Jump to content

Hull High Pheasant .410


Recommended Posts

Just a couple of questions for the gurus before I disappear for the night.

 

1. Does anyone know what the powder used in the Hull High Pheasant 19g/#6 loading is? It's a black spherical powder of extremely small granule size, appears to be extremely slow and very consistent in burn. I'd like to know if it, or a commercial equivalent is available.

 

2. Does anyone know whether Hull are loading continental shot sizes into the aforementioned cartridge? Their website and my calculations suggest that they should be putting about 180-190 pellets in the cartridge, but my average of five cartridges comes out at 162 with very little variation. That sounds like #5½ to me...

 

Either way, I'm not sure I mind. I didn't complete all the pattern testing I wanted to do today as I ran out of paper, but the preliminary results suggest that they are a phenomenal cartridge, which ties in with the left-and-right I managed with them last week. :)

 

Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your bullet point 2. is spot on. If the 410 load is designed to perform in a similar fashion to its big brother in 12, then it's not surprising that it performs well. More often than not, the only sure way to find out what might be in the cartridge is to look at their website, but I would imagine that any physical change could well occur at a different time to the website update. This means that the only way to be sure of what actually IS in there is to do what you've done. For example, the previous 'site offering gave 7s as 350/oz and was spot on. The current version gives 320. I can't tell you what it actually is as they've stopped producing the 12 High Pheasant in 7s. Damn it.

For my money, with all the different ideas and international spec's being offered for sale here in the UK, it's high time that the pellet/oz count is annotated on the carton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks to you all. If it is Vectan SP3, it appears to be a very good powder, on the basis of yesterday's results. No sign of pellet welding; lovely even patterns; pellet counts I'd more often associate with #7 shot with #6's. It won't quite manage 40 yards, but it'll do 35-37 at a push. If I had a way of pulling the shot and replacing it with the same quantity of Gamebore's "Diamond Shot", I suspect it would get there. Anyone got a .410 press they want to lend me!? :)

 

Right - I'm off to find the SP3 data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Might try a box or two of those. Thanks for the information.

 

No worries.

 

I actually ran out of paper, so I don't have a reliable data set yet, but give some detail, the best 30-yard pattern so far was 142 in the circle through 0.015" choke. 0.020" was also usable (best = 136), but appears to be a little too much for this cartridge. Using 120 in the circle as the absolute minimum standard and the 10%-loss-per-5-yards estimation, suggests it would reach to 35 or maybe 37 under the best circumstances. It certainly seemed more than adequate when I ended up - unexpectedly - field testing them (in advance of pattern testing them) two Sundays ago. Recoil was firm-ish, but patterns were nicely spaced and notably even.

 

40-yard counts were around 100 pellets at best, with a low of 78 during testing. Now I want to know how they would have performed if they'd had some decent hard lead in them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks to you all. If it is Vectan SP3, it appears to be a very good powder, on the basis of yesterday's results. No sign of pellet welding; lovely even patterns; pellet counts I'd more often associate with #7 shot with #6's. It won't quite manage 40 yards, but it'll do 35-37 at a push. If I had a way of pulling the shot and replacing it with the same quantity of Gamebore's "Diamond Shot", I suspect it would get there. Anyone got a .410 press they want to lend me!? :)

 

Right - I'm off to find the SP3 data.

Buy a press, save a lot, and you will never regret it!

Off topic but Cheddite now sell at £350/1000 24g plastic 5/6

You can reload for half that price !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neutron619 when you speak about choke measurements of 0.015 and 0.020 on the Teague charts for .410 that appears to be full and extra full is that correct or am missing something?

https://www.teaguechokes.com/assets/pdfs/choke-charts/choke-chart.pdf

 

It depends who you ask and what you mean.

 

The chokes themselves are "Modified" and "Improved Modified" according to the manual that came with the gun.

 

I call them "half" and "three-quarter" to myself for convenience, but when I'm talking to anyone else, I try to use the constrictions, rather than any names.

 

The reason for that is that Teague appear to call them "Full" and "Extra Full", whilst Briley, to whom I usually refer, have them nearer to being "Improved Modified" and Extra Full - see here: http://www.briley.com/c-448-bore-sizes-and-constrictions.aspx

 

On the other hand, their performance with the cartridge in question is more in the region of "Full" for the 0.015" choke and somwhere between "Improved Cylinder" and "Modified" for the 0.020" choke ("three-eighths" if you prefer it in English flavour), which seems over tight and looks very much like a blown pattern.

 

Given the (hopefully obvious) potential for confusion, I therefore refer only to the constrictions and the performance in absolute or percentage, but not nominal terms.

 

More generally, I've found that .410 almost never gives the performance one might expect, according to the name of the choke or the degree of its constriction, with any cartridge. You have to test everything, in your gun, if you want to know how it performs.

 

Edit: spelling in the penultimate sentence (of -> or).

Edited by neutron619
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It depends who you ask and what you mean.

 

The chokes themselves are "Modified" and "Improved Modified" according to the manual that came with the gun.

 

I call them "half" and "three-quarter" to myself for convenience, but when I'm talking to anyone else, I try to use the constrictions, rather than any names.

 

The reason for that is that Teague appear to call them "Full" and "Extra Full", whilst Briley, to whom I usually refer, have them nearer to being "Improved Modified" and Extra Full - see here: http://www.briley.com/c-448-bore-sizes-and-constrictions.aspx

 

On the other hand, their performance with the cartridge in question is more in the region of "Full" for the 0.015" choke and somwhere between "Improved Cylinder" and "Modified" for the 0.020" choke ("three-eighths" if you prefer it in English flavour), which seems over tight and looks very much like a blown pattern.

 

Given the (hopefully obvious) potential for confusion, I therefore refer only to the constrictions and the performance in absolute or percentage, but not nominal terms.

 

More generally, I've found that .410 almost never gives the performance one might expect, according to the name of the choke or the degree of its constriction, with any cartridge. You have to test everything, in your gun, if you want to know how it performs.

 

Edit: spelling in the penultimate sentence (of -> or).

Many thanks for the explanation. Will have to get out and do some pattern tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...