Cartridge velocities

[Wildfowler12]

Evening all, I've been looking at a few different cartridges lately as I'm interested in learning about home loading (non-tox). I understand that speed kills as far as steel is concerned, that a greater velocity (within reason) means greater penetration. AND that a larger shot size will carry energy for longer.

 

With that in mind, how does this compare when different shot sizes are considered? If you had 2 steel loads of the same weight, one is shot size 3 @ 1300fps, the other is size 4 @ 1450fps. What load is likely to carry the most energy or penetrate further? Is size more important than speed? (As far as penetration is concerned)

 

I know there's a few of you into home loading so I'm hoping you might be able to shed some light. Cheers

Edited September 28, 2012 by Wildfowler12

[Wildfowler12]

Maybe this needs to be in the cartridges section... Can it be moved please Mods? Thanks

[anser2]

I think its a balance between shot size maintaining a good pattern and better penetration from faster pellets and weight of the load.

I find the combination of no 3 in a 1 1\4 oz load at 1350 fps , ie gamebre mammoth works well for most duck up to 40 yards, perhaps a bit further with medium size duck , ie wigeon. But for high mallard no 2 in a 3.5 inch case load of 1 3\8 oz ar 1450 or 1500fps in a full choke also is a good load , ie Remmington 3.5 inch loads. The increased payload in the remmington allows you to use a larger pellet with better knock down capabilities up to 50 yards.

 

One of the advantages of steel in 3 and 3.5 inch loads is that in say no 3 or 2 the pellets loses its veloicity at the same point as the patten breaks down. The two are well balanced. Unlike lead where the pellet will often keep its veloicity way beyond the point where the pattern has become too open. I would guess we all have fluked a 60 yard goose while using big lead shot in the past when an odd stray pellet has doen its job , though on most shots the bird mearly goes away wounded. Well with steel that very unlikely with both pattern and Pellet veloicity of the pellet in balance.

 

Note , only use steel through a full afterchoke made for the job. In normal chokes not not use anything tighter than 1\2 choke.

[wymberley]

I think its a balance between shot size maintaining a good pattern and better penetration from faster pellets and weight of the load.

I find the combination of no 3 in a 1 1\4 oz load at 1350 fps , ie gamebre mammoth works well for most duck up to 40 yards, perhaps a bit further with medium size duck , ie wigeon. But for high mallard no 2 in a 3.5 inch case load of 1 3\8 oz ar 1450 or 1500fps in a full choke also is a good load , ie Remmington 3.5 inch loads. The increased payload in the remmington allows you to use a larger pellet with better knock down capabilities up to 50 yards.

 

One of the advantages of steel in 3 and 3.5 inch loads is that in say no 3 or 2 the pellets loses its veloicity at the same point as the patten breaks down. The two are well balanced. Unlike lead where the pellet will often keep its veloicity way beyond the point where the pattern has become too open. I would guess we all have fluked a 60 yard goose while using big lead shot in the past when an odd stray pellet has doen its job , though on most shots the bird mearly goes away wounded. Well with steel that very unlikely with both pattern and Pellet veloicity of the pellet in balance.

 

Note , only use steel through a full afterchoke made for the job. In normal chokes not not use anything tighter than 1\2 choke.

 

Why is it not possible to match the velocity/pattern failure range with lead?

[wymberley]

Until you've got what turns out to be your favourite loads for any given species sorted out (no doubt with the help of some of the experienced loaders on PW), a good point to remember is that if two pellets have the same energy, the one with the smaller diameter will be more lethally effective. This can be shown from an understanding of energy density which is a more accurate indicator of penetrative potential and is defined as the energy per pellet divided by its cross sectional area (acknowledge RA Giblin and DJ Compton). As this is a constant, it can be used to compare the performance of differing pellet materials.

[Wildfowler12]

I've got my favourite loads, gamebore super steel 3s for duck and 3 1/2' mammoth steel BBs for geese. I asked because when studying the boxes of some leftover cartridge from previous seasons, I came across some steel 4s with 1425fps velocity, and wondered how they would compare balistically to the super steel 3s (1310fps) I currently use. ie what is likely to do more damage/penetrate further of the two? Cheers for the replies.

[wymberley]

I've got my favourite loads, gamebore super steel 3s for duck and 3 1/2' mammoth steel BBs for geese. I asked because when studying the boxes of some leftover cartridge from previous seasons, I came across some steel 4s with 1425fps velocity, and wondered how they would compare balistically to the super steel 3s (1310fps) I currently use. ie what is likely to do more damage/penetrate further of the two? Cheers for the replies.

 

Hi,

 

Cross purposes I think as my answer was referring to your interest in loading.

 

To answer your specific question : at 30yds the 3s will be 3ft/sec faster and have an extra 0.4 ft/lbs of energy; at 40 it'll be plus 9 and also 0.4 and at 50 it'll be plus 13 and 0.3.

 

It'll be obvious that these figures are a computor prediction (had great fun working out the BC of the pellets [boredom relieving at best[) but I think you'll find they're not a mile off.

[kent]

Evening all, I've been looking at a few different cartridges lately as I'm interested in learning about home loading (non-tox). I understand that speed kills as far as steel is concerned, that a greater velocity (within reason) means greater penetration. AND that a larger shot size will carry energy for longer.

 

With that in mind, how does this compare when different shot sizes are considered? If you had 2 steel loads of the same weight, one is shot size 3 @ 1300fps, the other is size 4 @ 1450fps. What load is likely to carry the most energy or penetrate further? Is size more important than speed? (As far as penetration is concerned)

 

I know there's a few of you into home loading so I'm hoping you might be able to shed some light. Cheers

 

Speed is nothing without a good even pattern.

[Wildfowler12]

To answer your specific question : at 30yds the 3s will be 3ft/sec faster and have an extra 0.4 ft/lbs of energy; at 40 it'll be plus 9 and also 0.4 and at 50 it'll be plus 13 and 0.3.

 

It'll be obvious that these figures are a computor prediction (had great fun working out the BC of the pellets [boredom relieving at best[) but I think you'll find they're not a mile off.

Thanks for the detailed response

[kent]

Until you've got what turns out to be your favourite loads for any given species sorted out (no doubt with the help of some of the experienced loaders on PW), a good point to remember is that if two pellets have the same energy, the one with the smaller diameter will be more lethally effective. This can be shown from an understanding of energy density which is a more accurate indicator of penetrative potential and is defined as the energy per pellet divided by its cross sectional area (acknowledge RA Giblin and DJ Compton). As this is a constant, it can be used to compare the performance of differing pellet materials.

 

Debatable though. example if your chest cavity is penetrated by a needle you will probebly survive, if its a scaffold pole your brown bread (faster bleed-out more hemourage). Extreame perhaps but the same is seen in the field day in day out. This all depends on if the said energy is enough to give adequate penetation of course (shooting at the correct range ensures this)

[wymberley]

Debatable though. example if your chest cavity is penetrated by a needle you will probebly survive, if its a scaffold pole your brown bread (faster bleed-out more hemourage). Extreame perhaps but the same is seen in the field day in day out. This all depends on if the said energy is enough to give adequate penetation of course (shooting at the correct range ensures this)

 

Naturally it's debatable otherwise the phrase, " indicator of penetrative potential" (note 'potential) would not have been used. Having said that, when common sense is applied, the assumption that the necessary level of energy is taken as a given.

[anser2]

[sub]I suspect we must be wary of a computer perdiction or even some lab tests and what happens in the field. When shooting on the marsh their are so many more variables than when testing in a lab , wind , rain , temperature , angle of shot and direction of the bird and thats without taking into account the variations in the pattern produced by an individual gun. I have used steel shells that worked ok ( not brilliant ) in normal temperatures , but were usless in sub zero temperatures ( the old Lydale 32 gr load ) with sometimes the shell going off with a slow pop rather than a bang. A few did not even clear the wad from the barrel. I experimented a lot with steel in the field and am now very happy that the loads quoted in my first post work for me. and most of my friends seem to agree. Though all wildfowlers never did agree as what was the best shell back in the lead days let alone today.

 

As why dosent lead give similar balanced loads , well they can in theory , but we are not allowed to use them for wildfowling today . But somehow they never quite worked in the field.Few serious wildfowlers would consider using anything smaller than no 3 pellets for geese , but a pellet of no 3 should according to the Eley diary should be effective to 70 yards , but the patten gves out and I think that is way beoynd sporting range to shoot geese. Few if any serious wildfowlers used lead no 4 for coastal geese , for a simple reason 3s or larger shot got better results.

 

Balance the load , pellet size , choke and speed and steel does the job within a sensible range just as well as lead and steel has the advantage of shooting a much tighter patten than lead. But what steel will not do is fluke down birds beyond the effective pellet size \ patten range in the way lead used to.

 

 

And perhaps i should add until a few years ago I was someone who hated steel for wildfowling. But what it will not do is fluke birds down beyond the sensible range in the way lead used to. To shoot steel to its best we need to forget about lead and adopt a very different mind set of pellet size , veloicity and choke\after choke than we used back in the lead days.

Edited September 30, 2012 by anser2