wymberley Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 six n alf? where in blighty are we going to find that? That bad is it - sad reflection on the situation. A pointless choice then. Otherwise I'd have opened up some of mine and posted enough for the trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) My gut feeling is as this is going to be a fair old job, it might just pay to do it such as the results benefit the majority of applications. Exp. 1. As per, but as 40 yards is mid range or so for a #6, that has to be the optimal distance - as it has been with good reason for decades. Exp. 2. Again, pretty much as per with the 40 yards and the speed given. However, if we're talking lead, how many use #1 and #3 in quantity and if #9 is pretty much the domain of the skeet lads who already know which way is up, would deleting these and replacing them with, say, 6&1/2 and 7&1/2, be advantageous? Exp. 3. 28g of, say, #7 or 30g of #6 as fast as is safe - 1600+ at the muzzle - to see if the known disadvantages can be replicated and shown. Just my thoughts. 40 yards will not show you the whole pattern on the equipment available. Neither will 30 yards, all the time, at least, but it'll give you a lot more idea of how ragged or consistent the pattern is. Quality and quantity ought to be of interest. No to #6½ / #7½ also - what's the point? 50% of any quantity of average "#7" shot will be of those sizes anyway and the change won't be big enough to demonstrate what I imagine will be a tightening of patterns with the larger sizes. If anything, we need more variation. Experiment 3 has already been done and I will send a link to the results if you PM me. Edited October 24, 2017 by neutron619 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) 40 yards will not show you the whole pattern on the equipment available. Neither will 30 yards, all the time, at least, but it'll give you a lot more idea of how ragged or consistent the pattern is. Quality and quantity ought to be of interest. Then in the interests of consistency, the equipment needs replacing for something that does. However, I don't really understand this. You only need to obtain the central 30" spread anything beyond that is superfluous for all practical purposes. No to #6½ / #7½ also - what's the point? 50% of any quantity of average "#7" shot will be of those sizes anyway and the change won't be big enough to demonstrate what I imagine will be a tightening of patterns with the larger sizes. If anything, we need more variation. As the cartridge loading is under your control, I thought the pellet count could have been determined prior to loading. But it seems I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. With the possible exception of those few taking advantage of 28g of #3 (called #4) which may, or may not, suit their needs, in the vast majority of cases now any shot size over c#4 will be non toxic. Experiment 3 has already been done and I will send a link to the results if you PM me. Sounds interesting, PM imminent. Edited October 24, 2017 by wymberley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 40 yards will not show you the whole pattern on the equipment available. Neither will 30 yards, all the time, at least, but it'll give you a lot more idea of how ragged or consistent the pattern is. Quality and quantity ought to be of interest. Then in the interests of consistency, the equipment needs replacing for something that does. However, I don't really understand this. You only need to obtain the central 30" spread anything beyond that is superfluous for all practical purposes. No to #6½ / #7½ also - what's the point? 50% of any quantity of average "#7" shot will be of those sizes anyway and the change won't be big enough to demonstrate what I imagine will be a tightening of patterns with the larger sizes. If anything, we need more variation. As the cartridge loading is under your control, I thought the pellet count could have been determined prior to loading. But it seems I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. With the possible exception of those few taking advantage of 28g of #3 (called #4) which may, or may not, suit their needs, in the vast majority of cases now any shot size over c#4 will be non toxic. Experiment 3 has already been done and I will send a link to the results if you PM me. Sounds interesting, PM imminent. Many thanks. Makes sense. I too have just patterned one of those cartridges and got similar results. I've also just patterned some from the same maker but slower and at the other end of the price spectrum and got a superior result - in relation to the required pattern (my opinion) for pigeon shooting. It is, perhaps, a shame that the results from the test of another maker - which was aborted after just two shots and the price of which on a well known site is in excess of £300 - went straight on to the farm bonfire. This latter example showed in no uncertain terms the other problem associated with unnecessary speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continental Shooter Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 Quality and quantity ought to be of interest. funny enough you should say that... it's all i look at when patterning... A good pattern will almost certainly kill better than a bad one...if you put it in the right place that is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 hmm, interesting. cheaper = better? maybe. i`m just hoping the evidence, or whatever is produced actually says something. its designing the test to say tuth, not half truths, another test i wouldnt mind doing is the fibre vs plaswad. i have 2 types of plaswad to go head to head, and different loadings aka the 25gram load of 6s. just to see whats happening. incidently these probably be safe right off the bat and i will produce pressure tests. same powder charge too. i have a slight hunch that there is a slight anomalie with shells. this is to do with the powder charge, and how its burned efficiently. maybe energetics stuff, but i can align this test in a patterning test to. kill about 5 birds (figurative birds-mind) with one shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 I’ve had some cracking long shots with express 25gram 6 shot, be good to see your findings on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 the only thing i`m slightly tepid about is the shotsize switch. at x distance might mean absolutely nothing. so i might have to have to wing it have long distance patterns. because the big shot might pattern too tight at the shorter distance, i will mash this out.... the 3rd part of silly stuff i`m really interested in shooting some weird shells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fen tiger Posted October 26, 2017 Report Share Posted October 26, 2017 In this clip 80 yards with Steel 1s, Could try slitting your wads like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted October 31, 2017 Report Share Posted October 31, 2017 so the next point about this project is data. what data do we create ? and how we record that data. there is virtually no point firing off 100 patterns for a binary result. yes / no? the bit that could muller this is hot coring because it screws the data, easily recordable though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.