Duel load shotgun cartridges

[motty]

Ok so why wouldn't you bother with duplex lead loads?

Thank for using the correct term, I use that now.

Just not worth the hassle for standard loads. From what you've described I would just use 5s or 6s, not both.

[Daveo26]

Yeah your probably right, it was just a thought.

Some interesting replies on the subject

[HDAV]

Or use 5.5's?

[matone]

My mates got some of the baikal carts we tried at few at clays once..... Some went boooom some went pop.

I don't think they would be my first choice for game shooting.

They`d defo be my last choice for anything !

[Guest cookoff013]

Duplexing is a waste of time. There is just no point.

I mean come on.

 

It can be done but if you go smaller it reduces penetration, go too large the pattern gets thin.

 

Stick to one type. All the shot gets there at the same time.

[casts_by_fly]

It has been tried in the states a few times throughout the years because on the surface it sounds like a great idea. "I can shoot further with the bigger shot but still have pattern density with the smaller stuff". From a marketing standpoint it sounds great until you think about it a bit.

 

The latest iteration was with Turkey loads. For a turkey load, you want a high density of shot that will put at least 5-7 pellets in the CNS of a turkey at 40-60 yards. That means a whole lot of shot for high density, but at the same time when you start to get to 60 yards you think that pellet energy is going to be a problem. So Winchester brought out their duplex loads with size 4/6 (US size, so 3/5 british). The problem is that when you actually need the bigger shot (i.e. when the pellet energy of the smaller stuff isn't sufficient) then you don't have enough pattern density of the bigger shot. So you don't get the full benefit of having big shot in the first place. In that case you'd be better off with a full load of 4's to ensure the density you need at that range. Incidentally, the best lead loads for turkey at distance are the 2 oz 5's (or similar weight). Hevi-shot rates better yet even, but shooting 2 oz of hevi shot isn't a pleasant experience (on your wallet).

 

The logic applies for other game as well. If you need the energy of the bigger shot in the first place, then go with the bigger shot. Erring to the side of using 1 shot size too big isn't the worst thing in the world and most people would probably benefit from a little bigger shot.

 

thanks,

rick

[robbiep]

The only type of duplex load I've ever even considered doing was for a 410. SSG/SG, with No. 8 or 9 shot to act as a space filler, for use on fox.

 

Not made any of them as yet, but got all the components, so that may well change this winter.

[Floating Chamber]

I have posted on this subject in the past.

In the early 1990s, Lyalvale Express produced 'DuoShot' 12ga and 20ga cartridges for export to the U.S.

The company they loaded them for was called Orvis.

 

The 12ga version was in 70mm clear case and contained 32 grams of 8 and 9 shot. (60:40 ratio by weight)

 

The BSN packer was set up with two shot feeds, placing one size on top of the other. ( no, the shot was not mixed!)

 

I still have some in my collection together with a 25 carton. There must be a pic somewhere in PW archives.

[Guest cookoff013]

The only type of duplex load I've ever even considered doing was for a 410. SSG/SG, with No. 8 or 9 shot to act as a space filler, for use on fox.

 

Not made any of them as yet, but got all the components, so that may well change this winter.

 

?

that probably would be the biggest waste of time !

[anser2]

As a whole I agree with most in this post in that there is little point in loading a shell with two shot sizes , but-

 

When Hevi-shot cartridges first came on the market the pellets came in a number of sizes and shapes with some pellets having small nodules on them. A shell marked as number 4 could have anything between number 6 and number 1 pellets in the load and yet they were a brilliant cartridge. As one wildfowling mate said " he had not seen a duck that had been out of range yet". Of course thats a bit over the top , but there was no getting away from the fact that the 1 1\4 oz in a 2 3\4 inch shell produced consistant kills at very good ranges. The makers got their act togeather and produced nice even pellets all on the same size , but the cartridges performance was noway near as good as the origional shell. True they did reduce the load by 2 gr and changed to a 3 inch case. It may have been due to the change in load ,but I found it a very inconsistant shell , giving some good kills , but also producing too many wounded birds or unexplaned misses. The later batch of Hevi-shot were a shadow of the early loads.

Edited November 10, 2014 by anser2

[robbiep]

 

?

that probably would be the biggest waste of time !

Quite possibly. But you don't know until you actually try. It might be highly effective.

 

I first read about this a few years ago, on the 410 resources website. The idea came from the USA (don't they all!), where they can get 410 '000' buckshot in Winchester shells. However, usually only 3 pieces of shot in a cartridge, so wouldn't be allowable unless FAC in the UK. However, it was found that, at 25 yards or so, out of a moderately tight choke, they got a group of 5-6 inches or so.

So, if you can up the number of shot a bit by dropping to SSG/SG/BB, and keep the range sensible, then you might just be able to keep a decent group. Also, use some No.8 or 9 shot to act as a filler, so you reduce the risk of shot balling due to compression of the column.

 

As said, it's a thought. If I do it, then it'll be done as safely as any other load development, and if I can get some numbers that I'm happy with, then I'd probably get it proofed at Birmingham, just for my own peace of mind. But having a 410 cartridge that can drop foxes at decent ranges is appealing.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Quite possibly. But you don't know until you actually try. It might be highly effective.

 

I first read about this a few years ago, on the 410 resources website. The idea came from the USA (don't they all!), where they can get 410 '000' buckshot in Winchester shells. However, usually only 3 pieces of shot in a cartridge, so wouldn't be allowable unless FAC in the UK. However, it was found that, at 25 yards or so, out of a moderately tight choke, they got a group of 5-6 inches or so.

So, if you can up the number of shot a bit by dropping to SSG/SG/BB, and keep the range sensible, then you might just be able to keep a decent group. Also, use some No.8 or 9 shot to act as a filler, so you reduce the risk of shot balling due to compression of the column.

 

As said, it's a thought. If I do it, then it'll be done as safely as any other load development, and if I can get some numbers that I'm happy with, then I'd probably get it proofed at Birmingham, just for my own peace of mind. But having a 410 cartridge that can drop foxes at decent ranges is appealing.

 

I think they have invented RIFLES for that task!

[robbiep]

 

I think they have invented RIFLES for that task!

 

Backstop, old chap. Backstop.

 

With a shotgun, you don't have to worry about what is a mile behind the fox that you're shooting, especially if you're at the bottom of a hill, and the fox is above you, going across the slope of the hill (ricochet with rifle is a real issue in a case like that, with a gentle slope behind the fox)

It can be incredibly difficult to get a suitable backstop for a safe shot with a rifle, especially when working hillsides. Most of my foxing is by shotgun - usually with a 12 bore, loaded with 42g of BB (Eley Alphamax). I've also dropped fox in the past at sub-12 yards with a 410 loaded with No. 6 shot, but that's about the absolute limit for range on that, as far as I'm concerned.

 

The 410 is a lot easier to carry around for the day, so having a decent-range 410 shell for fox has quite a bit of appeal. A couple of small shells in your pocket, lot less bulky than 12 bore cartridges too.

Remember, not all of us on here are just out shooting the land, or waiting in high seats for foxes to come within range, or squeaking them in to NV. Some of us are working the land too.

 

I have FAC for 22LR and 223, but my shooting for foxes with rifles is usually planned out. With a shotgun, it is spontaneous, being in the right place when the fox appears, and having the shotgun on the quad a few yards away.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Robbie

 

I too have shot many a fox with my shotguns!

 

Please note attached smiley!

[casts_by_fly]

 

Backstop, old chap. Backstop.

 

With a shotgun, you don't have to worry about what is a mile behind the fox that you're shooting, especially if you're at the bottom of a hill, and the fox is above you, going across the slope of the hill (ricochet with rifle is a real issue in a case like that, with a gentle slope behind the fox)

It can be incredibly difficult to get a suitable backstop for a safe shot with a rifle, especially when working hillsides. Most of my foxing is by shotgun - usually with a 12 bore, loaded with 42g of BB (Eley Alphamax). I've also dropped fox in the past at sub-12 yards with a 410 loaded with No. 6 shot, but that's about the absolute limit for range on that, as far as I'm concerned.

 

The 410 is a lot easier to carry around for the day, so having a decent-range 410 shell for fox has quite a bit of appeal. A couple of small shells in your pocket, lot less bulky than 12 bore cartridges too.

Remember, not all of us on here are just out shooting the land, or waiting in high seats for foxes to come within range, or squeaking them in to NV. Some of us are working the land too.

 

I have FAC for 22LR and 223, but my shooting for foxes with rifles is usually planned out. With a shotgun, it is spontaneous, being in the right place when the fox appears, and having the shotgun on the quad a few yards away.

 

If you're talking about 25 yards, I'd think a load of #2 lead through a full choke would be deadly on foxes at that range (and then some), even with only a 5/8 or 3/4 oz load. That would be my starting point anyway.

 

thanks,

rick

[theshootist]

I don't think having 5s and 6s in the same shell is going to make much difference at all, the pellets being close to the same size. Logically the two sizes of pellets starting at the same veloccity would follow two seperate trajectory paths leading to inconsistent patterns, but not to the extent that you're going to notice for most shooting. However, its your time and money and could be an interesting experiment. If you're reloading them and have the time to spend patterning to show us that they could be useful then crack on!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

So then, why stop at just two shot sizes together?

 

 

 

 

Let's suggest that you had a single large shot and then other sizes within the same charge, would it result in a usable pattern?

[Daveo26]

Like a .410 slug and 5 bits of lead dust?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Like a .410 slug and 5 bits of lead dust?

 

Unfortunately that would take the load in to FAC requirements!

Edited November 10, 2014 by TIGHTCHOKE

[pestcontrol1]

I have tried mixed shot sizes and there was no difference from same sized shot in pattern and killing

I tested #2 mixed with #6 lead

and #1 mixed with #5 in steel

 

The smaller steel just filled the pattern a little as it would with smaller shot but the bigger shot made it look sparse

[rws-89]

remington used to 4&6 mix dont know if they still do them

[Floating Chamber]

It is only in fairly recent times (150 years) that uniformly shaped shot has been used in factory loads. I have used mixed shot for over 50 years.

Factories need uniform shot for fast volumetric loading.

Slate the Baikal (Azot), S&B shells all you like, I have seen record bags of pigeon taken by these, and Joe Kitson shoot 100 straight skeet with no effort.

,

[Continental Shooter]

Only for those interested in the reloading of cartridges with multiple shot sizes:

 

There are 2 schools of thoughts here: the first one is the Greener disperser system, which takes is name WW Greener who took the idea of another reloader and made it his own.

The principle is to have the lead separated in different layers to have a very opened pattern at very short distances. Given the time, material and little research around this model, this solution wasn't effective and was abandoned. In recent days, a person i have the honour to know, a famous writer, scientist (explosives engineer), shooter and reloader, has taken this idea and developed it into a very effective shell for shooting in woods, especially directed at woodcock shooting.

 

The principle is to have a wad (plastic) that pushes the lead forward and the cork conglomerate that holds it back so that when the column leaves the barrel the dispersion is maximum even with full chokes.

You would use a normal wad but remove the cup, then you lay the lead in tree parts in decreasing percentages with the bigger pellets at the bottom.

 

The first layer will equal 50% of the load, then a plain conglomerate cork (no paper) disc of 3 mm, then 35% of the mid size lead, another disc and the rest of the lead followed by the last disc and then close the shell with an RTO.

 

The lead must have 2 sizes difference between each layer so, for instance: 50% #3, 35% #5 & 15% #7

 

If you want, you can also modify the dispersion by changing the percentages at the bottom or top layer: the more lead at the top, the less dispersion. still you shouldn't use less than 40-43% on the bottom layer

 

The maximum range of the load is 20-25 mt top, after that it's already too spread to guarantee a clean kill. Normally a successful shell loaded like that should produce a pattern of 70cm in diameter at 10-13 mt.

 

The second school advocate a load that sees two different sizes pellets layered in equal percentages or in a 60-40 ratio with the bigger pellet behind the smaller one and separated by a 3mm conglomerate cork.

The reason behind it is that rhe smaller pellets will be outside the wad and, on impact with the air they will start spreading while the bigger pellets, following the trail will encounter less resistence (hence loosing less speed), will stay more compact (hence loosing less heat) and will therefore reach longer distances.

 

If you intend to try it i can give you some pointers. From tests carried out at the 'Cartuccia D'Oro 2007' event (where the first shell type won in the Disperse category) and from hundreds of tests i and many other have carried out, it seems that these systems tend to reduce the pressure, so, all recipe i have are very safe.

 

i've got few pics but i can't figure how to put them up....

[The Essex Hunter]

Has anyone ever heard of cartridges with two shot sizes?

I'm really toying with the idea of game cartridges in 5 and 6 shot size.

In my head they make perfect sense, 16 grams of each size,

Iv reloaded cartridges in the past and quickly realised its cheaper and easier to buy them, iv been reading up on here and it's a hobby to some people, I think it's generally accepted you can't save a fortune reloading unless you want a specialist load.

So that got me thinking...... Duel size cartridges

I know I won't be the first person to think of this has anyone tried it?

Any thoughts?

Simple.... one size of each in the chambers.......or pick and mix with them all in the same bag/pocket...

When you miss then the only fault will lie in the lack of lead in the right place.....

 

TEH