shotgun weight

[Hamster]

What figure would you propose to offer instead of 96 as a guide to the ratio between gun and shot load for your preferred use, or do you disagree with the concept of a relationship between a gun’s weight and the shot payload ?

 

 

I actually think having a ratio is a very neat concept but it needs to be applied to Field, Clay and Game guns differently, as you say a rough shooter will fire one or two shots every half hour so would think a 7 lbs gun would be appropriate. We need to remember light guns don't just kick more but are also less easily controlled, a normal adult should be able to cope with carrying the mentioned weight and the same gun could at a push cope with a Sunday mornings 50 bird straw baler.

 

Clay shooters have long since realised it takes a minimum of 8 lbs to cope with regular competition use, even Trap shooters who typically fire a single shot every few minutes prefer guns weighting as much as 9 lbs or more owing as much to shootability as recoil absorption.

 

I personally would advocate 120 as being a good yardstick for an all rounder and even then it of course needs to fit well and have a good recoil pad, 7-1/2 lbs gun in other words.

[Penelope]

I used to shoot my English boxlock SxS weighing 6 1/4lb for competitive clays in the annual two day Barclays Bank National with 1oz (28g) loads to good effect, and a weekly Sunday morning 100 bird straw baler.

[wymberley]

One could have a look at Burrard - The Modern Shotgun, Vol 2, The Cartridge, Chapter 1X, Recoil. To save you the trouble, he uses the recoil velocity as a method of judging what is and what is not acceptable and gives a figure of 16 ft/sec as an historically empirical acceptable figure. If we take as an example a 11/16oz load - 464 grains - with an MV of 1300 ft/sec and add to it the remaining ejecta we now have 535 grains which needs converting into pounds which is then multiplied by the velocity which for ease we'll call 100. If you now divide these 100 units of momentum by the weight of the gun - ours is 61/2lbs then the recoil velocity is 15.4 ft/sec - within the 16 limit. 61/4lbs gives us that figure. Based upon Mr Greener's theory with the 11/16oz load the gun should weigh 6lbs 6oz. Consequently, the empirical knowledge gained after Mr greener's statement shows that if anything he erred on the side of caution.

 

The moral is, don't be too quick to criticise our predecessors who were providing information relevant to the time it was given.

[mudpatten]

For probably the first time, I agree wholeheartedly with Wymberley.

 

The formula also works for the weight of punt guns.

 

As an aside, I can`t remember the exact context if which Greener wrote this as I don`t have a copy of his book to hand, however, and as a rule of thumb, this formula also works with muzzle loading naval cannon and I have an idea that Greener may not have actually devised it.

 

I seem to recal that it has been in common usage for some time and actually predates Greener by some good few years.

[Hamster]

 

The moral is, don't be too quick to criticise our predecessors who were providing information relevant to the time it was given.

 

If we accept all that lay before without questioning it where does new knowledge come from ? As I keep saying there are NO 6 lbs 2 oz guns designed to fire 28g loads so he was wrong. I know there is a strong desire to pretend everything people like Gough Thomas or Greener said was gospel but it just isn't the case, nothing personal against older writers but we have the advantage of being able to evaluate and test things in a way they could only have dreamed of.

 

Gough Thomas maintained that the assertion that the sighting plane of O/U guns were more conducive to accurate shooting compared to that of S/S guns holds no truth, how wrong he was too.

 

They also used to believe IC choke delivered enough density to kill 40 yard pheasants consistently, plausible when viewing patterns with a pheasant drawn across it, but again wrong in practice.

[islandgun]

 

I actually think having a ratio is a very neat concept but it needs to be applied to Field, Clay and Game guns differently, as you say a rough shooter will fire one or two shots every half hour so would think a 7 lbs gun would be appropriate. We need to remember light guns don't just kick more but are also less easily controlled, a normal adult should be able to cope with carrying the mentioned weight and the same gun could at a push cope with a Sunday mornings 50 bird straw baler.

 

Clay shooters have long since realised it takes a minimum of 8 lbs to cope with regular competition use, even Trap shooters who typically fire a single shot every few minutes prefer guns weighting as much as 9 lbs or more owing as much to shootability as recoil absorption.

 

I personally would advocate 120 as being a good yardstick for an all rounder and even then it of course needs to fit well and have a good recoil pad, 7-1/2 lbs gun in other words.

There's some serious calculations going on here which is proving hard for me to grasp, however given your 120-1 yardstick then a suitable weight gun for a 2oz load would be 15lb (i could easily be wrong), i quite like the Greener ratio as that makes my 91/4 lb 10 bore suited to to a load of about 11/2 oz which i do occasionally load

[wymberley]

For probably the first time, I agree wholeheartedly with Wymberley.

 

 

After almost 5 years and 5109 posts, it's good to know that I finally got one right.

[Hamster]

There's some serious calculations going on here which is proving hard for me to grasp, however given your 120-1 yardstick then a suitable weight gun for a 2oz load would be 15lb (i could easily be wrong), i quite like the Greener ratio as that makes my 91/4 lb 10 bore suited to to a load of about 11/2 oz which i do occasionally load

 

I wouldn't have thought the ratio could just simply be multiplied ad infinitum since 2 oz loads are of course very specialised, I'm mainly referring to 12 gauge (or smaller) firing loads between 21g - 36g. We need to remember that shot velocity has a great part to play here and it's well known that manufacturers subtly reduce velocity of their shells as they reach above and beyond 34g.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Hamster

[kent]

I thought that perhaps this might be of some interest to someone, i recently read that W W Greener noted that for a shotgun to last and be comfortable it should weigh no less than 96 times heavier than the weight of shot fired through it, Which makes for a charge of an ounce the gun should weigh 6lb, 2oz 12lb, i wondered how this stacked up with modern 3/12 inch 12 bores.

 

Generally they are GAS op autos, so that throws the maths some. We are all effected by recoil to a greater or lesser amount though and it much better to shoot a heavy double ten than a super mag 12 even in an auto IMO they punch and torque, shooting big two oz plus lead loads from the 3 1/2" 12 is well - not pleasant at times! if you consider the recoil even subconsciously it will effect your shooting and if you consider it more and more you could create real issues for yourself as regards your hit rate.

[islandgun]

 

, shooting big two oz plus lead loads from the 3 1/2" 12 is well - not pleasant at times! if you consider the recoil even subconsciously it will effect your shooting and if you consider it more and more you could create real issues for yourself as regards your hit rate.

Completely agree, this was the reason for me to start reloading initially, as the only available factory loads are 21/4 oz, however this excuse is no longer valid so i will have to find something else to blame for my poor hit rate. Fit !

[JohnfromUK]

 

If we accept all that lay before without questioning it where does new knowledge come from ? As I keep saying there are NO 6 lbs 2 oz guns designed to fire 28g loads so he was wrong. I know there is a strong desire to pretend everything people like Gough Thomas or Greener said was gospel but it just isn't the case, nothing personal against older writers but we have the advantage of being able to evaluate and test things in a way they could only have dreamed of.

 

Gough Thomas maintained that the assertion that the sighting plane of O/U guns were more conducive to accurate shooting compared to that of S/S guns holds no truth, how wrong he was too.

 

They also used to believe IC choke delivered enough density to kill 40 yard pheasants consistently, plausible when viewing patterns with a pheasant drawn across it, but again wrong in practice.

There are in fact PLENTY of 6 to 6 1/4 lb guns designed to shoot 1 oz, but they are mostly 20 bores (where a 1 oz load is a standard heavier load equivalent to perhaps 1 1/8 oz in a 12). I don't own (and have never owned a twenty, but they are of course a very popular size where a lower weight is desired (ladies and juniors particularly.

 

Sighting planes and chokes are another subject!

 

I happen to find (and I have a cabinet full of guns which I use loosely according to the 96:1 rule) that 96:1 is about right in that I find my 6 3/4 lb s/ss and my 7 1/2 lb o/us both work well for me within those limits (i.e. 96:1 or higher). I do have an 8 lb high grade o/u, but find that it is too heavy for many things I do, and I don't find its weight an advantage under any circumstances I can think of.

 

As for the 'shootability', I find that the light quick 'pointability' of a gun 6 1/2 to 7 lbs is more of an advantage than the 'steadiness' of the heavier gun. That may be just me, but I shoot sporting clays and game.

 

I have no experience of heavy wildfowling loads - but I can't see that a 15 lb 12 bore gun would be very practical. Then again, guess that the very heavy loads might be more typical of 10 or 8 bore sizes.

[wymberley]

 

 

 

They also used to believe IC choke delivered enough density to kill 40 yard pheasants consistently, plausible when viewing patterns with a pheasant drawn across it, but again wrong in practice.

Again this is taken out of context. It relates to an era in which driven shooting prevailed which meant the targets were presented in 'plan view' in an age where guns were regulated to shoot the owners' preferred cartridge which was often the gunmakers' own brand and to the owners preferred choice of choke. It has been known since 1888 (Journee - Tir Des Fusils de Chasse) that shotgun patterns conform to the Gaussian Law of distribution which works in the shooters' favour. Unfortunately, a much more recent discovery is that a shotgun pattern also conforms to the Theory of Probability which works against the shooter.

 

Because of Gauss, it is only at TC that the pattern density is homogeneous throughout the full 30" proverbial circle and as the choke tightens up so the shot is concentrated towards the middle - central thickening - which means that hardly, if ever, the effective pattern density exceeds a full 25" in diameter.

 

In order to overcome the probability factor - if you need 3 pellet strikes and if a degree of choke is selected to achieve this, it will only be successful 58% of the time. What is required is a level of choke that achieves this to a sportsmanlike level and an average of 6 will achieve this.

 

Looking at the smaller hen bird, the effective vital area of a pheasant is some 31 square inches. This gives us 10 birds if the 20" that we can be sure of giving a sufficient density. Considering the traditional 11/16oz of No 6 shot, Gauss tells us that 26.5% of the load will be placed in the 20" using IC which equates to some 76 pellets. Therefore, it will be seen that assuming the energy is sufficient, for a well regulated gun placing the shot in the right place at 40 yards a clean kill is on the cards.

 

In today's mass produced market when hardly anyone will turn to the pattern plate to see what is actually happening; yep, I agree that this is now wrong in practice but it was correct for the prevailing conditions when it was initially muted.

[Hamster]

There are in fact PLENTY of 6 to 6 1/4 lb guns designed to shoot 1 oz, but they are mostly 20 bores (where a 1 oz load is a standard heavier load equivalent to perhaps 1 1/8 oz in a 12). I don't own (and have never owned a twenty, but they are of course a very popular size where a lower weight is desired (ladies and juniors particularly.

 

 

We will again have to agree to disagree, the 20 gauge is much more commonly thought of as designed to handle 21-24 gram loads, anything more would be considered a heavy load. You can get 28 gram loads for the 28 gauge but that too is designed primarily for 19-21 gram loads.

[Hamster]

Again this is taken out of context. It relates to an era in which driven shooting prevailed which meant the targets were presented in 'plan view' in an age where guns were regulated to shoot the owners' preferred cartridge which was often the gunmakers' own brand and to the owners preferred choice of choke. It has been known since 1888 (Journee - Tir Des Fusils de Chasse) that shotgun patterns conform to the Gaussian Law of distribution which works in the shooters' favour. Unfortunately, a much more recent discovery is that a shotgun pattern also conforms to the Theory of Probability which works against the shooter.

 

Because of Gauss, it is only at TC that the pattern density is homogeneous throughout the full 30" proverbial circle and as the choke tightens up so the shot is concentrated towards the middle - central thickening - which means that hardly, if ever, the effective pattern density exceeds a full 25" in diameter.

 

In order to overcome the probability factor - if you need 3 pellet strikes and if a degree of choke is selected to achieve this, it will only be successful 58% of the time. What is required is a level of choke that achieves this to a sportsmanlike level and an average of 6 will achieve this.

 

Looking at the smaller hen bird, the effective vital area of a pheasant is some 31 square inches. This gives us 10 birds if the 20" that we can be sure of giving a sufficient density. Considering the traditional 11/16oz of No 6 shot, Gauss tells us that 26.5% of the load will be placed in the 20" using IC which equates to some 76 pellets. Therefore, it will be seen that assuming the energy is sufficient, for a well regulated gun placing the shot in the right place at 40 yards a clean kill is on the cards.

 

In today's mass produced market when hardly anyone will turn to the pattern plate to see what is actually happening; yep, I agree that this is now wrong in practice but it was correct for the prevailing conditions when it was initially muted.

 

If we accept Gaussian Law which I do, regulating (sorry just can't resist a bit of sarcasm) is soon debunked as a bit of a fairy tale. I know there are legions of fans out there who think the ole makers could whisper magic into barrels and chokes but in real life you and I can replicate it with other factors such as merely using a different cartridge/shot size/pellet hardness/etc/etc.

[CaptainBeaky]

Ah, "draw", of course - my brain is dieing. As an aside, I've just seen/read something - it may have been an archaeology programme - that suggests because of the forces required to use the bow, the archers' body could well have developed into what we would probably call, 'disfigured'. Would that be correct?

Yes, it would - have a look on line at the archer's skeleton from the Mary Rose - his shoulders and arms show signs of distortion caused by the muscle development necessary to draw the monster bows.

The reconstruction of his appearance also shows this.

 

Back on the main subject: we look at and reevaluate what others have done and said previously, in the light of new information - that is now knowledge progresses.

To blindly accept what has gone before is stagnation. That still doesn't necessarily make the "knowledge of the ancients" wrong, mind you

[CaptainBeaky]

Ah, "draw", of course - my brain is dieing. As an aside, I've just seen/read something - it may have been an archaeology programme - that suggests because of the forces required to use the bow, the archers' body could well have developed into what we would probably call, 'disfigured'. Would that be correct?

Yes, it would - have a look on line at the archer's skeleton from the Mary Rose - his shoulders and arms show signs of distortion caused by the muscle development necessary to draw the monster bows.

The reconstruction of his appearance also shows this.

 

Back on the main subject: we look at and reevaluate what others have done and said previously, in the light of new information - that is now knowledge progresses.

To blindly accept what has gone before is stagnation. That still doesn't necessarily make the "knowledge of the ancients" wrong, mind you

[wymberley]

Yes, it would - have a look on line at the archer's skeleton from the Mary Rose - his shoulders and arms show signs of distortion caused by the muscle development necessary to draw the monster bows.

The reconstruction of his appearance also shows this.

 

Back on the main subject: we look at and reevaluate what others have done and said previously, in the light of new information - that is now knowledge progresses.

To blindly accept what has gone before is stagnation. That still doesn't necessarily make the "knowledge of the ancients" wrong, mind you

Many thanks for both your time and the information.

[wymberley]

 

If we accept Gaussian Law which I do, regulating (sorry just can't resist a bit of sarcasm) is soon debunked as a bit of a fairy tale. I know there are legions of fans out there who think the ole makers could whisper magic into barrels and chokes but in real life you and I can replicate it with other factors such as merely using a different cartridge/shot size/pellet hardness/etc/etc.

Yep, I didn't mean the pellets were placed like the Grenadier guards on the Queen's birthday parade but regulated to the 50%. Yep, again, with the choice now available to us it's simple to alter a fixed choke to whatever you want it to be within reason. Back then, of course, the choice was pretty much Hobson's.

[JohnfromUK]

 

We will again have to agree to disagree, the 20 gauge is much more commonly thought of as designed to handle 21-24 gram loads, anything more would be considered a heavy load. You can get 28 gram loads for the 28 gauge but that too is designed primarily for 19-21 gram loads.

For once .... I agree! 21 - 24 g loads are better suited and more used in 20 bore guns than 28 grammes. But 1 oz in 20 bore is a load (albeit heavy) that is both widely available and quite commonly used - and I expect the gun/load ratio would be pretty near 96:1

[Westley]

e name="Hamster" post="2434659" timestamp="1391680154"]

So you agree such a gun would by definition have above average recoil ! A gun that is light to carry and is fired infrequently is today and no doubt back then, in such a niche area of use that that itself makes a mockery of even coming up with a 96-1 formula. Why not go the whole hog and come up with a Hamster Formula that says a camping gun intended as last resort bear defence or starvation prevention should weight no more than 5.5 lbs ? I mean who could argue with that ?

 

The point is nobody even makes a so called General Purpose (whatever that is) 12 gauge that weights 6 lbs 2 oz because it would smack the user regardless of fit. Fit and recoil are two entirely different subjects incidentally. Yes I agree it is a contributory factor which will dial out many a recoil related problem but it is no magical cure for insufficient weight. The most hideously poor fitting gun imaginable will have very acceptable recoil characteristics if it weighted 30 lbs for instance, likewise a gun fitted by the worlds most knowledgeable fitter to the nth degree will be useless if it weighted 5 lbs.

 

 

 

Perhaps I can point out that for game shooting I am using a 12 bore side by side English boxlock which tips the scales at 6lbs. 2ozs. I normally use 1ozs (28gram) loads for most of my driven game shooting. I do move up to 1 1/16 ozs (30 gram) loads later in the season. If I shoot at higher birds I move up to 1 1/8ozs (32 grams) I do not feel any great recoil, even with the 32 gram. The gun was fitted by the makers, to fit me. Bear in mind that even on a 200 bird driven day for 8 guns, I am unlikely to fire more than 75 cartridges in the day. Your point about a 6lbs. 2ozs. gun not even being made today is not correct either. I have just sold a Franchi Falconet 12 bore o/u gun which weighed 6lbs 3ozs, The young lady that is using that gun is shooting 21 and 24 gram cartridges to good effect and recoil is no issue. Remember when Greener was in his heyday paper cased felt wads where the norm and the emphasis was not on speed, but patterns. The powders used were a lot slower than the modern stuff. Read some of the old English gun books, they will enlighten you with regards to gun weights, chokes and patterns. The usual weight for an English boxlock was between 6 1/4 and 6 1/2lbs. The sidelock was usually around 1/2lbs heavier, due to more metal around the action. Most single barrel 12 bores around the time weighed from 5lbs. upwards. Greeners own single 12, the GP was a touch heavier, due to it's intended use as a close range combat weapon.

What weight are the Browning and Beretta 12 bore Ultralights

Edited February 6, 2014 by Westley

[Westley]

With regards to the comments about 20 bore guns and cartridge load. I have a 20 bore O/U which weighs 6lbs. 3ozs. I have used 28 gram cartridges through this gun to good effect and no recoil issues. However for normal shooting lessons I would use 21grams. Last month I was teaching a Lady on a game shoot, she was using a 20 bore of Italian make. The gun weighed in at around 7 1/4lbs. and was proving a bit of a handfull for her. When I looked in her cartridge bag, she was using 30 gram Black Golds. After the first drive I switched her gun and cartridges for my gun. Her kill to cartridge rate dropped from 10 to 1 down to 5 to 1 Why buy such a heavy 20 and use a 12 bore load through it. Transpires her Husband had bought the gun for her to use, but to be uised by him 'on the odd occasion'