Optimum loads/shot sizes.

[chacotawas]

I'm getting back to shooting after a VERY long lay-off. So I'm as good as a beginner. I've been reading as widely as I can, and I particularly value a few books I've acquired by the well-known and highly- esteemed wildfowler Eric Begbie ( I've never met the man though he's a near neighbour in Central Scotland). In his "Modern Wildfowling" he presents a table which shows how effective different combinations of load and shot size are in achieving clean kills (of geese)at the range of 50 yards. It turns out that it's not 53gms of ball bearings after all! I was surprised to read that the five most effective combinations were as follows:

32gms of No.3.
36gms of No.3.
42gms of No.3.
45gms of No.1.
53gm of No.1.( at 53 yds- so this is, by only a small margin, the most effective combination).

Some other, less effective combinations, including their effective range are:

36gm of No.1; effective range only 42yds.

36gm of BB; effective range only 35yds.

53gm of BB; effective range only 43yds.

 

(It would seem that for duck the optimum load would be 32gms. of No. 5 or 6 shot).

 

Effectiveness was against geese using full choke (though choke was an insignificant factor). Effectiveness, he says, is a function of two factors: pattern density and pellet striking energy. Most of the less effective combinations fail on pattern density.

 

From this, and from information gleaned elsewhere, I'm going to use the above-noted combinations for ducks and geese. For decoyed pigeons I'm going to use 28 gms of no 7 or 7.5. For walked-up pigeons, pigeon roost, and pheasants I propose to use 32gm of no.6 shot. All of this will be with 2.3/4" shells with an Improved Cylinder choking (5-thou. constriction) in my old Remington Express Super Magnum( 3.1/2 chamber!!).

 

I offer this stuff as a rookie for consideration by those who know from practical experience.

 

I'd be very interested to hear your observations on this. Maybe I'm missing some obvious point. (I hope Mr Begbie doesn't mind me quoting from his book which, by the way, I heartily recommend.)

[Big Mat]

Having just checked my copy to make sure about what i'm saying. The data he puts forwards refers to the use of lead shot, which as well all know is banned for use on the foreshore. So unfortunally this data is only of use to people shooting geese inland in scotland.

 

Now is someone compiled a big table like this for all the different non toxics it'd be very interesting!

[edenman]

You might find that the info you have refers to lead shot. Non toxic on the foreshore is a whole different ball game.

Having just checked my copy to make sure about what i'm saying. The data he puts forwards refers to the use of lead shot, which as well all know is banned for use on the foreshore. So unfortunally this data is only of use to people shooting geese inland in scotland.

 

Now is someone compiled a big table like this for all the different non toxics it'd be very interesting!

Beat me too it

[chacotawas]

Big Mat, I forgot about that! Of course, you're right. As it happens, however, my shooting would be inland fields so I think I'm right in saying that'd be OK- so far- in Scotland.

 

edenman, You're right, it does refer to lead shot. How safe, I wonder, is the assumption that the general principal of effectiveness depending on some kind of balance between load and shot size would also apply to non-toxic ammunition. I guess it would, though no doubt the optimum combinations would be very different. I wonder if appropriate tests have been or will be carried out.

[wymberley]

 

 

Now is someone compiled a big table like this for all the different non toxics it'd be very interesting!

That may well not be necessary. If you ignore the occasional oddball offering such as tin, there are in the main three other contenders: bismuth, tungsten matrix and hevi-shot. The latter is more dense than lead and tungsten comes pretty close, so to all intents and purposes (with perhaps a little caution with the tungsten) these can be considered to perform as lead with regard to energy. The former, bismuth, is kind of smack bang between steel and lead. As lead is well documented, it just needs something produced as a field standard for steel and once this is available and then when these two (lead and steel) are viewed together the characteristics of the bismuth can be readily identified by selecting the average of the two. However, should this be deemed too rough and ready, it would not be difficult to produce something dedicated to just that material.

 

For some unknown reason our shooting organisations have failed us miserably in this respect but hopefully no doubt some bright sparks will come up with something in the near future.