Shot hardness

[grrclark]

This question is born out of curiosity really and not for any particular reason, so just a discussion topic.

 

When talking about shot hardness, either through the coating on the shot or antimony content I always believed it was to prevent shot deformation and so give a truer flight and in theory a better pattern density. The more expensive shells tend to have a higher antimony content so therefor a harder shot.

 

In practical terms what does this really mean?

 

I hear some clay shooters talk about how the harder shot gives a better break and that is why it needs to be harder, is this really the case?

 

If game shooting I can understand that harder shot may give better penetration, so more likely to reach vital organs, but is this so?

 

As antimony is lighter than lead then surely harder shot will have less energy at the point of impact as the mass is less, albeit not by much, and less energy leads to softer breaks or poorer penetration?

 

If the shot is contained in the shot cup of the plastic wad, the wad surely cushions the shot from the impact of firing so the hardness is largely irrelevant at this time?

As the shot is contained and not in contact with the barrel walls then again hardness is irrelevant?

 

I can imagine with a fibre wad and no shot cup that hardness of the shot is more important as there is contact with the barrel walls.

 

It seems to me that slightly harder shot could be of benefit in the cartridge manufacturing process, is this then just marketed cleverly to make some money, but of little practical value when actually shooting?

 

What is the consensus of the PW contributors?

[littlerob]

I have some clever super target 28g 6s on the box has in bold letter extra hard shot there was only £38 for a slab

[Hamster]

This question is born out of curiosity really and not for any particular reason, so just a discussion topic.

 

When talking about shot hardness, either through the coating on the shot or antimony content I always believed it was to prevent shot deformation and so give a truer flight and in theory a better pattern density. The more expensive shells tend to have a higher antimony content so therefor a harder shot.

 

In practical terms what does this really mean?

 

I hear some clay shooters talk about how the harder shot gives a better break and that is why it needs to be harder, is this really the case?

 

If game shooting I can understand that harder shot may give better penetration, so more likely to reach vital organs, but is this so?

 

As antimony is lighter than lead then surely harder shot will have less energy at the point of impact as the mass is less, albeit not by much, and less energy leads to softer breaks or poorer penetration?

 

If the shot is contained in the shot cup of the plastic wad, the wad surely cushions the shot from the impact of firing so the hardness is largely irrelevant at this time?

 

As the shot is contained and not in contact with the barrel walls then again hardness is irrelevant?

 

I can imagine with a fibre wad and no shot cup that hardness of the shot is more important as there is contact with the barrel walls.

 

It seems to me that slightly harder shot could be of benefit in the cartridge manufacturing process, is this then just marketed cleverly to make some money, but of little practical value when actually shooting?

 

What is the consensus of the PW contributors?

 

Low antimony shot contained within a plastic cup will give entirely satisfactory patterns but I personally have found that the break signature from low end shells differ in that even well centred targets shot with very tight chokes seem to give a more crumbly crush than the near instantaneous smoke/vapour/soot from more expensive stuff.

 

Since it's possible to get a cheap shell with 2% antimony which patterns tight and has good speed, then the only real variable is shot hardness so it's difficult not to conclude that more antimony (within reason) is better for clays. I believe 8% is about the max level before for reasons noted by yourself i.e, lower specific weight per individual pellet mean a potential negative return in performance.

 

Harder is better for clays seems a plausible thought seeing as you're trying to affect a break on a hard object so pellets that readily expend their energy on deforming themselves, can't logically be transferring it effectively to clay targets.

 

On live quarry soft shot supposedly deforms and so transfers its energy better - not my experience at all. I have found hard, fast clay loads to be at least as effective on quarry as any so called game load so long as you stick to appropriate shot sizes which are admittedly harder to find in clay fodder, reason being of course that the cartel know a good con when they see it. I have retrieved thousands of pellets from rabbits, pigeon, etc, and never found them to show any real mushrooming or deformation regardless of type or brand.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Hamster

[pigeon controller]

Some twenty odd years ago I bought some cheap clay shells and found that they passed throught the bird without impacting the power of the load so the birds would be hit but drop further out. I was told that soft shot deforms and shocks the bird which kills it hard shot passes through it and only kills it instantaneously if you hit a vital organ. I would be interested in the opinions of the more expirenced shooters on the forum.

[Hamster]

Some twenty odd years ago I bought some cheap clay shells and found that they passed throught the bird without impacting the power of the load so the birds would be hit but drop further out. I was told that soft shot deforms and shocks the bird which kills it hard shot passes through it and only kills it instantaneously if you hit a vital organ. I would be interested in the opinions of the more expirenced shooters on the forum.

 

With respect who told you that ? There are no known studies carried out to verify anything to back these claims, nothing more than heresy unless it can be backed up with evidence. I consider myself very experienced both in clay and field shooting and can say categorically that hard clay loads do not pass through any more readily than soft game loads, velocity and distance dictate that.

 

I have in fact mostly used clay loads on pigeon and rabbits and more often than not they get stopped within the body, as my original post also pointed to, there is no tangible difference between soft or hard shots' flattening qualities. Both types will flatten a little when they hit bones but to believe that say a no.6 shot flattens itself into the shape of a coin and thus impacts the bird harder is bordering on comical if you think about it logically. In any case I'd rather have a round pellet going all the way through the bird since there is statistically going to be more chance of it rupturing arteries/heart/lungs/etc.

 

I think all this malarky comes from the known and verifiable mushrooming effect of soft lead bullets on deer sized animals, applying the same logic to small birds shot with tiny shot is highly flawed.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Hamster

[grrclark]

It is an interesting subject and no doubt there is a lot of accepted wisdom that is probably a lot of bunkum, like with most things.

 

I suspect that it is simply mass and velocity, so energy at the point of impact, that creates a better break on the target or is the more lethal for birds and the shot hardness is largely academic.

 

I can totally understand how harder shot is more desirable in the production of the cartridge or if it is not contained in a shot cup to help prevent deformation in the barrel, but once the pellet is in flight I don't think it makes the slightest bit of difference and so far as the target is concerned, the transfer of energy to target is pretty much the same. In theory a more deformable pellet will transfer more energy, but whether that is actually meaningful or useful is a different issue.

[Hamster]

In theory a more deformable pellet will transfer more energy, but whether that is actually meaningful or useful is a different issue.

 

In bullet V big game speak we're talking about a single projectile so formulating their construction in such a way as to allow rapid expansion is not only plausible but logical. Bullets need to be fast but once they hit their target they need to also impart their energy within the animals body rather than just pass through (hydrostatic shock). This concept is readily understood and testing it via observation of hunting at different distance is entirely possible.

 

To get bullets to expand though you need a lot of power and velocity, your average air rifle for instance simply does not possess the sort of velocity needed to get pellets to mushroom at sub 12 ft lb levels, regardless of all the fancy shapes the pellets seem to be available in. The rabbit dies when a solid hit is affected in a vital area, preferably the brain area, pellet softness is simply not relevant.

 

Same applies to shot gun pellets hitting feather/flesh, they simply possess neither the shape, mass, design or velocity to expand, (rifle bullet fashion). Even if they did or if it were possible to set up lab conditions under which you shoot pigeon at say 30 yards with clay V Game loads, the results will be entirely random and depend on whether the multiple hits are delivered to vital organs such as the head/neck or heart. In other words you can't get deader than dead.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Hamster

[sitsinhedges]

I think that soft lead pellets at the bottom of a shot column in a shell will still suffer from compression and squashing upon firing regardless of whether they are contained in a plastic cup or not.

[HushpowerTrim]

I think that soft lead pellets at the bottom of a shot column in a shell will still suffer from compression and squashing upon firing regardless of whether they are contained in a plastic cup or not.

Yup, recently watched a video of a guy testing some buck shot loads, most balls had three flat edges in a kind of pyramid fashion when removed from the ballistic gel, not really any mushrooming tho from impact, scaled down to normal game shot size I would guess it's the same?

[grrclark]

 

In bullet V big game speak we're talking about a single projectile so formulating their construction in such a way as to allow rapid expansion is not only plausible but logical. Bullets need to be fast but once they hit their target they need to also impart their energy within the animals body rather than just pass through (hydrostatic shock). This concept is readily understood and testing it via observation of hunting at different distance is entirely possible.

 

To get bullets do expand though you need a lot of power and velocity, your average air rifle for instance simply does not possess the sort of velocity needed to get pellets to mushroom at sub 12 ft lb levels, regardless of all the fancy shapes the pellets seem to be available in. The rabbit dies when a solid hit is affected in a vital area, preferably the brain area, pellet softness is simply not relevant.

 

Same applies to shot gun pellets hitting feather/flesh, they simply possess neither the shape, mass, design or velocity to expand, (rifle bullet fashion). Even if they did or if it were possible to set up lab conditions under which you shoot pigeon at say 30 yards with clay V Game loads, the results will be entirely random and depend on whether the multiple hits are delivered to vital organs such as the head/neck or heart. In other words you can't get deader than dead.

I agree with that. Mathematically there may be a greater transfer of energy even at the size of number 7 shot, but in practical terms it is of no consequence at all.

 

I think that soft lead pellets at the bottom of a shot column in a shell will still suffer from compression and squashing upon firing regardless of whether they are contained in a plastic cup or not.

 

Yup, recently watched a video of a guy testing some buck shot loads, most balls had three flat edges in a kind of pyramid fashion when removed from the ballistic gel, not really any mushrooming tho from impact, scaled down to normal game shot size I would guess it's the same?

I can see that being the case in large shot sizes for a number of reasons, there is more space between the pellets to allow deformation to take place, there is greater individual mass in the pellet so therefor a greater moment of inertia to overcome as it goes from being stationary to moving really quickly and the capacity of the wad wall itself to deform to the individual pellet is much less than it is with a large pellet.

 

Smaller shot will behave differently, but whether that is meaningfully different is questionable.

[pigeon controller]

With respect who told you that ? There are no known studies carried out to verify anything to back these claims, nothing more than heresy unless it can be backed up with evidence. I consider myself very experienced both in clay and field shooting and can say categorically that hard clay loads do not pass through any more readily than soft game loads, velocity and distance dictate that.

 

I have in fact mostly used clay loads on pigeon and rabbits and more often than not they get stopped within the body, as my original post also pointed to, there is no tangible difference between soft or hard shots' flattening qualities. Both types will flatten a little when they hit bones but to believe that say a no.6 shot flattens itself into the shape of a coin and thus impacts the bird harder is bordering on comical if you think about it logically. In any case I'd rather have a round pellet going all the way through the bird since there is statistically going to be more chance of it rupturing arteries/heart/lungs/etc.

 

I think all this malarky comes from the known and verifiable mushrooming effect of soft lead bullets on deer sized animals, applying the same logic to small birds shot with tiny shot is highly flawed.

 

Thanks for your input on this subject I'm now a lot wiser than I was before

[grrclark]

Some twenty odd years ago I bought some cheap clay shells and found that they passed throught the bird without impacting the power of the load so the birds would be hit but drop further out. I was told that soft shot deforms and shocks the bird which kills it hard shot passes through it and only kills it instantaneously if you hit a vital organ. I would be interested in the opinions of the more expirenced shooters on the forum.

PC, I think that it is probably a very common belief and for reasons that sound plausible and entirely reasonable. It is the same logic that says harder shot will give a better break on a clay, again it sounds plausible and reasonable, but in practice I think that the reasons behind both arguments are largely irrelevant.

 

More killing force or clay breaking force is energy at the point of impact, so more mass which is delivered through more pellets hitting the target or larger sized pellets, or greater speed at the point of impact.

[Vince Green]

A lot of it is nonsense really, something that looks good written on the box and thats about the best of it. It became a fashion thing in the 1920s and it has never gone away. It doesn't make any real difference ballistically, although around 2-4% is useful.

 

Its a classic bullpoop baffles brains situation. Like "new improved" washing powder its marketing babble

[grrclark]

I agree with you Vince, I think it is mostly a load of nonsense, but what prompted the question by me was being with some folks who are all very good shots discussing it with some purpose. They are all way more experienced shooters than I am, but still apparently taken in by marketing hype.

 

I am sure like a lot of things around cartridge and choke choice it is a sop to their confidence, if for whatever reason you believe it makes a difference for you then it likely will.