patteren plates any good

[propercartridges]

now ladies and gentlemen surfs and poachers and scotsmen this post is about using a pattern plate not talking about daft asbestos so to bring it back on line is 150 pellets in a 30 inch circle at a measured 40 yards any good using fibre shot in a straight line thats the basics any more fighting and i will close down and get a bath and watch the telly

[propercartridges]

just before i go to get a scrub did any of you watch the film enemy at the gates it was basicaly about a russian sniper at the begining or near they showed all these russians getting a rifle in one hand and a handfull of bullets in the other the next man got nowt he had to knock about with his mate till he got plugged then the other bloke picked up the rifle and wot ammo he cud find and start shooting at the jarmans the moral of the story is take out your shooter and try them they didnt get a chance to zero or try 5 miniutes later they cud be julious ceasers dead as him never mind it was a good film end of story away in the bath

[wigeon jim]

measured 40 yards any good using fibre shot in a straight line

 

 

Much better with lead shot George!https://youtu.be/fUIHBJkyWf0

Edited August 19, 2016 by wigeon jim

[Continental Shooter]

How exactly is a small change in pressure causing this? Is it actually measurable with after all what is a scatter gun? Fibre and or plastic wads? How many shots do you fire to reach this conclusion with each batch of cartridges you are loading? Given their is quite a marked natural statistical standard deviation with shotgun ballistics with regards to pressure.

 

 

what is that you quantify as "small change in pressure"? is it 1-40 bar or 40-100 bar? I am sure i explained the physic behind it all on several posts before (mostly to answer you ) so, there shouldn't be the need to explain it again mate.

 

 

Not sure what, if any, tests you carry out but i most certainly have proofed more loads and seen more patters than i care to remember and can tell you, believe it or not, if the shell is balanced and, if not, what you can change to make it better by my standards.

 

Then what i like in a shell might not be what you like... fair enough, you might light a scattered pattern or a long range style ....

 

However, if you'd care to try and understand what I said, and not just trying to pick holes on anything i say, perhaps you would look at patterning in a different manner....or maybe not....

 

I try to explain how, following the "boring", "unchangeable" rules of the physics, you can link the many interactions happening every time you pull the trigger as well as how any minuscule change you make to your recipe can affect it.

 

Patterning (and i think I also mentioned a "properly set up chrony') can help you "reading" the signs and adjust accordingly; of course, if you don't know what to look our for or even look for, then it makes patterning a pretty useless exercise

 

For instance, very scattered pattern and high speed on the chrony is clearly a 'sign' of a truly wrong recipe; however, changing primer or wad could make it a performing shell...

 

but that is only my humble position.............

[Continental Shooter]

i have to disagree with you there tony, plaswads revolutionised reloading, plastic is ultra superior to fibre, it produces better pressures better speed and offers better shot protection.

the gas seal is not fire formed in the chamber as with fibre. plastics offer superior everything in every aspect. the only thing it does not offer is environmental consideration.

fibre has multiple problems, such as fragmenting, shot inbedding, moisture absorption, poor pressure profiles and poor speed characteristics. the only thing i can say is if you are clay shooting

and can use plaswads do it. plaswads have had multiple inovations in the past few years...

 

biodegradable

uv degradable

made of maize ecopolymer

designs such as BP mythos steel has come to be developed...

so has the flite control wad

winchester tracker

multimetal

density plastic ranger-tungsten wad

blindside wads

remington excelorater 1700fps wad (2 popchambers)

 

while i do feel this post sounds harsh, the only thing fibre wads have changed in the past 50 years or so is the biowad shotcup, but at around 50p a pop just in wads, its a non starter.

 

+1

[rbrowning2]

 

However, if you'd care to try and understand what I said, and not just trying to pick holes on anything i say, perhaps you would look at patterning in a different manner....or maybe not....

 

 

Sorry I was not trying to be negative but I was trying to understand the process you are using to arrive at your conclusions.

Are you shooting 5 or 10 or 50 etc cartridges to be able to make observations and fine tune the pressure to deliver the required pattern?

Which make and model of chronograph are you using? As one I own or the couple I have borrowed have never worked reliably with fibre wads, at best they look to measure the speed of the wad or give errors due to normally the stop screen not seeing the shot.

[propercartridges]

ok moderater this is about done can u close it please thanks for all your replys people george 07714 323 909

[sako751sg]

Plastic wads are a thing of the past I think... nearly as game shoots ask for felt wad now days and all the big producers are felt and wool etc.

 

I walk my dog on an area which was a very big drive back in the days of GB Winchesters being a favoured load- 1oz 6.5's, and on that drive guns used a lot of cartridges. The drive ceased In the early to mid 90's and I see many blue plastic wads laying about still.

 

Wee bit off the mark.

On all the shoot days and all 5000ish acres i shoot never have i once been asked to use fibre wads.

I use them through choice now and again where livestock are an issue but they are far from a thing of the past.

[dodeer]

 

Wee bit off the mark.

On all the shoot days and all 5000ish acres i shoot never have i once been asked to use fibre wads.

I use them through choice now and again where livestock are an issue but they are far from a thing of the past.

 

Well all I can say is its different where I live, with big private estates dictating what they want. Cant see any problem in using a fibre over a plastic too much anyway.

[Continental Shooter]

right, so the theory, developped in Germany in the early 1900 and revised by the Great A.Gallina (possibly the greatest ballistic expert in Italy) decades ago (when missing the quarry could have meant missing dinner in most cases) suggests:

 

The targest must have a diameter of 75 cm with an internal circumference of 37.5 cm

 

The internal circumference is split in 4 whilst the external crown in 12 sections so each sector has an area of 276.125 cm²

 

This was based on the idea that 2 sections together would have an area of 552 cm² (circa) equalling this of a hare whilst, for instance, a pheasant or duck would account for 2/3 of that (i.e. 184cm² circa).

 

The test should be run on 5 shells and the patterns compared to each others (+/- 10%) and, if any is completely out (+/- 25%); another run of 5 shells must be shot to have confidence that the difference can be attributed to an anomaly rather than the behaviour of the shell.

 

Now, for each pattern test you need to evaluate the pellet coverage per section, overall, and according to the quarry dimention (see above description for hare, duck, etc.)

 

Generally speaking shooting at 35 mt with a full choke or IM i would look for: 12 x 2.5mm pellets in each sector or 6 x 3-3.5 mm (here is where changing pellets size using the same recipe can be affected).

 

Obviously, changing distance and choke i like to maintain the same proportion (although reducing the shooting distance or opening the choke means you decoy pigeon or shoot ducks in puddles so, pellets size is reduced and it should cover better).

 

If i don't have a good cover on the external crown but i have too many in the centre i would guess the shell is low in pressure and i would try to increase the pressure to get a better cover on the crown.

 

Vice versa, if the crown or the external part of the target show higher concentration but the centre isn't covered enough, i would assume high pressure and a act accordingly by either changing wad or primer (in the first Instance).

 

As for the chrony you're spot on: it's difficult enough to measure Plastic wad (which enclose the pellets for some time)... never mind fibre... i wouldn't attempt that...

 

However, since 1990 (or earlier maybe) i had an M1, then a prochrono and an ohler 35; since the M1 i realised speed were random and, as i mentioned in another tread, i built a shed type building to provide optimal, consistent light to eradicate some of the most affecting variables.

 

This, plus the adjustment of the distance between sensor and barrel as well as between sensors, can provide you with speeds close or even matching those of the proofing house. to figure that out I developed a formula which takes into consideration a +/- 10 m/s standard variable and 0-5% deviation for the chrony, if the sun stays within the 25-30 m/s (+/- standard 10 m/s) it is acceptable and considered as 'mirroring' proofing test; So that means if you have a proofed speed of 400 and the chrony reads 430 you subtract the standard 10 m/s (as it's clearly ready higher speed) then if the difference is 0-20 m/s is an acceptable test which, in addition to the pattern test, can give you the imagine of how the shell performs and what changes you can make. if the deviation is 30 m/s after calculation and the pattern is scattered on the crown you know it's overpressured; if it's -10 m/s after calcualtion and there is a higher concentration in the centre it might be a tad underpressured.

 

 

Look at this: https://www.testshot.net/shotgun/pattern/2427

 

For being a bior, at 20 mt (i know it says 35 but wouldt' let me save at 20 mt) it has a great concentration in the centre and voids on the crown which is opposit to what i was expecting; my conclusion would be that either the primer is too weak or the powder dried off a bit and became more progressive than it was. Moving to a 616 (first) and CX2000 (after ptterning again) would be my first guess; failing that a 0.05 increase in powder (in addition to a new primer) would be my next step to obtain a shell that has an equal concentration of pellets on all sectors

 

Hope this makes sense

Edited August 20, 2016 by Continental Shooter

[TONY R]

Its a interesting site that one CSi have been on it a wile now.

All good points above balancing the pressureso acchieve what you want from a pattern is a drawn out process at times and without patterning up loads how the heck would you know, put it another way 50 shots at pigeons if you hit or miss and you would still have zero idea what the pattern was like but you might know if it was killing ok or not, However you would not know anything else. If going bang and is what counts and you shoot enough rounds at birds the law of averages means at some point something will get hit, but is that good practice or even ethical when your chosen target lives and breathes.

I dont think so i think puting the time in and knowing what your gun load combo is doing and just how well its doiing it. Its the right and proper way to be going on IMO.

Edited August 20, 2016 by TONY R

[wymberley]

right, so the theory, developped in Germany in the early 1900 and revised by the Great A.Gallina (possibly the greatest ballistic expert in Italy) decades ago (when missing the quarry could have meant missing dinner in most cases) suggests:

 

The targest must have a diameter of 75 cm with an internal circumference of 37.5 cm

 

The internal circumference is split in 4 whilst the external crown in 12 sections so each sector has an area of 276.125 cm²

 

This was based on the idea that 2 sections together would have an area of 552 cm² (circa) equalling this of a hare whilst, for instance, a pheasant or duck would account for 2/3 of that (i.e. 184cm² circa).

 

The test should be run on 5 shells and the patterns compared to each others (+/- 10%) and, if any is completely out (+/- 25%); another run of 5 shells must be shot to have confidence that the difference can be attributed to an anomaly rather than the behaviour of the shell.

 

Now, for each pattern test you need to evaluate the pellet coverage per section, overall, and according to the quarry dimention (see above description for hare, duck, etc.)

 

Generally speaking shooting at 35 mt with a full choke or IM i would look for: 12 x 2.5mm pellets in each sector or 6 x 3-3.5 mm (here is where changing pellets size using the same recipe can be affected).

 

Obviously, changing distance and choke i like to maintain the same proportion (although reducing the shooting distance or opening the choke means you decoy pigeon or shoot ducks in puddles so, pellets size is reduced and it should cover better).

 

If i don't have a good cover on the external crown but i have too many in the centre i would guess the shell is low in pressure and i would try to increase the pressure to get a better cover on the crown.

 

Vice versa, if the crown or the external part of the target show higher concentration but the centre isn't covered enough, i would assume high pressure and a act accordingly by either changing wad or primer (in the first Instance).

 

As for the chrony you're spot on: it's difficult enough to measure Plastic wad (which enclose the pellets for some time)... never mind fibre... i wouldn't attempt that...

 

However, since 1990 (or earlier maybe) i had an M1, then a prochrono and an ohler 35; since the M1 i realised speed were random and, as i mentioned in another tread, i built a shed type building to provide optimal, consistent light to eradicate some of the most affecting variables.

 

This, plus the adjustment of the distance between sensor and barrel as well as between sensors, can provide you with speeds close or even matching those of the proofing house. to figure that out I developed a formula which takes into consideration a +/- 10 m/s standard variable and 0-5% deviation for the chrony, if the sun stays within the 25-30 m/s (+/- standard 10 m/s) it is acceptable and considered as 'mirroring' proofing test; So that means if you have a proofed speed of 400 and the chrony reads 430 you subtract the standard 10 m/s (as it's clearly ready higher speed) then if the difference is 0-20 m/s is an acceptable test which, in addition to the pattern test, can give you the imagine of how the shell performs and what changes you can make. if the deviation is 30 m/s after calculation and the pattern is scattered on the crown you know it's overpressured; if it's -10 m/s after calcualtion and there is a higher concentration in the centre it might be a tad underpressured.

 

 

Look at this: https://www.testshot.net/shotgun/pattern/2427

 

For being a bior, at 20 mt (i know it says 35 but wouldt' let me save at 20 mt) it has a great concentration in the centre and voids on the crown which is opposit to what i was expecting; my conclusion would be that either the primer is too weak or the powder dried off a bit and became more progressive than it was. Moving to a 616 (first) and CX2000 (after ptterning again) would be my first guess; failing that a 0.05 increase in powder (in addition to a new primer) would be my next step to obtain a shell that has an equal concentration of pellets on all sectors

 

Hope this makes sense

I may well have misunderstood this - my problem, not yours - but am I right in thinking that you're saying that by adjusting the variables it is possible to have a regular distribution of pellets throughout the 75cm (30") circle?

[rbrowning2]

Continental shooter, thanks for the technical reply very interesting.

 

Whilst I still find it difficult to accept that a change of primer or +-0.05gm of powder will result in any significant change in pattern I do agree it will change the pressure. My reasons for this is when ever I have had cartridges tested at the proof house the pressure variation within the same batch can be quite a lot especially for fibre. So this natural deviation in pressure between each and every cartridge would result in different patterns anyway.

 

So trying to see the cause and effect relationship when you then change a variable would I think be very difficult unless the measuring sample, number of cartridges shot, was very large.

 

I do accept that a change of wad type or make can change the pattern hence scatter wads or piston-skeet wads.

 

But if it works for you so be it.

Edited August 20, 2016 by rbrowning2

[Continental Shooter]

I may well have misunderstood this - my problem, not yours - but am I right in thinking that you're saying that by adjusting the variables it is possible to have a regular distribution of pellets throughout the 75cm (30") circle?

 

Correct!

 

Changing things like wad and primer will affect the pattern dramatically. Moving from a Gualandi Super G to a B&P Z2M will drop the pressure by 40-60 bar alone (although superG will provide a more compact pattern).

 

Reducing or increasing the crimp depth can give/remove up to 100 bar ...

 

These are all factors under our control which patterning can help us understand and adjust.

[Continental Shooter]

Continental shooter, thanks for the technical reply very interesting.

 

Whilst I still find it difficult to accept that a change of primer or +-0.05gm of powder will result in any significant change in pattern I do agree it will change the pressure. My reasons for this is when ever I have had cartridges tested at the proof house the pressure variation within the same batch can be quite a lot especially for fibre. So this natural deviation in pressure between each and every cartridge would result in different patterns anyway.

 

 

That is the reason you don't believer it: fibre wad

 

Fibre wad are not a perfect fit and have not got an over powder sealant like the plastic ones; therefore, gases are bound to escape in an uncontrolled manner giving difficult reading on proof barrels.

 

If you care to provide me with examples of proofed tests and relevant pattern test (PM if you want), i might be able to give you some details on ho to change it and you might notice the difference (although i don't use fibre wad, so, might not be as effective ) if you re-run pattern test

 

You quote the 0.05 gr... that is exactly what is the variation between fibre and plastic to ensure that the pressure/speed remain similar when swapping these wads; with fibre requiring an additional 0.05 to compensate for the loss of gases.

 

So, yes, even 0.05 gr can make some difference (perhaps in fibre needs to be 0.1) but is the combination of changes.

 

Say for instance you closed your crimp at 58mm and the spread results too open; try closing at 59 instead and you will notice huge differences as the pressure will drop about 100 bar giving yu a more compact spread.

 

That's why i said you need to pattern test many shells, this way you get accustomed to look out for signs in relation to your shell and see what each change in components can bring to the table to allow you to decide the best course of action.

 

I'll try to pattern test the same load i linked above with a change in primer, i change in powder charge and a change of both and show how it changes (this will be next weekend though )

[wymberley]

 

Correct!

 

Changing things like wad and primer will affect the pattern dramatically. Moving from a Gualandi Super G to a B&P Z2M will drop the pressure by 40-60 bar alone (although superG will provide a more compact pattern).

 

Reducing or increasing the crimp depth can give/remove up to 100 bar ...

 

These are all factors under our control which patterning can help us understand and adjust.

Many thanks for taking the time to answer. As you have an interest, you might find the works of Gauss, Journee and Lowry advantageous.

[Guest cookoff013]

Fibre wads fireform in the chamber. That's a huge volume.

[Continental Shooter]

Many thanks for taking the time to answer. As you have an interest, you might find the works of Gauss, Journee and Lowry advantageous.

 

Thanks for the tips, i like to believe my degree offered me enough base knowledge and the experience i have, possibly added something to it

 

I am aware of the work of Gauss and Lowry (especially the acid-base reactions) however, i am not aware of the works of Jurenee; so, be more than interested if you have something to suggest.

[wymberley]

 

Thanks for the tips, i like to believe my degree offered me enough base knowledge and the experience i have, possibly added something to it

 

I am aware of the work of Gauss and Lowry (especially the acid-base reactions) however, i am not aware of the works of Jurenee; so, be more than interested if you have something to suggest.

I feel 'out gunned' now as I don't even have any GCEs.

 

I mention Gauss because of his renowned 'bell shaped curve'. As this is about shotgun patterns, Lowry is Ed Lowry, a former Research director at Winchester and Journee is the author of 'Tir des Fusils de Chasse which was written before the end of the 19th century. The work of the latter two 'names' (among many others) reflect that a shotgun pattern resembles Gauss' curve in pellet distribution and as such this is not regular or even throughout the 30" circle. Even if this could be achieved by home loaders, it would be self defeating as to comply with, say, the BASC pattern requirement density, a pigeon when using, say, 1&1/8oz of No 6 at the 40 yards would need a density of some 87%.

 

This 'central thickening' as it's known as on the t'other side of the pond is what makes the whole thing possible although it does mean that the effective spread is best taken as 20" and it rarely, if ever, exceeds 25".

[Continental Shooter]

Sorry mate, i was thinking of Thomas Martin Lowry who developed the theory of the acid-base reaction which is, essentially, where the magic starts.....

[The Heron]

It is really vital to pattern your gun only then will you find the best choke, shot size. wad and weight combination for your sport.

[wymberley]

And, as I've just discovered, it shows up when the pattern is full of cold welded pellets possibly/probably because of high pressures.

[Continental Shooter]

And, as I've just discovered, it shows up when the pattern is full of cold welded pellets possibly/probably because of high pressures.

 

indeed, that'll be the case.

 

as i said, if you look carefully, a pattern on a piece of paper can tell you a lot

 

That's also how i found that 20ga B&P wads need to have their petals split as some won't open...

[Continental Shooter]

I feel 'out gunned' now as I don't even have any GCEs.

 

I mention Gauss because of his renowned 'bell shaped curve'. As this is about shotgun patterns, Lowry is Ed Lowry, a former Research director at Winchester and Journee is the author of 'Tir des Fusils de Chasse which was written before the end of the 19th century. The work of the latter two 'names' (among many others) reflect that a shotgun pattern resembles Gauss' curve in pellet distribution and as such this is not regular or even throughout the 30" circle. Even if this could be achieved by home loaders, it would be self defeating as to comply with, say, the BASC pattern requirement density, a pigeon when using, say, 1&1/8oz of No 6 at the 40 yards would need a density of some 87%.

 

For what i might appreciate the Caussian interaction within reloading i think that it's association, in times gone by, was very helpful and, in many ways, lead us to our day in the shape we are as reloaders.

 

It is understandable that back then variables were many and explanations not fully discovered or understood; therefore, as you mentioned back in 19th century, the Gaussian curve would help formalise certain empiric theory.

 

That said, however, i believe that these days as the variables used in the graph might well become, definable almost, the function of the Gaussian in relation to reloading is diminished and almost irrelevant

 

things such as modern powder, primers, wads, hulls ... have all reduced the width of the curve C to a effectively reducing the dispersion; therefore, since one of the property of the Gaussian is that 68% of the measurement differs from the standard average and that 95% less than Cx2 the result is that with less dispersion the Gaussian will be steeper and closer to the Standard Average (M)

 

 

This 'central thickening' as it's known as on the t'other side of the pond is what makes the whole thing possible although it does mean that the effective spread is best taken as 20" and it rarely, if ever, exceeds 25".

 

[wymberley]

 

I feel 'out gunned' now as I don't even have any GCEs.

 

I mention Gauss because of his renowned 'bell shaped curve'. As this is about shotgun patterns, Lowry is Ed Lowry, a former Research director at Winchester and Journee is the author of 'Tir des Fusils de Chasse which was written before the end of the 19th century. The work of the latter two 'names' (among many others) reflect that a shotgun pattern resembles Gauss' curve in pellet distribution and as such this is not regular or even throughout the 30" circle. Even if this could be achieved by home loaders, it would be self defeating as to comply with, say, the BASC pattern requirement density, a pigeon when using, say, 1&1/8oz of No 6 at the 40 yards would need a density of some 87%.

 

For what i might appreciate the Caussian interaction within reloading i think that it's association, in times gone by, was very helpful and, in many ways, lead us to our day in the shape we are as reloaders.

 

It is understandable that back then variables were many and explanations not fully discovered or understood; therefore, as you mentioned back in 19th century, the Gaussian curve would help formalise certain empiric theory.

 

That said, however, i believe that these days as the variables used in the graph might well become, definable almost, the function of the Gaussian in relation to reloading is diminished and almost irrelevant

 

things such as modern powder, primers, wads, hulls ... have all reduced the width of the curve C to a effectively reducing the dispersion; therefore, since one of the property of the Gaussian is that 68% of the measurement differs from the standard average and that 95% less than Cx2 the result is that with less dispersion the Gaussian will be steeper and closer to the Standard Average (M)

 

 

This 'central thickening' as it's known as on the t'other side of the pond is what makes the whole thing possible although it does mean that the effective spread is best taken as 20" and it rarely, if ever, exceeds 25".

 

 

Yep, it pays to be selective in which historical writings one pays attention to. Patterns continue to "resemble" the bell shaped graph but obviously this shape will vary dependent on the level of choke, or more accurately the actual pellet percentage density. I quite like empirical and the table by Lowry which appeared in the American Rifleman a few years back, if one accepts - which one must when talking shotgun - that all results are based on average findings and that therefore there will inevitably be some variation, is pretty much representative.