the overall job.

Edited January 22, 2011 by beretta

[clayman]

QUOTE "There's a steel pattern plate at my local ground, Dr. Allsop's more than welcome to let loose at that with steel loads, I'm damn sure no-one else will. "

 

Dr Allsop's testing was done at Kingsferry on their skeet houses and layouts and the protection systems employed there. The findings in his tests were that lead and steel ricochet characteristics are much the same.

 

What that means, is anything anyone would currently be concerned about shooting steel at because of a ricochet risk, they should not shoot lead at either - and conversely, where it is safe to shoot lead, no additional measures are needed for steel.

 

So, if the grounds steel pattern plate is providing no risks with lead, Dr Allsops report is saying steel pellets onto that plate will be no greater risk.

[poontang]

 

So, if the grounds steel pattern plate is providing no risks with lead, Dr Allsops report is saying steel pellets onto that plate will be no greater risk.

 

Well I can't go along with that I'm afraid. There are warnings on the boxes of steel cartridges stating that they shouldn't be fired at hard surfaces due to the risk of ricochets. You don't find that on lead cartridge boxes, for one good reason I would suggest.

 

I think Beretta sums up pretty well the shortcomings of steel on the clay circuit.

 

I'm not a big clay shooter, but in the past have used steel loads on the skeet range with no problems at all. However for the more rangier targets a better quality shell is required, and with that comes the recoil and more importantly the price creeps up to beyond that of lead. Gamebore Black Gold steel shells aren't too bad but are expensive and are not up to lead shells in the same price bracket.

[clayman]

one or two points i cant say i agree with here.

steel does ricochet more than lead thats been proved before somewhere, and dr allsop wont convince me otherwise im afraid.

using lighter carts for practice will mean you are more likely to get tired half way through a comp if useing 28g normal loads as your body is not used to it.

if you have to bring targets in closer and reset layouts to compensate for steel and light loads to keep the averages the same, then that says that they not up to the job for some disciplines. it would not be in the best interests to bring sporting targets to within skeet ranges just so some people want to shoot steel or very light loads.

 

personally, i have shot some 24gms that have more recoil than some 28s so thats no excuse.

 

im not against steel or lighter loads as each has its own place in shooting but lead is the best for the overall job.

 

I believe its well established that steel has a ricochet risk - but the surprise finding of Dr Allsop of Cranfield University undertaking a full study in scientific conditions is that lead ricochets risks are as great as steel risks.

 

There's lots of things that start as some-ones logical opinion and get repeated so often they become believed to be established fact until some-one does a controlled study and finds the commonly held views not to be true. If there are contradictory published reports to this new one I'd certainly be interested in seeing what those conclusions are in comparison as all I'm aware of is the long held belief, that I myself have taught for 15yrs, that steel risks were greater than lead - but Dr A is suggesting we should be just as concerned about lead ricochet as we are currently about steel. I understand his report is with CPSA directors as Kingsferry has made it available to the CPSA for consideration as to whether it would change CPSA safety advice on ricochet potentials.

[beretta]

Does steel ricochet worse than lead?

 

 

There is an increased danger of ricochets with steel

shot over lead or other forms of non-toxic shot.

Steel shot has a lower deformation capacity and

therefore the drop in velocity after impact on a hard

target is much less than with the softer lead. The angle

of ricochet is also much larger than with lead. For

example, at a range of 20m a standard steel shot of

pellet size No.4 fired at a concrete surface at an angle

of 26 degrees was measured to ricochet at an angle of

6 degrees 20 minutes compared with lead’s 0 degrees

5 minutes.

 

The problems of ricochet, according to a study

carried out by the National Proof House at Gardone,

Italy, are increased not only because steel is 5 to 8

times harder than lead but also because, after impact

against hard surfaces, lead shot breaks up and can lose

10 to 90% of its original weight. Steel shot, although

deformed, retains practically all its original weight.

With lead, ricochet after impact against a very hard

surface at 20m directly in front of a shooter, would

present a low risk to the shooter or to others close by:

the pellets would be completely smashed. With steel

under the same circumstances, the pellets, after only

being moderately deformed, arrive back and past the

shooter by up to 20m. In these circumstances the

danger area for injury from ricochet from steel is greater

than with lead.

[poontang]

I understand his report is with CPSA directors as Kingsferry has made it available to the CPSA for consideration as to whether it would change CPSA safety advice on ricochet potentials.

 

If I was a CPSA director I'd bin that report and commission another, independent report.

Dr Allsop is a bit too chummy with BASC for my liking.

 

Just as a matter of interest you don't know who commissioned Dr Allsops report do you? Lead Ammunition Group maybe?

Edited January 22, 2011 by poontang

[Gordon R]

Steel deforms less on impact and therefore will ricochet more. I don't give a damn who published what report. It is bunkum.

[clayman]

If I was a CPSA director I'd bin that report and commission another, independent report.

Dr Allsop is a bit too chummy with BASC for my liking.

 

Just as a matter of interest you don't know who commissioned Dr Allsops report do you? Lead Ammunition Group maybe?

 

I understand Kingsferry commissioned it to manage safety at their ground. They found the findings to be surprising too - which is why they have made it available to the NGBs. The report results are not what they were expecting or wanted - but in common with any study carried out using scientific methodology , the report publishes what was found to happen and the analytical methods used so others can repeat the experiments and confirm or dispute the results.

 

Its easy to base a view on comparative logic, and like others I had always assumed as steel is harder than lead that it would ricochet more, but when I've checked on this I can only find this as a well established statement but no references to proving studies. Beretta has made a ref to another stud, so it will be interesting to locate and read that, as it would appear to dispute the recent UK findings.

 

As with other common logic statements that have been proven in test to be wrong ( tighter chokes do not throw longer patterns like hosepipe logic says it should; fibre wads do not have wider patterns than plastic wads, they are narrower etc etc) its probable that the dynamics we base our initial logic on are completely different at 1000fps.

 

Also, and this seems to being missed, no where have I said I support or suggest any changes based on what Dr A is saying - I am completely open minded and hoping that others will pitch more demonstrable knowledge into this interesting subject so that a rational view on exactly what this new information means to us in the sport can be made.

 

We are already concerned as sportsmen about the possible effects of steel use at grounds - and the indications of Dr A suggest that design measures could easily be introduced into such things as skeet layouts to significantly reduce lead ricochet possibilities as well as steel. Being aware of the dangers and knowing how to control them must be a good thing in my view.

Edited January 22, 2011 by clayman

[wymberley]

Hi,

I'm happy to admit that I'm out of the loop somewhat and now just do my own thing in my neck of the woods pooping off lead until someone comes along and drags me away.

Consequently, something may have changed and I'm not aware of it.

It used to be that we didn't shoot steel. We thought we did because that's what our friends over the pond call it. We actually shot iron.

 

Clayman, has anything changed and if not, does iron contain the heavy metals detailed many of which are used in the manufacture of various steel alloys which have absolutely nothing to do with the production of iron shot as I understand it? As indicated, I'm happy to stand corrected.

Cheers,

Phil

[Emmsy]

Jerry, if 24gm lead and steel shot are so great then why dont all the top shots use them?? oh they dont do they...

 

i dont think you really are helping the sport by suggesting such things.

[sitsinhedges]

Jerry, if 24gm lead and steel shot are so great then why dont all the top shots use them?? oh they dont do they...

 

i dont think you really are helping the sport by suggesting such things.

 

I use 24 gram homeloads over the couple of thousand factory 28's I have gathering dust, just more pleasant to use and kill distant clays with as much authority.

 

You can blow steel out of your *** though, I'm not using it

[poontang]

I understand Kingsferry commissioned it to manage safety at their ground.

 

Kingsferry have allowed the use of steel for years.

 

I find it hard to believe they've only just decided to look into the safety aspects of its use.

Of course if a lead ban were to come in most people would bring up the safety issues surrounding steel shot. What better way to allay those fears than to cite a report stating that lead is just as prone to ricochet?

We're already seeing plenty of articles/reports extolling the virtues of steel, we even had George Digweed at it on the Fieldsports Channel a few weeks ago.

Call me sceptical if you like, but I think the LAG are getting all there answers ready before announcing a total lead ban.

[KenG]

I can't see why it can't be made compulsory in all disciplines to drop to either 24g or 21g lead shot.

 

If we all had a level playing field then I can't see how anyone could complain.

 

I have shot 24g's in the past, but it's the 'mental' thing of having 50 to a 100 pellets less than my mates shooting 28g that puts me off.

 

I wonder how much scores would suffer if we all shot 21g?

[magman]

Shot 24 gm for my last 4 shoots , never noticed much difference but they were slightly faster

Not interested in Steel though

[poontang]

I can't see why it can't be made compulsory in all disciplines to drop to either 24g or 21g lead shot.

 

If we all had a level playing field then I can't see how anyone could complain.

 

I have shot 24g's in the past, but it's the 'mental' thing of having 50 to a 100 pellets less than my mates shooting 28g that puts me off.

 

I wonder how much scores would suffer if we all shot 21g?

 

The Olymic disciplines are shot with 24g loads, but they're regular targets at a regulation distance and nothing a good 24g cartridge can't cope with.

 

Some sporting and FITASC targets would be pushing the capabilities of a 24g load, and certainly 21g.

Having said that I'm sure if Mr Digweed et al were to start winning major titles with 21g steel loads everyone would be using them. The fact that they don't speaks volumes to me.

[KenG]

They might "be pushing the capabilities of a 24g load, and certainly 21g", but it would be the same for all shooters.

It's incredible how many sporting shoots are won with mid to high nineties scores now, would it be so bad if that dropped into the eighties?

 

As to FITASC, who can afford to shoot that these days?

 

I thought P.W. members were all poor working class people

[clayman]

Jerry, if 24gm lead and steel shot are so great then why dont all the top shots use them?? oh they dont do they...

 

i dont think you really are helping the sport by suggesting such things.

 

Please read my posts carefully - I have NOT suggested that these are better for the sport and SHOULD be adopted. I like using 24g and its helped me and others at their levels - but I'm not an International shot, and top shots do use 24g but only when the rules require it - I agree that in current home disciplines a full 28g may win or loose a competition over a 24g user, but its subjective to every individual shooter at every level and my personal experience has shown lighter loads can have positive benefits for many shooters.

 

My posts are saying IF these things were to be advocated, here are some of the arguments for and against, and asking what others views are to add to the collective information. I've also seen many counter arguments to the ideas, and have placed some responses to those counter arguments.

 

I predict, that like it or not, its only a matter of time before 24g max load, and steel or non-lead rulings may be imposed by NGBs or legislators, and if we are going to fight the moves, or be forced to adopt them, there is nothing better than being informed. The collective experience of many contributing to a knowledge base through something like these forum posts is nothing but beneficial for the sport. Hiding from potential change and not discussing it is more likely to allow it to happen in ways that we will like less.

[poontang]

They might "be pushing the capabilities of a 24g load, and certainly 21g", but it would be the same for all shooters.

It's incredible how many sporting shoots are won with mid to high nineties scores now, would it be so bad if that dropped into the eighties?

 

As to FITASC, who can afford to shoot that these days?

 

I thought P.W. members were all poor working class people

 

It's the same for all shooters now, people can use whatever they want within the rules. What's the point in dropping 28g cartridges?

 

I can't see it serves any purpose.

[poontang]

 

 

 

I predict, that like it or not, its only a matter of time before 24g max load, and steel or non-lead rulings may be imposed by NGBs or legislators, and if we are going to fight the moves, or be forced to adopt them, there is nothing better than being informed. The collective experience of many contributing to a knowledge base through something like these forum posts is nothing but beneficial for the sport. Hiding from potential change and not discussing it is more likely to allow it to happen in ways that we will like less.

 

Jerry,

 

I would totally agree that it needs to be discussed. The problem, as far as I can see, is that it's being discussed behind closed doors with no input from the people who will be affected by any restriction/ban.

Do you know if the CPSA have been invited onto the LAG yet? What is their view on any restriction/ban that may come into force?

Edited January 22, 2011 by poontang

[clayman]

yes I agree, its very much a problem that these things may get discussed and decided without reference to the wider community - legislators being the worst. No, I'm not privy to where CPSA is able to lobby, you'll need to ask directors that but as far as I'm aware ( unlike BASCs positive involvement on PWF) I dont know that they review posts and place any official views from management on here.

 

What is true, however, is that mass voice opinions one way or another can influence outcomes, and its important we talk about all the options and consequences so that the main consensus of opinion of the public does get through to decision makers.

 

This is why I chuck up these topics every now and again. If its clear that people are talking about the issue there's a better chance there will be some consultation, while if its perceived we don't care - we may just end up being told this is the way its going, lump it.