B&P DUPLEXING COPPER IN THEIR NEW LOADS

[TONY R]

Some of the Continental ammo firms seem to be taking copper shot seriously now, Italian giants B&P have resorted to duplexing their new range of waterfowl copper loads.

zink plated pure copper 5s under pure copper 3s features in these new loads.

here is a video.

[Stonepark]

Duplexing ....... the most idiotic marketing idea that some people fall for............... if it is 3s and 5s mixed, why not just have 4s?

 

OTH copper shot results with reasonable prices are worth investigating

Edited May 16, 2016 by Stonepark

[Guest cookoff013]

Duplexing ....... the most idiotic marketing idea that some people fall for............... if it is 3s and 5s mixed, why not just have 4s?

 

OTH copper shot results with reasonable prices are worth investigating

I agree.

[TONY R]

This boys not badwith the numbers and can sometimes save you some work reading his figures off KPY and much of the time he is pretty near let me tell ya!

His take on this ammo and some pretty accurate insight in to copper performance generally you might find interesting. https://pipesf16.wordpress.com/reloading-for-shotgun/bp-dual-shock-copper-duplex-shells/

Edited May 16, 2016 by TONY R

[TONY R]

Duplexing ....... the most idiotic marketing idea that some people fall for............... if it is 3s and 5s mixed, why not just have 4s?

 

OTH copper shot results with reasonable prices are worth investigating

I generally agree with this, but if it works i will use anything. I use some steel loads that theoretically should not be considered as practical, yet they work. Its the proof in the pudding that matters at the end of the day.

Edited May 16, 2016 by TONY R

[Continental Shooter]

Duplexing ....... the most idiotic marketing idea that some people fall for............... if it is 3s and 5s mixed, why not just have 4s?

 

Sorry chaps but i beg to differ.

 

There are definitely some benefits in duplexing, the problem is that each load performs differently on each gun/choke hence why they're a godsend for some and complete rubbish for others.

 

Bigger pellets in front of small pellets, it helps the smaller pellets behind travel further as the bigger pellets will open the air in front reducing the friction; therefore, helping the small pellets keeping their speed. For thus type of load, which is normally considered long range, you will need pellets of 3 different sizes (i.e. 2 & 5)

 

Conversely, the smaller pellets in front of bigger pellets will helps the shell spreading: when in flight. the bigger pellets will overtake the smaller ones which have 'hit' the air's resistence first and have started slowing down and spreading. This ensures that you have a bunch of spreaded small pellets around opening bigger pellets. For this type of duplex, to ensure the spreads are opening at the right time, you will need pellets of 1 different size (i.e. 5 & 6) or 2 maximum (i.e. 5 & 7)

 

I got round to find a decent long range load with 4 & 6 for mixed shooting, but never one that spreads as i'd like....if you need a very dispersing shell, the greener model, as modified by Paci, works a treat (on my gun).

Edited May 16, 2016 by Continental Shooter

[sitsinhedges]

Waste of time.

[rbrowning2]

Continental shooter, I like the ideas you discuss but would also like to see the scientific evidence say high speed video of the pellets in flight? Like the punching a whole in air to allow the smaller pellets to maintain speed, would not all the small pellets have to be exactly behind a large one? Like driving a small car very close behind a very large lorry? Would or could the tiny difference in mass of the larger pellet have such a significant effect on the smaller one travelling randomly behind?

 

The laws of thermodynamics of fluid flow be it turbulent of linear would apply and I would love to see a model that proves your logic.

 

So until such scientific evidence is available I am with the placebo effect and a waste of time.

 

Also all this trust in patterns, a shotgun is not called a scatter gun for no reason no two shots are ever going to pattern the same, the best use of a pattern is to aid gun fit and obtain an idea on how bigger a pattern your own chokes give. Comparing one cartridge with another is very questionable unless the sample size is very large in the hundreds if not thousands just firing a few is no measure that one cartridge/gun/choke is any better than another - just the result of that random shot at that moment in time.

Edited May 17, 2016 by rbrowning2

[TONY R]

My experience on Duplex or multiplex ammo is inconclusive, i tried it back in the days of lead and a lot with steel bismuth and steel and copper or stopper loads as i have christened them tongue in cheek. And that is perhaps the best way of taking duplexing tongue in cheek .

It is a faff about reloading it and as i said my findings have been inconclusive with it in all shot types.

I will say on a couple of occasions i have found duplexing to improve a pattern, but this is just individual guns and loads there as been no discernible evidence i could see to use this outside these specific loads and guns.

I can kind of imagine the big shot following little shot thing working, and i can imagine the less talked about in Duplexing extended shot string theory, but have i any hard evidence to prove this happens. ERR! NO .

Now as for B&Ps new loads i am a lot more up beat about these loads than i am Duplexing shot, i have a great deal of respect for B&P they don’t ever try and misguide you, always tell you what’s in the shells and even what powder they use as on that little video, i mean lets face it you could near enough duplicate those new loads yourself with very little thought and just a loading press and a chronograph. And in a way it is perhaps folly not to try and duplicate them as they clearly have field tested them and found it works, so there must be something in it.

I do not honestly think B&P of all cartridge firms would go to the trouble of duplexing copper to the extent they have plating the smaller shot etc and the added work of different shot sizes if they did not have some evidence to support this some where.

I do not feel it is a marketing ploy myself, they must have moved on this principal for a good reason i cant see marketing going for it as just a sales ploy, i don’t feel it would make financial sense, and i think B&P are about building trust in their customers not breaking down customer confidence its taken them decades to obtain.

So in conclusion, IS DUPLEXING ETC worth doing well it could be but i have not seen enough advantage to do it regularly, but it could do. Would i buy any of B&PS new LOADS > Hell NO! .. Would i try and Duplicate these loads as close as is practicable, WELL Absolutely YES!

Do i think it will work ... Duno! but you have to be open minded on these matters and Like i said i Respect BB&P and i think its well worth a try based on that fact alone.

[Guest cookoff013]

if it was worth it wouldnt there be alot more duplexed loads available than just this "one".

now i`m going out on a limb here, and saying there would be no advantage to duplexing compared to a good quality shell.

 

as these are nontoxic, and copper is about 9g/cc density, they would perform well with a +2 shotsize compared to lead. If these are compared to a good solid performer like ITX, niceshot or powdershot, the 5s and 3s in copper are like 8/9s in tungsten. (even at 1350fps MV.)

 

maybe as an alternative to steel shot? maybe.

 

i think steel is here to stay. copper is just a blip.

[TONY R]

I can not imagine copper ever becoming the main shot type in non toxic shot, it will most probably be banned due to its toxicity, but at the moment at least its here.

Its density advantage over steel is worthwhile especially when you look at the fact its high speed capable like steel yet is safe to use in conventional wading and tends to generate lower pressures than equivalent steel loads. It likes buffering and it responds to typical lead style choke constrictions very well, i use it through a Briley INVX10 turkey choke in a ten a choke thats not seen action for a good few years now.

Its Not too expensive and turns out cheaper than bismuth or ITX 10 which is similar in density in all practical purposes to copper.

Bismuth can be made cheaper if you drop it yourself but thats another story all together.

Heavyweight 13 which is probably the cheapest option for an effective non tox load at just about practical cost is far better but 2 thirds the cost of copper by the time you get it here.

 

I personally like copper it works well i did good with it last season and learned a lot about what makes it efficient, and hope fully i can have it even better by the end of this next season.

The deformity in that video is truthfully and i can only add to the presented facts i feel copper kills great, and i will say it out performs steel without a doubt in the same application. Its lower pressures can be used to add payload and maintain speeds safely. Its got some clear advantages but its price will always keep it as a low volume niche non tox not a main stream player.

One area Copper could well be popular in given time is traditional game shooting non tox applications in suitable loads for typical older or traditional game guns, i think it wont be long till GAMEBORE LYALVALE ETC jump on this bandwagon we will see.

[Continental Shooter]

Continental shooter, I like the ideas you discuss but would also like to see the scientific evidence say high speed video of the pellets in flight? Like the punching a whole in air to allow the smaller pellets to maintain speed, would not all the small pellets have to be exactly behind a large one? Like driving a small car very close behind a very large lorry? Would or could the tiny difference in mass of the larger pellet have such a significant effect on the smaller one travelling randomly behind?

 

Scentific evidences can be found on the script of Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, not sure what else is required since everything in life is based on these laws

 

The laws of thermodynamics of fluid flow be it turbulent of linear would apply and I would love to see a model that proves your logic.

 

I will found it extremely difficult to apply to solid laws that are pertinent to fluids . The laws that apply to this particular part of the ballistic are the laws of dynamics, precisely linear dynamics which pertains to objects moving in a line and involves force (presusre), mass (pellets diameter), displacemen (movements of pellets).

 

I don't really want to write the laws in numbers and do the equations but to explain in simple words with the help of Wiki for ease of dealing:

 

 

1. First law: If there is no net force on an object, then its velocity is constant. The object is either at rest (if its velocity is equal to zero), or it moves with constant speed in a single direction. this applies to the smaller pellets: the vacuum created by the bigger pellets, helps the smaller ones to travel at a constant speed for a greater distance, enabling them to retain speed/momentum (law 2)and travel further due to the lack of forces mentioned in Law 3
2. Second law: The rate of change of linear momentum P of an object is equal to the net force F_net, i.e., dP/dt = F_net. So, if there is no net force aginst the pellets, these will not change their momentum
3. Third law: When a first body exerts a force F₁ on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force F₂ = −F₁ on the first body. This means that F₁ and F₂ are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This means that the bigger pellets will loose speed at a lower rate than smaller pellets leading the way and reducing resistence on the smaller ones.

Conversely, if we put the smaller pellets these will open first, as normal, as they hit the air resistence first therefore will slow down faster and open the spread, causing turbolences which are then compensated by the bigger pellets behind still travelling in a linear way.

So until such scientific evidence is available I am with the placebo effect and a waste of time. Just read the papers which prooved the theory, that is the [roof that all the scentific world needed to verify the theory and that should be sufficently scientific

 

Also all this trust in patterns, a shotgun is not called a scatter gun for no reason no two shots are ever going to pattern the same, the best use of a pattern is to aid gun fit and obtain an idea on how bigger a pattern your own chokes give. Comparing one cartridge with another is very questionable unless the sample size is very large in the hundreds if not thousands just firing a few is no measure that one cartridge/gun/choke is any better than another - just the result of that random shot at that moment in time.

 

proved that no 2 shells pattern the same, you can find ... a pattern on your patterns which will help judging a shell in the most accurate, non-scientific way: the duplex with smaller pellet first, if loaded correctly and shoot under determined circumstances (short barrel/open choke), will produce a spread of 70cm in diameter at 10 mt distance, which is what you want when shooting woodcocks in thick woods, i got that somewhere.

 

I the other hand, over 60 mt competitions (where targets are 60 mt or further) mostly al loads are duplex load to help with distance and pattern density; shame here you don't use to run this competitions

Edited May 17, 2016 by Continental Shooter

[Continental Shooter]

 

I will say on a couple of occasions i have found duplexing to improve a pattern, but this is just individual guns and loads there as been no discernible evidence i could see to use this outside these specific loads and guns.

I can kind of imagine the big shot following little shot thing working, and i can imagine the less talked about in Duplexing extended shot string theory, but have i any hard evidence to prove this happens. ERR! NO .

 

As I mentioned earlier, the sensitivity of these shells to different guns, patterns, bore size, components, etc is great and not two gun will shoot the same with the same shell; each needs personalised to your needs and guns.

 

as for evidence, on the guy's web site there are a couple of links; for proofing them yourself, you need to test these shells on a pattern plate and, depending on your needs, adjust the shell to obtain the expected result; i can give you a couple of patterns...but that was my gun (back then) and might result completely different to yours.....

[Continental Shooter]

if it was worth it wouldn't there be a lot more duplexed loads available than just this "one".

 

There aren't here, but there are plenty in continental Europe (NSI for once produces few of these); each dedicated to a specific quarry (i.e. 1 & 3 for hears; 9 & 11 for quails, etc.)

 

Obviously, these are tailored to the needs of each place's own conditions: the benefits when shooting pigeons over decoys or driven pheasants are limited to none, and a well thought shell will be cheaper, save you time and be as effective; therefore, been the preferred choice.

 

Not sure how many here will shoot woodcocks in thick pine wood under a pointing dog; but that's how we do it in Europe and that's when these duplex are needed; i tried the greener method but it doesn't open as much in the short distance and when you have 5-8 mt to shoot a Woodcock before it finds cover ... a good fib-wad or even disperser will not do the trick.

 

When you shoot passing pigeons at 40-60 mt, you either use long range (which are naturally slow) or use duplex to improve the pattern at longer distances.

 

In my experience, they are good shells under certain conditions; that said, i never loaded one since i moved to Scotland as there is no need for these shells; hence why they are probably not well known or in use in UK.

 

the 1-3 sizes difference in pellets size is due to the way these lose speed/spread

 

In duplex long distance the use of 2-3 sizes difference enables the smaller pellets behind to have the same killing power whilst ensuring the pattern is filled consistently at certain distances (i.e. after 30 mt) when the smaller pellets will have reached the bigger pellets.

 

The 1 size difference in short distance duplex are thought based on the fact that the shell needs to be effective within the 15-20 mt mark so, the bigger pellets behind will fill in the voids left by the opening smaller pellets. after the 15 mt marks the bigger ones will overtake the smaller ones making the shell ineffective as the voids will be many.

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by Continental Shooter

[Continental Shooter]

 

Continental shooter, I like the ideas you discuss but would also like to see the scientific evidence say high speed video of the pellets in flight? Like the punching a whole in air to allow the smaller pellets to maintain speed, would not all the small pellets have to be exactly behind a large one? Like driving a small car very close behind a very large lorry? Would or could the tiny difference in mass of the larger pellet have such a significant effect on the smaller one travelling randomly behind?

 

Scentific evidences can be found on the script of Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, not sure what else is required since everything in life is based on these laws

 

The laws of thermodynamics of fluid flow be it turbulent of linear would apply and I would love to see a model that proves your logic.

 

I will found it extremely difficult to apply to solid laws that are pertinent to fluids . The laws that apply to this particular part of the ballistic are the laws of dynamics, precisely linear dynamics which pertains to objects moving in a line and involves force (presusre), mass (pellets diameter), displacemen (movements of pellets).

 

I don't really want to write the laws in numbers and do the equations but to explain in simple words with the help of Wiki for ease of dealing:

 

 

1. First law: If there is no net force on an object, then its velocity is constant. The object is either at rest (if its velocity is equal to zero), or it moves with constant speed in a single direction. this applies to the smaller pellets: the vacuum created by the bigger pellets, helps the smaller ones to travel at a constant speed for a greater distance, enabling them to retain speed/momentum (law 2)and travel further due to the lack of forces mentioned in Law 3
2. Second law: The rate of change of linear momentum P of an object is equal to the net force F_net, i.e., dP/dt = F_net. So, if there is no net force aginst the pellets, these will not change their momentum
3. Third law: When a first body exerts a force F₁ on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force F₂ = −F₁ on the first body. This means that F₁ and F₂ are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This means that the bigger pellets will loose speed at a lower rate than smaller pellets leading the way and reducing resistence on the smaller ones.

Conversely, if we put the smaller pellets these will open first, as normal, as they hit the air resistence first therefore will slow down faster and open the spread, causing turbolences which are then compensated by the bigger pellets behind still travelling in a linear way.

So until such scientific evidence is available I am with the placebo effect and a waste of time. Just read the papers which prooved the theory, that is the [roof that all the scentific world needed to verify the theory and that should be sufficently scientific

 

Also all this trust in patterns, a shotgun is not called a scatter gun for no reason no two shots are ever going to pattern the same, the best use of a pattern is to aid gun fit and obtain an idea on how bigger a pattern your own chokes give. Comparing one cartridge with another is very questionable unless the sample size is very large in the hundreds if not thousands just firing a few is no measure that one cartridge/gun/choke is any better than another - just the result of that random shot at that moment in time.

 

proved that no 2 shells pattern the same, you can find ... a pattern on your patterns which will help judging a shell in the most accurate, non-scientific way: the duplex with smaller pellet first, if loaded correctly and shoot under determined circumstances (short barrel/open choke), will produce a spread of 70cm in diameter at 10 mt distance, which is what you want when shooting woodcocks in thick woods, i got that somewhere.

 

I the other hand, over 60 mt competitions (where targets are 60 mt or further) mostly al loads are duplex load to help with distance and pattern density; shame here you don't use to run this competitions

 

The theory behind the patterning is to 'see' what your spread is like at a certain distance (and to check where your gun shoots compared to the point of fire). Comparing two different shells will give you a picture of which of the 2 patterns best in your gun/choke combo. However, patterning can also give you an idea of how the pressure affects your pattern: if the pattern is scattered, probably is overpressured for the components used; you will find that changing wad, primer, height of crimp will better the same shell

 

Vice versa, a shell that patterns too tight might have a low pressure for it's load; using a hotter prime, stiffer wad or marked crimp will help generating a better pattern.

 

[Guest cookoff013]

if it was nontoxic reason i`d use either 2 shells and fire them independently, or just shoot the bigger pellets and live with what advantage disadvantage gave,

 

either way i`d be shooting better shells, (or shells that meet and exceed my expectations in a single shotsize.)

[TONY R]

Help! where can i get some M92s powder Please?

Edited May 17, 2016 by TONY R

[Continental Shooter]

Tony If you find any M92S i'll help you buy it, whatever is the quantity... or I can send you a package from italy since i'm on hols just now

 

If you want to start trying i can give you some recipes with other powders, but bear in mind that the lead needs to be stratified rather than mixed through or the effects will not be visible and you will end up with a bigger spread.

 

Cook as i said, there are circumstances where regular shells won't work and you risk either missing or ruining the quarry so, sometimes, it's best to waste some time reloading few, effective shells that you know work (especially whom shoots woodcocks will expect to shoot 50-70 shells per annum) than using ineffective factory/standard loads.

 

The greener method, which involves stratifying the lead in three levels (split according to determined calculations) is even more time consuming; nevertheless, it's one of these people will not go round without in a wood.

 

I have a friend who leased few hundreds acres of land on the isle of Mull only for woodcocks shooting over dogs and he only shoots (and offer to his clients) the NSI Beccaccia due to the confirmation of the land they're shooting on .... i don't think is an irrational choice or one that doesn't work for him and his client as he wouldn't be able to sell them on site as each shooter will over their preferred shells to save money.

 

I do agree that sticking to one size is the best option for normal shooting and even for puddles i would just shoot bior/disperser these days... that said, i'll only take ducks and pigeons within 20 - 30 mt top not 40-60 like i used to do in italy.

[TONY R]

I was just wanting some M92s apart from trying to duplicate the B&P dual shock load i have a couple of decent steel loads which use this Powder, its getting it thats the trouble.

[Continental Shooter]

yeah, i know!

 

I have plenty decent loads in 12 and 20 which requires M92S and due to my limited knowledge of RFDs i can't get my hands on it

 

I remember you saying you got it some times ago hence why i said i'd help you getting it if you need to place an order or get some quantity

 

Unfortunately, Scotland has limited possibilities reloading wise and all the powder i can get is from down south... which makes it a bit impractical for me to have a go at blindfolded!

 

do you guys think it'll be very difficult to have some powder sent over to an RFD from Italy? if at all possible i might start searching for someone here who does exports or speak to some of my friends to see if they know a salesman who can send abroad .... might be the quickest way to get our hands on it...

Edited May 17, 2016 by Continental Shooter

[TONY R]

TRy Tom Young at continental shooting supplies as far as i know they bring in or brought in mirage ammo, he might be able to get some powder in with an ammo order from mirage. Would be interesting to know what powders mirage use, could be some progressive powders in a range we have never seen before. Because it the moment its looking mighty like its Vitavouri vitavouri and vitavouri, good stuff i mean 3N38 is awesome burnt through a kilo of it last season in the ten and it went well, but not cheap. Come back CSB0 and A 381.

[rbrowning2]

Continental shooter we never seem to agree which I guess makes life interesting, do you really think a tiny pellet of a few mm diameter travelling at a few hundred ft per second can create a vacuum for the smaller pellet travelling at some random distance away from the said larger pellet in a different part of space and time - whats the odds on that being possible?

 

Air like all gases are a fluid just with a low densities.

[Continental Shooter]

Rbrowning,

 

I have fun discussing these matter and i am in no way trying to convince you of the validity of any shells, i merely try to explain the rationale behind it.

 

Yes, few milimiters in physics like in life can make a huge difference: a few millimetres to one side might avoid you being hit by a lightning bolt ....now, explain that this doesn't make the difference to the thousands of people struck by these every year... or to, my desperation, the Ferrari trying catching the Mercedes in F1 races where few millimeters in the setting adjustment might give you tens of Km/h

 

probably due to the nature of my studies, i don't tend to take guesses or some input from the net; i follow the laws of physics (which i studied for decades) and the numbers which; as far as i am aware; cannot be challenged: 2+2-= 4 in ever country and religion.

 

Personal convictions or believes have no place in physics and all it disciplines including ballistic ....

 

I wouldn't dare challenging the likes of Einstein, Pascal or Newton based on non scientific, much empiric thoughts ... but note with surprise that you're just doing that.

 

With all due respect, If you feel that strongly, I recommend you write an essay to any university in order to challenge these laws that have been in place for centuries i am sure they will confirm the validity of my explanations; please remember: i am just an humble, passionate physics student; which researches ballistic for passion,

 

As i said, i can show you that in numbers but is too lengthy and something i don't really want to do but if you want; i can try (can guarantee when though)

 

again, i am not trying to sell you the Duplex, just explain them and why they might be worth trying under certain circumstances.

[Guest cookoff013]

i understand the principals, but it also reduces the larger pellet count, and reduces the smaller pellet count. either way will be "less optimal" for short shots and alittle thin for long shots.

 

duplexing has been done for years but never ever stays, same as half shot sizes, 6.5s being better because of the extra 2-6 pellets per ounce on a classic load (or thereabouts.).

i have even heard of shotsizes 6,1/4 that is apparently "the bomb" but has never took off.

 

great shells are exactly that, the whole package.

 

there is nothing finer than a good-solid-high quality english-reload in a shotsize above minimum specification, of good quality hard lead, at "more than" slow speed.

 

i get really annoyed when comparing stuff and applying that to reloading. ferrari are fast, so if i paint my lead red, they should be fast !

[rbrowning2]

I am not disputing the laws of physics just your belief that a a few mm diameter ball travelling through air at a few hundred mtrs per second can create a continuous vacuum for a distance of 10,20.....60mtrs for another even small ball traveling at some random distance and position in space and tine behind it.

 

Just seams incredible to me, but if you think it does so be it.