Drop to 24g for home competition?

[KenG]

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.

 

The purpose, tonnes less lead used every year, and more importantly, cheaper shells..

 

Why did they drop 32g cartridges? Using you logic there was no need too, as everyone could use what they wanted within the rules!

 

Shooting is so bloody expensive, if we can save costs by using less lead, surely it can't be a bad thing.

[poontang]

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.

 

Once again I have to agree with everything you're saying.

 

I'm not a member of the CPSA anymore but if I was I'd be doing all I could to push the management into getting their voice heard. At the moment they're very much on the outside looking in.

It seems to me that BASC are very quick to get their membership to lobby their MP's and get their voices across when it suits ie. HASC hearings, and yet something as important as a lead ban seems to be dealt with 'behind closed doors' with little or no input from the membership. There's something inherently wrong with that.

When I first used steel, about 3 years ago, it was simply a cheap alternative to lead and fine for skeet/close targets. Since then however it's been marketed to the shooting public as a like for like alternative to lead, which it simply isn't.

[poontang]

 

Shooting is so bloody expensive, if we can save costs by using less lead, surely it can't be a bad thing.

 

You can save money. Nobody's stopping you, if you want to use 24g/21g cartridges to save a few quid that's your prerogative.

A lot of shooters however spend a lot of time and money on building up their averages. Why should they lose out just because some folk want to save a few quid and shoot cartridges that aren't up to the job?

Edited January 22, 2011 by poontang

[clayman]

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.

 

Here lies one of the arguments against steel / lighter loads. Its entirely correct that if they are used within present rules up against other load sizes and component types that 28g lead is going to win overall. Its also true that averages are likely to drop if the same course settings are used in Sporting.

 

But our sport is about skill and difficulty, and if we are all required to use the same, be it lighter loads or alternative loads, we all have the identical handicap and Digweed will still win, and classifications will not change. Nor do sores need to drop. The extreme targets in FITASC for a 28g load may be out of reach for a 24g, but reset them in say 5 yds, drop a choke size to bring the pattern density in to the same pellet count as the 28g had - and they become hittable with precisely the same difficulty level. The same people will win, and with the same average scores.

[poontang]

 

But our sport is about skill and difficulty, and if we are all required to use the same, be it lighter loads or alternative loads, we all have the identical handicap and Digweed will still win, and classifications will not change. Nor do sores need to drop. The extreme targets in FITASC for a 28g load may be out of reach for a 24g, but reset them in say 5 yds, drop a choke size to bring the pattern density in to the same pellet count as the 28g had - and they become hittable with precisely the same difficulty level. The same people will win, and with the same average scores.

 

Surely it's a level playing field already?

The only benefit of dropping to 24g would be less lead in the environment? I'm sure the environmentalists would love that, but of course it wouldn't end there. If we can get away with using smaller lead loads by moving the targets a bit closer why not just ban lead altogether, bring the targets closer still, and use steel?

[hillmouse]

I think this topic is an excellent idea and achieving its aim of promoting discussion on the matter.

The idea of dropping home disciplines to 24 gram loads had been discussed by the CPSA Board and rejected.........for the time being.

I am not sure that the present Board listens to general opinions , however if there are no discussions and expression of opinions available then they would have a perfect excuse for claiming they were unaware of what sort of views people had on many matters.

 

Personally I would have no issues with shooting 24 gram loads as this is what I have used since going back to a 12 bore for disciplines.

I have used a 20 bore and 21 gram loads for the last 17 years and only felt undergunned on the occasional FITASC style eye tester.

 

The ICTSC adopted ESP rule 5.08 clearly states "It must be possible for all the targets to be hit within the effective range of a 12 bore shotgun".

For FITASC it is governed by Rule 2.5.1 "No shooting at close range because the game would be unfit for consumption"-"No shooting beyond the effective range of the shotgun otherwise the animal would be wounded"

So about 45 yards tops if we take effective range as the point where pattern density and energy combined fail to be sufficient to ensure a kill.

For DTL maximum trajectory gives a target that ought to land at about 71 yards and ESK 55yards and So complaining about not being able to break an edge on 70 yarder ought not to be an issue really. ABT is 91m but OT targets must be, and are, shot with 24grams very convincingly.

 

The lighter loads would reduce the overall amount of lead discharged in to the environment. I do however remain to be convinced of the real world impact of lead from shot as an environmental pollutant.

 

The lighter loads are more comfortable to shoot as a general observation. I am sure there are high recoil light load cartridges out there too.

 

I have limited experience of steel loads for clay target shooting but from what I have seen they are effective at sensible ranges, particularily so for skeet.

The ricochet aspect is quite ambiguous and probably only an issue if someone discharges a shot in what would always be an unsafe manner. Shooting the traphouse or the apron for example. The addition of some form of energy absorbent material should cater for this eventuality.

 

I would resist any move to ban lead, however if it were to become a reality I seriously doubt it would be the end of clay target shooting and we would adapt accordingly.

 

The CPSA is probably not involved on the LAG as I believe the LAG's primary remit is to study the possibility of effects on human phsyology caused by lead ingestion from the consumption of shot game.

Not sure too many people eat clays. I heard they had very little flavour but plenty of crunch.

[BlaserF3]

I have been using 24gm for a few years now and I have found very little difference in the quality of breaks compared to 28gms.

 

Kevin Mayor had mentioned in an interview recently that since 32gms were banned, he had found that he had to be much more accurate with the 28gm load due to the lack of "fliers" at the edge of the pattern.

 

I have recently bought some Hull 21gm and I find these really nice to shoot as they have very little recoil, but you have to use more open chokes, due to the lack of damaged pellets, because to the short shot column.

 

If all competitors had to use 24gm it would not be a problem, but some would sneak in with a 28gm load and hope they would not be caught.

[MC]

I have been using 24gm for a few years now and I have found very little difference in the quality of breaks compared to 28gms.

 

Kevin Mayor had mentioned in an interview recently that since 32gms were banned, he had found that he had to be much more accurate with the 28gm load due to the lack of "fliers" at the edge of the pattern.

 

I have recently bought some Hull 21gm and I find these really nice to shoot as they have very little recoil, but you have to use more open chokes, due to the lack of damaged pellets, because to the short shot column.

 

If all competitors had to use 24gm it would not be a problem, but some would sneak in with a 28gm load and hope they would not be caught.

 

 

Does that happen now with people sneaking in 32gr loads?

 

I had been loading 24gr loads as my homeloads and have not noticed any difference in scores. I have gone back to 28gr loads as I am making my own shoot and they load better.

 

24gr loads break clays well, no doubt about it but where does it end? If we carry on then we will soon be shooting 18gr loads as they are "Better for us"

[Bagsy]

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

 

This is part of the problem, where will it all end? 24g today, then 21g then where? Some are already advocating the use of subsonic loads (normally with vested interests), others 21g loads. Why don't we just throw in the towel now and have done, we'll end up regulating ourselves out of our own sport before long.

[shaun4860]

I use 21g and 24g but if i use my auto i need 28g

 

let people shoot what they want within reason...

 

we have a max shot size 7 and max 28g at our club and nobody has ever complained

 

shaun

[BlaserF3]

 

 

I had been loading 24gr loads as my homeloads and have not noticed any difference in scores. I have gone back to 28gr loads as I am making my own shoot and they load better.

 

 

 

I thought that most Shooting Grounds do not allow "Homeloads"

[RC45]

My gun won't cycle 24's, does that mean I would be excluded from comp's?

[sitsinhedges]

I thought that most Shooting Grounds do not allow "Homeloads"

 

Mine does, in fact they are very aware of me grubbing around their bins for empties to fill.

[Catamong]

Mine does, in fact they are very aware of me grubbing around their bins for empties to fill.

 

Well, they're not allowed in any CPSA Registered event, thank goodness.

 

There have been some good posts on this thread, I believe it's only a matter of time before we drop to 24g loads, and having seen just how well they can kill some really long targets, I reckon it would be no bad thing.

 

Cat.

[clayman]

I thought that most Shooting Grounds do not allow "Homeloads"

 

CPSA Registered Shoot rules do not allow "home loads" on the basis it would be possible to cheat by using cases marked one way, with some advantageous reload inside, and also the concerns for safety if loading was poor, ie over-powdered etc.

 

In practice, I recall years ago when I did my ESP refs course with Dennis green, he had old Bill Hammond along with 20 odd cartridges and we, as referee trainees, were asked to sort them into "home loads" and factory production. You looked at the crimping and primer seating etc and some were obviously tampered with - but the outcome of the test was - every one was a home load and some were impossible to tell. In top shooting levels a ref is allowed to stop a shooter and remove loaded but unfired shells for inspection. They are examined for wt of shot, size, etc. to try to prevent cheating and danger.

 

Your regular ground may well have its own local rule, just like some say no-pumps etc - but thats just their commercial decision and its perfectly legal to reload and use as long as you are not in a CPSA Reg comp.

[MC]

I thought that most Shooting Grounds do not allow "Homeloads"

 

 

Really?

 

I have not been to one yet. Anybody at anytime is welcome to take one of mine and examine it. The only thing they will find is it will perform better than most cheapy clay loads on the market today.

 

I assume that these Refs who take cartridges to examine know what they are talking about ballistic wise and have all the necessary equipment to show is a cartridge is illegal or not.

 

As for overpowdering etc, you need to be a "Special" kind of nutter to do that when it is all happening inches from your face/head.

 

In my 20 plus years of shooting I have only ever had 4 cartridges fail, 3 of those were factory loads. 1 was my own and it didn't have any powder in it. So apart from leaving the wad in the barrel there was nothing dangerous about it.

 

I do believe that 24gr kill well, but like I and others have siad before where does it end?

[clayman]

This is part of the problem, where will it all end? 24g today, then 21g then where? Some are already advocating the use of subsonic loads (normally with vested interests), others 21g loads. Why don't we just throw in the towel now and have done, we'll end up regulating ourselves out of our own sport before long.

 

Yes, there has to be a limit to how far down the wt loading could go before the sport ceases to be what it is now. There have been tries at very light load disciplines in the past - didn't catch on:

 

Back in the '70s Wingo was introduced. It was indoor skeet!

 

The cartridges were straight-walled rimfire types made by Winchester. You shot at close ranges at tiny flying targets.

To give you an idea of the magnitude, or lack thereof,here are some facts about the equipment:

The cartridges were called 20 calibre Wingo

They were 0.200 inch bore to prevent loading into 22LR firearms

They held 2.1 grains of powder

They had approximately 113 pellets of #12 shot

The 20 Cal Wingo would be a 582 gauge

 

I have the feeling that the skill challenges of clayshooting would be un-effected by lighter loads etc as long as the target settings used gave the same difficulty levels to our skills, but the moment the GUNS started to become restricted, then we are in trouble. That being said, in some places the challenge of restricted gun shooting is popular - 410 league, and NASA skeet have their following - but I cant see Wingo Skeet becoming the Olympic Discipline!

Edited January 23, 2011 by clayman

[jasper3]

just been reading through this thread is it steal in the (american)or iron as we call it as wemberley has said

[fuzrat]

shot four counties this morning with my 20g shooting 21 gram 7 1/2s wasnt a single bird I didnt kill convincingly with 1/2 and 1/2 chokes, some fairly distant birds down there too.

 

I cant really see that a sporting shooter is disadvantaged by using 24 grammers when the OT boys are nailing edge on going away birds and smoking em.

 

there are good arguments for and against dropping from 28g, give an inch and they will take the country mile or try and compromise and be seen to be a walkover which could hurt in the future re steel.

 

tough one, but IMHO a voluntary reduction to 24g lead on environmental grounds could well stave off a compulsory switch to steel. As any politician knows, being seen to be doing something about a problem is far better than actually doing anything about it

 

Fuzrat

[fuzrat]

Just did a few quick sums,

 

Taking Four counties as a benchmark they shoot 3 out of every 4 weeks, 50 open, 50 open then 70 reg. thats 39 weeks a year they shoot and 170 shots per person per cycle. 2210 shots per person per year.

 

take an average of 100 shooters per shoot (probably on the low side) you have 221,000 shots fired per year @28 grams thats 6.188 tonnes of lead per year, @24 grams its 5.304 tonnes per year. Thats 884 kilos of lead per year not going into the ground.

 

thats just 1 ground and when you add in the pool shoot and as I suggested 100 shooters per day is probably low (they had 98 on a freezing cold 2nd of jan) its probably over a tonne saved per year.

 

food for thought

 

Fuzrat

[clayman]

just been reading through this thread is it steal in the (american)or iron as we call it as wemberley has said

 

I dont know the full development history, but no doubt some-one will be able to expand on this - how-ever, my understanding is that "Iron Shot" was first widely used in the US some years back but suffered from oxidization problems, causing "balling" when the iron started to degrade in an unfired shell and fused into lumps, and if left longer would degrade to nothing but iron oxide powder. Today, this has largely been cured because what is used is an iron alloy that is both harder than pure iron, and less likely to degrade. Further, the pellets can be treated with a microscopic sealant coating to stop oxidisation. The noted downside being that pure iron degrading into soil etc was pretty harmless, but the heavy metals in a steel alloy may have environmental affects that are worse than lead.

 

The US buddies still call their shot Iron Shot as thats what it was always known as - while Blighty side we call it Steel because thats what it is and we were not exposed to the old style "Iron" cartridges in the same way the State-side users were.

Edited January 23, 2011 by clayman

[Emmsy]

yep and what good is 5,000 tonnes of steel going to do. least lead is pretty inert.

[wymberley]

I dont know the full development history, but no doubt some-one will be able to expand on this - how-ever, my understanding is that "Iron Shot" was first widely used in the US some years back but suffered from oxidization problems, causing "balling" when the iron started to degrade in an unfired shell and fused into lumps, and if left longer would degrade to nothing but iron oxide powder. Today, this has largely been cured because what is used is an iron alloy that is both harder than pure iron, and less likely to degrade. Further, the pellets can be treated with a microscopic sealant coating to stop oxidisation. The noted downside being that pure iron degrading into soil etc was pretty harmless, but the heavy metals in a steel alloy may have environmental affects that are worse than lead.

 

The US buddies still call their shot Iron Shot as thats what it was always known as - while Blighty side we call it Steel because thats what it is and we were not exposed to the old style "Iron" cartridges in the same way the State-side users were.

 

As said, I am happy to stand corrected. However, Clayman's opening words are not particularly convincing. Whatever we call it is not particularly critical.

What is, is what the material actually is. Steel is a material where various amounts of carbon are added to iron, (plus any other material necessary to achieve the desired objective) to give it strength and hardness. Notwithstanding the presence of a cupped wad, a load of high carbon steel whizzing down your barrel is not conducive to an appreciable barrel life expectancy.

 

Some would have it that before much longer we will be using a lot more of this material (as opposed to the alternatives on cost grounds) so perhaps it may be advantageous to find out what it actually is (I suspect iron, refined to overcome the problems Clayman detailed) so that we can make a decision whether or not to use it and/or select an alternative.

 

Yep, this is the Clay Pigeon forum but the topic is just as important, if not more so, to the live quarry chappies. Sitting a few feet away from David BASC is someone who knows. Perhaps David could pick up on this and kindly ask JH for his opinion.

 

Cheers

[clayman]

JH and I were both at the Lead Trade Industry meeting a few years back at the NSRA where this concept of the heavy metals in iron pellets degrading into the environment in a single annual cycle was brought forward as a reason why "steel" shot could have less easily recognised and treated effects on humans and animals from the heavy metal contamination. If I recall correctly, the seminar was to reveal interim findings and it was expected the full report would be published in a year or two - a time which has elapsed - so JH may now have the full conclusions that report was developing, and it would be interesting to be updated on them.

Edited January 24, 2011 by clayman

[Salop Matt]

Now am not am not the brightest spark in th the box and I dont profess to be either. But what I think we can all agree on is what matters most for results is where you put the shot.... This comes over what shot your using what volume your using it and what speed its doing.

 

I could shoot 28 + gram anything at clays and I know that a friend of mine will still always mop the floor with me using a .410 with 9 - 18gram of shot.

 

I dont shoot competitivly just for fun and enjoyment ! So with prices going up I will happily try different loads and different shot types and make my own decissions . I suspect that any likely changes would be to:

24Gram of lead.