Cartridge Doubts

[Stonepark]

Shot Size/Yards 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

5 2.43 2.23 2.05 1.87 1.71 1.55 1.41 1.28 1.16

6 2.18 1.98 1.81 1.63 1.58 1.33 1.2 1.07 0.95

6.5 2.04 1.85 1.67 1.51 1.35 1.21 1.08 0.95 0.84

7 1.9 1.71 1.54 1.37 1.22 1.08 0.96 0.84 0.73

7.5 1.73 1.54 1.37 1.21 1.07 0.93 0.81 0.69 0.59

 

 

Above is (hopefully) a table showing penetration in inches into ballistic gel for each common game/pigeon shot size with lead at 1350mv

 

Just to throw another variable into the mix, how much penetration do you need for pigeon?

Edited February 21, 2017 by Stonepark

[bornfree]

It doesn't matter how long you've been shooting or how good you are. Everyone goes through bad patches of shooting and most people blame something.In a month or two you will go out with the same gun same shells and kill everything. Assuming you haven't changed them. Its the simple fact that your not centering the pattern on the bird.

[motty]

I don't buy the 'recommended' foot lb stuff. I go by results in the field.

Edited February 21, 2017 by motty

[Hamster]

I don't buy the 'recommended' foot lb stuff. I go buy results in the field.

 

I believe whoever wrote those ft lbs charts was having a laugh but didn't quite know it himself. I'm thinking of publishing a chart with completely untested and completely unscientific data about what shot size will break what clay at what range based on various velocities and antimony contents. I'll let facts sort themselves out later. Don't laugh, that is exactly what he did.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

It doesn't matter how long you've been shooting or how good you are. Everyone goes through bad patches of shooting and most people blame something.In a month or two you will go out with the same gun same shells and kill everything. Assuming you haven't changed them. Its the simple fact that your not centering the pattern on the bird.

 

I think that supports what I said in post No 2

 

 

I believe whoever wrote those ft lbs charts was having a laugh but didn't quite know it himself. I'm thinking of publishing a chart with completely untested and completely unscientific data about what shot size will break what clay at what range based on various velocities and antimony contents. I'll let facts sort themselves out later. Don't laugh, that is exactly what he did.

 

Surprise, surprise.

[6.5x55SE]

I don't buy the 'recommended' foot lb stuff. I go by results in the field.

Be careful Motty you liable to get a long essay of mumbo jumbo why you are wrong 😂

 

But for the record i totally agree with you 👍 certainly plenty of cleanly killed Pigeon along with Geese to prove our like minded thoughts 😋

[wymberley]

Thoroughly enjoying this but what exactly is this 0.85 thing and what does it do ? Also interested in knowing why people who will use 6's or smaller shot on partridge recommend bigger for a smaller bird ?

0.85 ft/lbs is empirical in nature and is based upon decades of shooting experience and is the quoted minimum energy requirement to kill a wood pigeon - and also other species. A cock partridge weighs 14 oz, a wood pigeon 18.

Edited February 21, 2017 by wymberley

[wymberley]

 

I believe whoever wrote those ft lbs charts was having a laugh but didn't quite know it himself. I'm thinking of publishing a chart with completely untested and completely unscientific data about what shot size will break what clay at what range based on various velocities and antimony contents. I'll let facts sort themselves out later. Don't laugh, that is exactly what he did.

Chap called Burrard - had quite a reputation.

[paulnix]

To answer the op its a fad just like the current trend in barrel lengths are, stick to your 6's if you are happy with them, the issue is more than likely with you being a bit off form/carrying an injury rather than the gun or cartridges.

[wymberley]

Shot Size/Yards 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

5 2.43 2.23 2.05 1.87 1.71 1.55 1.41 1.28 1.16

6 2.18 1.98 1.81 1.63 1.58 1.33 1.2 1.07 0.95

6.5 2.04 1.85 1.67 1.51 1.35 1.21 1.08 0.95 0.84

7 1.9 1.71 1.54 1.37 1.22 1.08 0.96 0.84 0.73

7.5 1.73 1.54 1.37 1.21 1.07 0.93 0.81 0.69 0.59

 

 

Above is (hopefully) a table showing penetration in inches into ballistic gel for each common game/pigeon shot size with lead at 1350mv

 

Just to throw another variable into the mix, how much penetration do you need for pigeon?

The home grown version is pinned above - retrieved from the archives. Going to have to amend it though it seems to include the figures for No 7 shot at 60 yards.

[Hamster]

0.85 ft/lbs is empirical in nature and is based upon decades of shooting experience and is the quoted minimum energy requirement to kill a wood pigeon - and also other species. A cock partridge weighs 14 oz, a wood pigeon 18.

 

I'm aware of the fantasy I was hoping for PROOF ? You know, like a reference to the detailed three year long study which included thousands of different animals being shot at different ranges in different climates ( to factor in plumage and general body condition ), using different shot sizes and not forgetting of course making sure they are categorised according to orientation of body mass at moment of firing with details telling us how long it took for them to expire from this mythical 0.85 thingy.

 

Sounds absurd doesn't it ? That's because it is. It's one man's gobbledygook being feasted upon decades after anyone with an ounce of reason (or actual field experience) should have realised it's nothing but an opinion and a highly dubious one at that.

[Hamster]

Just googled average weights for woodies and partridge and both come out at 490g.

[Old farrier]

Just googled average weights for woodies and partridge and both come out at 490g.

Would that be a red leg or a grey partridge 😊

[wymberley]

Would that be a red leg or a grey partridge

Yep, that'll be the red leg.

[wymberley]

 

I'm aware of the fantasy I was hoping for PROOF ? You know, like a reference to the detailed three year long study which included thousands of different animals being shot at different ranges in different climates ( to factor in plumage and general body condition ), using different shot sizes and not forgetting of course making sure they are categorised according to orientation of body mass at moment of firing with details telling us how long it took for them to expire from this mythical 0.85 thingy.

 

Sounds absurd doesn't it ? That's because it is. It's one man's gobbledygook being feasted upon decades after anyone with an ounce of reason (or actual field experience) should have realised it's nothing but an opinion and a highly dubious one at that.

Hope you're feeling better now you have got that off your chest.

[Guerini Guy]

"I'm confused. What exactly was your point. You're happy with your lot. Have noted that the majority view favours a 'lighter' load. Yet you prefer a somewhat 'heavier' option of 32g of 5&1/2s."

 

Hi Mr Wymberley . . . nothing to get confused about. As I said right from the beginning, I am still happy with my choice of 32g 6's, but had read and heard more and more recently of people using 5's for their pigeon shooting, and was simply wondering if that is a current trend, or a fad, or a fact, or just a coincidence? Yes I did note that in fact many posters were advocating a lighter load from 6's rather than the heavier 5's, but I wasn't asking for advice . . . . just opinions. And I find peoples preferences interesting. Ultimately, nobody's choice is necessarily right . . . . just right for them.

 

Why people should have read into that, that my shooting was "off", or I was going through a "bad patch" is beyond me. Unless it was because I mentioned the odd wounded bird or runner in which case, should I assume that nobody else does because they are all such fantastic shots and always hit centre pattern? Unlikely !!!

 

However, I have really enjoyed reading through this stuff, and thank you all for your responses.

[Hamster]

Hope you're feeling better now you have got that off your chest.

 

Yes to be perfectly honest I do, whenever I come across myths and old wives tales which can't be backed up by facts I tend to raise the matter up , it just so happens shooting folklore is absolutely littered with rubbish.

[rbrowning2]

My tuppence worth, most who shoot 6 shot are already shooting with bigger shot that they realise as most shot is made outside the uk and is actually 2.7mm not UK 6 2.6mm

 

And I would sooner believe the work and many books by the likes of Burrard and others than the gut feelings of hamster who to the best of my knowledge does not have a single book published on the subject.

 

And finally as hunters it is down to us to show the quarry respect and dispatch it in away that ensures a swift and hopefully painless end to its life what ever the quarry and not try to save a pound or two on cartridges.

Is that not why we have by law minimum calibres for deer? Perhaps the same should apply to Pigeon, crow, game........

Edited February 22, 2017 by rbrowning2

[Guest cookoff013]

shot is getting harder, more antimony is used so it is even lighter, so #7 @5% antimony slightly lighter than #7 @3% antimony.

they used to publish the antimony content, but hull have upgraded the websites.

 

shot has had to get harder to go faster speeds. if i recolect, in the lyman shell loading book, its 2% standard.

 

this is still splitting hairs though.

its how the uk market has been developed.

[Wilksy II]

No disrespect intended to the op and apologys if it's been asked in the thread already but have you had you eye dominance checked recently I have been told that it can slowly change over the years, just a thought! I have a good friend of 83 who has shot since he was a lad and it has happened to him

[motty]

_{Harder shot penetrates better, helping to reach vital organs.}

[EdSolomons]

Pigeons- up to 50 yards a 28g 7.5 is more than enough. I've shot thousands with these (and 8s) over the years and they do the job admirably. If I'm roost shooting and know I will be taking longer shots (regularly past 50 yards) then yes I'll go to 5s but also up the load to 34-36g.

[Guerini Guy]

No disrespect intended to the op and apologys if it's been asked in the thread already but have you had you eye dominance checked recently I have been told that it can slowly change over the years, just a thought! I have a good friend of 83 who has shot since he was a lad and it has happened to him

 

Haha Mr Wilksy II - I think its less about my eye dominance, and more about you reading the posts correctly mate.

 

I don't have a problem with my shooting . . . . . just asking a simple question about what cartridges people use.

 

I have carefully re-read my posts and, sorry guys, but I just don't get where I have expressed any concern over my shooting ability? Just curious about a specific cartridge size.

 

I'll say it once again - I am very happy with my personal choice of 32g 6's, but it doesn't stop me being curious and interested about other shooters' preferences!

[wymberley]

"I'm confused. What exactly was your point. You're happy with your lot. Have noted that the majority view favours a 'lighter' load. Yet you prefer a somewhat 'heavier' option of 32g of 5&1/2s."

 

Hi Mr Wymberley . . . nothing to get confused about. As I said right from the beginning, I am still happy with my choice of 32g 6's, but had read and heard more and more recently of people using 5's for their pigeon shooting, and was simply wondering if that is a current trend, or a fad, or a fact, or just a coincidence? Yes I did note that in fact many posters were advocating a lighter load from 6's rather than the heavier 5's, but I wasn't asking for advice . . . . just opinions. And I find peoples preferences interesting. Ultimately, nobody's choice is necessarily right . . . . just right for them.

 

Why people should have read into that, that my shooting was "off", or I was going through a "bad patch" is beyond me. Unless it was because I mentioned the odd wounded bird or runner in which case, should I assume that nobody else does because they are all such fantastic shots and always hit centre pattern? Unlikely !!!

 

However, I have really enjoyed reading through this stuff, and thank you all for your responses.

Absolutely.

 

Unlike Nilo and Patuxent,etc, we, in this country to my knowledge have never carried out such studies (with one possible exception, but that would have been a by product of the sport) - I could well imagine if we tried it now there'd be uproar on this small island. Consequently, most of our references are empirical in nature. and likely to remain so. This means that they're not set in stone, but act as a guide to be interpreted in the field to suit the individual need as it occurs. In other words, the information gleaned will keep you out of trouble if you're just starting off and have no real idea until such time as you have learned to adapt it to your own needs. Having said that, I just happen to believe that we owe the people whose work we refer to a huge debt of gratitude. Furthermore, I also believe that their work was pretty close to reality. But as you say, that's just my opinion

[motty]

.

Edited February 22, 2017 by motty