Fast cartridge vs slower cartridge

[Smokersmith]

Whilst I have a lot of respect for your posts Hammy ... my experience on speed v pattern is more in line with the thread ... the slower ones I've tried do pattern tighter.

Many of the "top flight" shells have slower speeds as can be evidenced by the 'slowest' 13 on the list below from Jonnytheboy's testing ... certainly not budget loads.

 

1251fps Fiocchi Official Trap 28g

1247fps Mirage BOL D'or 28g

1245fps FOB Viper 28g

1242fps Mirage Grand Italia 28g

1235fps RC4 Trap 28g

1234fps Hull Pro One DTL300 28g

1233fps Gamebore Blue Diamond 28g

1227fps Gamebore White Gold Pro Steel 28g

1223fps Fiocchi FBlack 28g

1219fps Mirage T2 Competition DTL 28g

1214fps Hull Comp X 28g

1207fps Hull Sporting 100 28g

1194fps Mirage Pro Sport Extra 28g

[neutron619]

14 hours ago, Ultrastu said:

Again I agree. There is a lot less when It comes to shot carts in flight than a bullet or airgunpellet ...

And they all sounded the same and broke the clays the same .And went in the same direction .I couldn't perceive any difference between them .

Perhaps I've misunderstood your meaning, but surely (read: I certainly find) there's a lot more depth in the study of shot shells than there is in the study of bullets and other "single" projectiles?

Beyond stiffness (i.e. resonance), twist rates and to some extent, velocity, when it's extreme (i.e. 4000fps+) the barrel of a rifle has no effect on the ballistics of a bullet. For the practical hunter, none of those will make a huge difference providing twist rate is sufficient to stabilize the bullet. In a shotgun, interaction with the barrel (and choke) is hugely important and will make a difference in the field if a cartridge underperforms.

In the case of a rifle, you're dealing with a projectiles of a single, uniform construction, fired one at a time, whereas with a shotgun, you're using multiple projectiles though still behaving according to the same physical laws (accounting for the fact that they are all very slightly different), also interact with each other during the time of firing. That's without mentioning the all important "other" projectile - the wad - which will help to govern some of these interactions.

If you're looking to apply science to one or the other, I'd say that shotguns offer a lot more depth and a far greater number of unanswered questions still requiring scientific study. Rifle ballistics is pretty much "solved" now, but although the principles of shotgun shooting are reasonably (empirically) well-established, the science itself lags behind, even after hundreds of years - perhaps because of lack of interest - and that leaves a lot more for those of us who are interested to "chew on", so to speak.

The fact that one cannot straightforwardly determine the effects of changing a cartridge in the field does not mean that there are not differences between them. I would suggest that shotgun cartridges are considerably more complicated in operation than rifle cartridges and that the science being significantly harder to understand does in any way not make their behaviour a matter of luck or unworthy of study.

Don't get me wrong though. I still think of the rifle as being an incredible invention and a useful tool worthy of study - but at the same time, it's really dull, because our hunting tradition requires "point and click" shooting and after that, it's all just a competition to get bullet of given mass and shape moving out of the gun faster than the last guy managed, using a pressure which doesn't blow the gun to bits. I actually gave deer stalking up because, taken with rifle shooting as a whole, I found it boring - if you can believe that!

[Hamster]

7 hours ago, Smokersmith said:

Whilst I have a lot of respect for your posts Hammy ... my experience on speed v pattern is more in line with the thread ... the slower ones I've tried do pattern tighter.

Many of the "top flight" shells have slower speeds as can be evidenced by the 'slowest' 13 on the list below from Jonnytheboy's testing ... certainly not budget loads.

 

1251fps Fiocchi Official Trap 28g

1247fps Mirage BOL D'or 28g

1245fps FOB Viper 28g

1242fps Mirage Grand Italia 28g

1235fps RC4 Trap 28g

1234fps Hull Pro One DTL300 28g

1233fps Gamebore Blue Diamond 28g

1227fps Gamebore White Gold Pro Steel 28g

1223fps Fiocchi FBlack 28g

1219fps Mirage T2 Competition DTL 28g

1214fps Hull Comp X 28g

1207fps Hull Sporting 100 28g

1194fps Mirage Pro Sport Extra 28g

I have no doubt a lot of famous names and quality shells do not in fact fall into the high speed category but this isn't what we're talking about here, rather the assertion : 

a slow cartridge patterns tighter than a fast cartridge , therefore a slower shell tends to hit harder as it’s a denser pattern ( pattern kills )

In fact the closing statement is a contradiction in terms, how can a slower shell hit harder ? To articulate and qualify that statement you'd have to prove that slow shells make MEANINGFUL differences to pattern density. It's not good enough to cite one slow shell that you either loaded personally or one that you happen to have experience with and compare it with another that so happens to help your argument along, nocando I'm afraid. If an argument is to stand on its own legs then it needs to be born out both in practice and on paper.

The fact remains that we have people who have literally fired thousands upon thousands of shotgun shells at paper patterns and concluded that the saying is near pointless, one such person appears to believe the opposite is in fact the case. We have all seen a thousand pictures of patterns in cartridge tests and I for one have not noticed anything substantially beyond the norm, that is to say that most shells throw within 5-10% of the choke denomination they're fired through. Minor differences will always exist when test fired through different barrels due to tiny variations in barrel/choke/chamber profiles etc, but as mentioned earlier the main impact is via harder shot and wad types not speed. 

If so called slow shells did physically throw meaningfully denser patterns then we'd have by now gotten to name a choke over and above Full; yes we do have Xtra Full etc, but they too are meaningless because experience has shown that the best you can hope to achieve is about 70-75% density inside a 30" circle at 40 yards, what you decide to call that and how you decide to spin that is up to the individual but repeat, 75% is about max achievable density, slow, medium or fast. 

To recap, in order to qualify and prove the above statement to be true you need to show that all things being equal speed in and of itself makes a quantifiable difference to patten density, modern tests have shown it does not. Remember chokes can take us all the way from 40% to 75% as it is and everything in between (but crucially not beyond) and for a "slow" shell to "hit" harder it would need to jump up at least 2 choke denominations (say from 1/4 to 3/4) otherwise it would be undetectable in practice. 

The reason most manufacturers load stuff to the kinds of speeds that your original post shows has little to do with density, the main reasons are to be found in recoil comfort, your average shooter will not become a repeat customer of something that recoils violently. Put simply they have arrived at very near max speeds regular clay shooters will tolerate. Back in the day Cypriot makers Victory offered us their Sonics which were advertised at around 1600fps if memory serves, Gunmark who were the original Beretta importers now morphed into GMK also dabbled with a super fast 1oz clay load which were briefly offered in different coloured cases depending on shot size before falling out of favour. I shot both and believe me they lacked nothing in hitting power or density but were sadly all but unshootable, literally nobody could live with them every week-end. 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Hamster

[wymberley]

5 hours ago, neutron619 said:

Perhaps I've misunderstood your meaning, but surely (read: I certainly find) there's a lot more depth in the study of shot shells than there is in the study of bullets and other "single" projectiles?

Beyond stiffness (i.e. resonance), twist rates and to some extent, velocity, when it's extreme (i.e. 4000fps+) the barrel of a rifle has no effect on the ballistics of a bullet. For the practical hunter, none of those will make a huge difference providing twist rate is sufficient to stabilize the bullet. In a shotgun, interaction with the barrel (and choke) is hugely important and will make a difference in the field if a cartridge underperforms.

In the case of a rifle, you're dealing with a projectiles of a single, uniform construction, fired one at a time, whereas with a shotgun, you're using multiple projectiles though still behaving according to the same physical laws (accounting for the fact that they are all very slightly different), also interact with each other during the time of firing. That's without mentioning the all important "other" projectile - the wad - which will help to govern some of these interactions.

If you're looking to apply science to one or the other, I'd say that shotguns offer a lot more depth and a far greater number of unanswered questions still requiring scientific study. Rifle ballistics is pretty much "solved" now, but although the principles of shotgun shooting are reasonably (empirically) well-established, the science itself lags behind, even after hundreds of years - perhaps because of lack of interest - and that leaves a lot more for those of us who are interested to "chew on", so to speak.

The fact that one cannot straightforwardly determine the effects of changing a cartridge in the field does not mean that there are not differences between them. I would suggest that shotgun cartridges are considerably more complicated in operation than rifle cartridges and that the science being significantly harder to understand does in any way not make their behaviour a matter of luck or unworthy of study.

Don't get me wrong though. I still think of the rifle as being an incredible invention and a useful tool worthy of study - but at the same time, it's really dull, because our hunting tradition requires "point and click" shooting and after that, it's all just a competition to get bullet of given mass and shape moving out of the gun faster than the last guy managed, using a pressure which doesn't blow the gun to bits. I actually gave deer stalking up because, taken with rifle shooting as a whole, I found it boring - if you can believe that!

Sorted

29 minutes ago, Hamster said:

I have no doubt a lot of famous names and quality shells do not in fact fall into the high speed category but this isn't what we're talking about here, rather the assertion : 

a slow cartridge patterns tighter than a fast cartridge , therefore a slower shell tends hit harder as it’s a denser pattern ( pattern kills )

In fact the closing statement is a contradiction in terms, how can a slower shell hit harder ? To articulate and qualify that statement you'd have to prove that slow shells make MEANINGFUL differences to pattern density. It's not good enough to cite one slow shell that you either loaded personally or one that you happen to have experience with and compare it with another that so happens to help your argument along, nocando I'm afraid. If an argument is to stand on its own legs then it needs to be born out both in practice and on paper.

The fact remains that we have people who have literally fired thousands upon thousands of shotgun shells at paper patterns and concluded that the saying is near pointless, one such person appears to believe the opposite is in fact the case. We have all seen a thousand pictures of patterns in cartridge tests and I for one have not noticed anything substantially beyond the norm, that is to say that most shells throw within 5-10% of the choke denomination they're fired through. Minor differences will always exist when test fired through different barrels due to tiny variations in barrel/choke/chamber profiles etc, but as mentioned earlier the main impact is via harder shot and wad types not speed. 

If so called slow shells did physically throw meaningfully denser patterns then we'd have by now gotten to name a choke over and above Full; yes we do have Xtra Full etc, but they too are meaningless because experience has shown that the best you can hope to achieve is about 70-75% density inside a 30" circle at 40 yards, what you decide to call that and how you decide to spin that is up to the individual but repeat, 75% is about max achievable density, slow, medium or fast. 

To recap, in order to qualify and prove the above statement to be true you need to show that all things being equal speed in and of itself makes a quantifiable difference to patten density, modern tests have shown it does not. Remember chokes can take us all the way from 40% to 75% as it is and everything in between (but crucially not beyond) and for a "slow" shell to "hit" harder it would need to jump up at least 2 choke denominations (say from 1/4 to 3/4) otherwise it would be undetectable in practice. 

The reason most manufacturers load stuff to the kinds of speeds that your original post shows has little to do with density, the main reasons are to be found in recoil comfort, your average shooter will not become a repeat customer of something that recoils violently. Put simply they have arrived at very near max speeds regular clay shooters will tolerate. Back in the day Cypriot makers Victory offered us their Sonics which were advertised at around 1600fps if memory serves, Gunmark who were the original Beretta importers now morphed into GMK also dabbled with a super fast 1oz clay load which were briefly offered in different coloured cases depending on shot size before falling out of favour. I shot both and believe me they lacked nothing in hitting power or density but were sadly all but unshootable, literally nobody could live with them every week-end. 

I took the first quoted words to mean with greater authority.

And the second ones are spot on.

[Ultrastu]

So we are giving no credibility to the idea that although a pellet that is badly deformed but still happens to land in the pattern hasn't lost a lot of energy due to drag (as compared to a round pellet that retains its energy better and hits harder ) ?

I do a lot of work with airgun pellets and the difference in bc between the best performers and the worse is MASSIVE  they may both weight the same and hit the same spot. But one pellet can easily carry x2 the energy of the other. Some times more. 

Does this make a difference to how the bird or rabbit or target reacts .? You bet it does. 

So maybe the speed of the shot gun cart doesnt effect the pattern size .? But maybe it does effect the bc of some of the pellets fired and if 30 % of them have a much reduced value over a slower cart (for example ) then even If They land in pattern they will hit less hard .

[Ultrastu]

It's very difficult to quantify how hard a pellet hits. Without a chronograph. As penetration depth(of a suitable medium ) isnt a good indicator.  A combination of wound depth/width  or cavity volume is best but a medium (clay ) that records this data permanently is its self not a good substitute for real flesh and bone 

So has to be take as a rough guide only .

So if we can't reliably use a chrono at range or a shot into medium at range then we are left with people's anecdotal experience over years of shooting on quarry to give us the real picture .

This will obviously vary but in time a picture may emerge . 

 

Do slower carts hit harder what says the pw .masses ?? 

[Ultrastu]

One of the things you learn as a rifle shooter is .

It doesn't matter if you put the lead pill in the right spot. If it doesn't have the correct terminal ballistics to do the correct damage to that spot its not gonna drop your quarry .accuracy is great but it isnt everything .

Energy is great but it isnt all .

Expansion is wonderful but it isnt the only consideration .

You need a combination of all the above including penetration but they must be balanced to your quarry and its targeted  kill zone 

So to simply say" put the bird in the middle of the pattern "and it will fold is a bit short sighted. 

Yes it accounts for a lot but its not the whole story .

[wymberley]

15 minutes ago, Ultrastu said:

So we are giving no credibility to the idea that although a pellet that is badly deformed but still happens to land in the pattern hasn't lost a lot of energy due to drag (as compared to a round pellet that retains its energy better and hits harder ) ?

I do a lot of work with airgun pellets and the difference in bc between the best performers and the worse is MASSIVE  they may both weight the same and hit the same spot. But one pellet can easily carry x2 the energy of the other. Some times more. 

Does this make a difference to how the bird or rabbit or target reacts .? You bet it does. 

So maybe the speed of the shot gun cart doesnt effect the pattern size .? But maybe it does effect the bc of some of the pellets fired and if 30 % of them have a much reduced value over a slower cart (for example ) then even If They land in pattern they will hit less hard .

However unlikely, let's accept the fact that the badly deformed pellets still manage to fly sufficiently straight and true to end up in a 30" circle some 30+ yards away. Being so deformed has had a dramatic affect on their BC which means that in addition to losing energy they've also lost velocity. Therefore, no matter where they end up they're going to do so way behind the majority which will have done the damage, as it were, long before they finally arrived.

[neutron619]

1 hour ago, wymberley said:

I took the first quoted words to mean with greater authority.

And the second ones are spot on.

As did I for the first part, but, regarding the second part - isn't "two choke sizes" a bit arbitrary? I mean, don't get me wrong - I know what you're aiming at - about 15% difference in percentage performance - but "modified" to "full" is 10% and "cylinder" to "modified" is 20%, so we should probably say what we mean.

After that, I'm afraid I disagree with hamster.

I have some evidence (albeit not enough to be comfortable resting on it at this point) to prove it, too, with more on the way just as soon as cookoff and I actually get round to producing it early next year. I always expect surprises when pattern testing, but I'm pretty confident on this one. Speed kills patterns and the smaller the bore, the harder it kills them(!).

I'm not sure where all the evidence hamster is quoting is, but I haven't seen it in what is now quite a lot of years of looking into the subject. Aside from the direct comparison I've done between the Hull Subsonic and Sovereign cartridges, which showed a 12-15% advantage to the subsonic cartridge in spite of the fact that the components of the Sovereigns are newer, better made, and include much harder shot, about whose advantage to percentage performance there is little doubt, I have over a year's worth of .410 patterning data that shows that the slower the cartridge, the better it patterns, almost without exception. Of course, no two shells are comparable (except in .410, they occasionally are, as they're basically the same recipe with different quantities of powder, made by one producer for different "manufacturers") but there is too much evidence pointing to the damaging consequences of speed for me to simply ignore it.

Apart form anything else, as I've twice shown here on previous occasions, with mathematical proof, the faster the shot goes, the harder it hits the choke surface and the more it deforms, so unless anyone wants to argue that shot spread and loss of charge are not caused, at least in part, by pellet deformation (good luck with that one) then there is no scientific way one can prove that higher velocity is advantageous. What I will be wanting to know, if anyone tries, is what on earth mitigates this increased damage, if they truly believe smashing the pellets together and into the barrel wall harder is going to create better patterns. It's just not credible.

Edited December 18, 2017 by neutron619
Clarity.

[neutron619]

23 minutes ago, Ultrastu said:

One of the things you learn as a rifle shooter is .

It doesn't matter if you put the lead pill in the right spot. If it doesn't have the correct terminal ballistics to do the correct damage to that spot its not gonna drop your quarry .accuracy is great but it isnt everything .

Energy is great but it isnt all .

Expansion is wonderful but it isnt the only consideration .

You need a combination of all the above including penetration but they must be balanced to your quarry and its targeted  kill zone 

So to simply say" put the bird in the middle of the pattern "and it will fold is a bit short sighted. 

Yes it accounts for a lot but its not the whole story .

I happen to agree with you - at least as far as it not being the whole story - but you have to allow that the simple view is sufficient for almost every situation.

Above a certain, very low threshold, energy is irrelevant. Expansion is also irrelevant - impact velocities are too low and common targets too soft to cause it to occur to any degree. That leaves pattern. Density (linear) is highest in the middle of the pattern and without going down the whole "it's a function, not a density" thing again, the effect is true: put the bird in the place where it's most likely to be killed and it probably will be.

People drive cars on less sophisticated understanding than that, remember...?

[Ultrastu]

 

Yes .your right for the most part the put it in the pattern adage is enough .

But if I put a crow in the middle of of no 7.5 cart at 35 yds through my .hush 20b it won't fold. Fact. 

Unless in lucky enough to get a head shot .the other low energy7.5  pellets that strike the body wont drop it.

And I dont feel 35 yds is very far for a shot gun and there would have been enough pellet density also. Just not the required penetration or wound channel toreliable kill the crow. 

 

[Hamster]

2 hours ago, neutron619 said:

As did I for the first part, but, regarding the second part - isn't "two choke sizes" a bit arbitrary? I mean, don't get me wrong - I know what you're aiming at - about 15% difference in percentage performance - but "modified" to "full" is 10% and "cylinder" to "modified" is 20%, so we should probably say what we mean.

After that, I'm afraid I disagree with hamster.

I have some evidence (albeit not enough to be comfortable resting on it at this point) to prove it, too, with more on the way just as soon as cookoff and I actually get round to producing it early next year. I always expect surprises when pattern testing, but I'm pretty confident on this one. Speed kills patterns and the smaller the bore, the harder it kills them(!).

I'm not sure where all the evidence hamster is quoting is, but I haven't seen it in what is now quite a lot of years of looking into the subject. Aside from the direct comparison I've done between the Hull Subsonic and Sovereign cartridges, which showed a 12-15% advantage to the subsonic cartridge in spite of the fact that the components of the Sovereigns are newer, better made, and include much harder shot, about whose advantage to percentage performance there is little doubt, I have over a year's worth of .410 patterning data that shows that the slower the cartridge, the better it patterns, almost without exception. Of course, no two shells are comparable (except in .410, they occasionally are, as they're basically the same recipe with different quantities of powder, made by one producer for different "manufacturers") but there is too much evidence pointing to the damaging consequences of speed for me to simply ignore it.

Apart form anything else, as I've twice shown here on previous occasions, with mathematical proof, the faster the shot goes, the harder it hits the choke surface and the more it deforms, so unless anyone wants to argue that shot spread and loss of charge are not caused, at least in part, by pellet deformation (good luck with that one) then there is no scientific way one can prove that higher velocity is advantageous. What I will be wanting to know, if anyone tries, is what on earth mitigates this increased damage, if they truly believe smashing the pellets together and into the barrel wall harder is going to create better patterns. It's just not credible.

It's not Hamster you're disagreeing with rather the work of people who have bothered to spend hundreds of hours patterning shotgun shells, FWIW I don't think we can realistically be taking results from .410 to be representative of 12 gauge, nor do I think it remotely credible to be making any worthwhile conclusions when comparing subsonics with competition ammo. 

Speed kills patterns is one  of those soundbites that sounds plausible, all such one liners do hence why we tend to believe them for years and years until someone comes along and actually bothers testing stuff in a sensible way. Another forum I frequent has currently kicked off with the old "tight chokes make shot strings longer" malarky  again it sounds plausible but is false nonetheless. Amongst others a certain AC Jones who hails from this country has conducted and published extensive pattern work and stats which are available to purchase as downloadable format, his work has been read, absorbed and commented on by lots of informed American shooters and among many myths which he has disproved are two which I have always been interested in, one being under discussion the other being that he found a single pellet was more often than not enough to affect a break, a belief I have long held. 

I'm afraid with your closing paragraph you've demonstrated precisely the sort of erroneous, unhelpful and plain misleading phraseology that leads to long term falsehoods being taken as gospel. Remember the water hose being squeezed analogy (apologists) trying to explain why they thought tight chokes MUST lead to longer strings ? They were equating liquid (and continuous) dynamics as being applicable to shot columns, which of course it is not, because shot departs from the barrel and soon after that the wad therefore it does not get affected in the same way as water through a tight hose does. 

There IS no choke "surface" (it is an extremely gradual taper) and pellets don't get SMASHED through the barrel wall either. Fast and slow shells detonation both result in what is essentially an almighty explosion, the difference between the crushing of pellets between one or the other is immaterial and may even be non existent as we know for a fact that manufacturers use harder shot and besides the whole thing is contained within a plastic cup anyway. We know from existing data that modern felt wad ammo can be every bit as good as plastic in density terms and differences are usually within 5% further proof that shot is not getting smashed senseless in the barrel/choke profile. 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Hamster

[Hamster]

1 hour ago, neutron619 said:

I have some evidence (albeit not enough to be comfortable resting on it at this point) to prove it, too, with more on the way just as soon as cookoff and I actually get round to producing it early next year. I always expect surprises when pattern testing, but I'm pretty confident on this one. Speed kills patterns and the smaller the bore, the harder it kills them(!).

 

I'm not even sure I know what the harder it kills them means but material evidence shows that small bores do NOT pattern or perform better, if they did then we'd all be shooting 20 or 28 gauge for our clay shooting because lets face it the difference between winning and losing is more often than not a single target. There is in fact an easily absorbed and comprehendable reason for 12 being the leader in the market, something to do with the proportions of the wads and pellet stack/column height being at their optimum. 

[neutron619]

2 hours ago, Hamster said:

It's not Hamster you're disagreeing with rather the work of people who have bothered to spend hundreds of hours patterning shotgun shells, FWIW I don't think we can realistically be taking results from .410 to be representative of 12 gauge, nor do I think it remotely credible to be making any worthwhile conclusions when comparing subsonics with competition ammo. 

Speed kills patterns is one  of those soundbites that sounds plausible, all such one liners do hence why we tend to believe them for years and years until someone comes along and actually bothers testing stuff in a sensible way. Another forum I frequent has currently kicked off with the old "tight chokes make shot strings longer" malarky  again it sounds plausible but is false nonetheless. Amongst others a certain AC Jones who hails from this country has conducted and published extensive pattern work and stats which are available to purchase as downloadable format, his work has been read, absorbed and commented on by lots of informed American shooters and among many myths which he has disproved are two which I have always been interested in, one being under discussion the other being that he found a single pellet was more often than not enough to affect a break, a belief I have long held. 

I'm afraid with your closing paragraph you've demonstrated precisely the sort of erroneous, unhelpful and plain misleading phraseology that leads to long term falsehoods being taken as gospel. Remember the water hose being squeezed analogy (apologists) trying to explain why they thought tight chokes MUST lead to longer strings ? They were equating liquid (and continuous) dynamics as being applicable to shot columns, which of course it is not, because shot departs from the barrel and soon after that the wad therefore it does not get affected in the same way as water through a tight hose does. 

There IS no choke "surface" (it is an extremely gradual taper) and pellets don't get SMASHED through the barrel wall either. Fast and slow shells detonation both result in what is essentially an almighty explosion, the difference between the crushing of pellets between one or the other is immaterial and may even be non existent as we know for a fact that manufacturers use harder shot and besides the whole thing is contained within a plastic cup anyway. We know from existing data that modern felt wad ammo can be every bit as good as plastic in density terms and differences are usually within 5% further proof that shot is not getting smashed senseless in the barrel/choke profile. 

Well apologies for what follows being a flat-out disagreement, but I don't think I'm the one who's mis-informed. In fact, I don't think mis-information is the problem here, but rather the mis-application of it.

No, .410 isn't representative of 12 gauge. It's .410. It's a gauge (or bore size, if you wish) which has the happy characteristic of accentuating any and all deformatory effects on pellets passing down such a barrel. This means that, apart from being a challenging and enjoyable gauge to shoot, it's also extremely useful at highlighting what you might refer to as the "secondary ballistic effects" one would also see in 12 gauge, but to a lesser degree. Think of it as the most conveniently-available magnifying glass we have on the internal ballistics of shotgunning.

To address your later point before the rest of your original post, since it seems convenient at this point, you simply misinterpreted what I'd said, as you suggested you had. What I meant was that if speed generally "kills patterns", it kills patterns especially well in the smaller bores: i.e. the detrimental effect on performance is accentuated - greatly in the case of the .410 - for a given increase in muzzle velocity, compared to the larger bores. The reasons for this should be obvious: more pellets are in contact with the barrel wall, get scrubbed down it, deformed and are therefore proportionately more likely to become fliers.

To return to your original point, your accusation of the comparison being incredible is, I suspect, a mask for it being a rather inconvenient truth. The reason I'm not publishing my data at this point is because there isn't enough of it to lean heavily on, but at some point there will be and it'll be published. That said, there isn't much between the two Hull cartridges I've tested - except for quantity of powder and about 400fps. They're both 28g/#7½ clay loads and one is clearly superior to the other. N.b. It isn't the fast, expensive one with the hard shot and shiny packaging. The way you should read that conclusion is to say "crikey - look how hard the manufacturers are having to work just to keep performance of their fast cartridges on a par with a more sensible loading".

I'm going to have to bullet point my response to your argument that my last paragraph is "erroneous, unhelpful and plain misleading phraseology" because there is so much wrong with it I'll be here all night if I go into detail:

• For a start, there is a choke surface and an impact upon it. Any non-cylindrical choke effects a perpendicular force on (at least) the outer pellets in the shot column proportional to the sine of the angle of the choke relative to the bore axis. (N.b. If you want to try to argue that this isn't true, we are going to have bigger, more fundamental bits of physics to deal with before we get started on pellets through chokes.)
• Pellets changing direction impact and can do so elastically or inelastically. Since there are no perfectly elastic collisions in the macroscopic world, any impact with the choke surface is inelastic which means that at least a portion of the energy transferred will be absorbed by the material either as heat or mechanical force, or both.
• Mechanical force on pellets, effectively delivered by the choke wall, produces deformation.
• Being soft, lead deforms easily. (N.b. not all manufacturers use decent hard lead in their top of the range clay loads, let alone across the board.)
• Your imagination has got the better of you if you think that a plastic wad offers the shot more than a modicum of protection against scrubbing, but as it happens, I've always found fibre to perform slightly better, particularly in the smaller gauges. Either way, find some plastic wads at the clay ground - they'll usually contain plenty of holes where friction has melted the wad under pressure and they've "burned" through. To protect the shot, they'd have to be un-deformable themselves, but if they were (e.g. made of really strong metal), you'd trumpet your gun every time you fired one.
• Friction with the barrel wall - scrubbing - also heats and deforms pellets.
• Crushing forces at point of firing are, I agree, unrelated to muzzle velocity. However, the acceleration by which the muzzle velocity, fast or slow, is achieved is significant and in a barrel (or area of accelleration) of fixed length, achieving 1500fps is likely to require driving the wad much harder (and therefore crushing more pellets inside the cup because of indertia) than getting the shot column to 1100fps.
• I'm not sure why you think the difference between fibre or plastic is significant to the discussion of muzzle velocity? Apart from anything else, a plastic wad effectively adds extra choke at the muzzle. In a 12 gauge, this is extremely hard to detect, but in - for example - a .410, one often finds that essentially equivalent loadings with plastic pattern better with a reduction in choke constriction and fibre vice versa. In fact, if there is any statistical difference between the two, I'd warrant that this is the reason.

As for 12 gauge being a market leader - well - there are reasons, mostly historical, but the answer to your "optimum height and width of shot column" is "10 gauge". Or "4 gauge". Or 150mm wadded cannon. Anything that gives you a single layer of pellets on top of an infinitely pliable wad, in fact. What you want, is as little interference from the barrel and the other pellets as possible - but you know this of course.

Edited December 18, 2017 by neutron619
Clarity.

[Hamster]

10 hours ago, neutron619 said:

 

As for 12 gauge being a market leader - well - there are reasons, mostly historical, but the answer to your "optimum height and width of shot column" is "10 gauge". Or "4 gauge". Or 150mm wadded cannon. Anything that gives you a single layer of pellets on top of an infinitely pliable wad, in fact. What you want, is as little interference from the barrel and the other pellets as possible - but you know this of course.

I have never said slow is identical to fast merely that any difference is either undetectable, not meaningful or easily accountable for, it is the assumption that it matters which I am arguing against. If it even exists it is so insignificant as to be immaterial. 

We have always been told that such and such throws "superior patterns" but no one bothers explaining what that superior means. We're told slower cartridges throw tighter therefore "better" patterns yet we can prove that nothing throws above 75% (+/- 5%) at 40 yards. It's not enough to be able to devise a load that somehow keeps 90% if it then fails to have the kinetic energy to break the clay when it arrives there, trust me I have shot slow shells (Victory 480 back in the 90's), I couldn't care less about the superiority of their patterns nor their comfort, because they bounced off clays one too many times. 

Plastic wads DO protect pellets through the barrel AND choke, we know this because of high speed films which show 95% of the pellets inside the cup at exit and the rest airborne in front. We also know this because we have to use steel shot via plastic wads. 

The 10 gauge cannot be swung round in a hide or in the field and certainly not on the clay circuit so even if it were ballistically the better tool it fails to deliver all round. 

My point is not that the choke profile CANNOT adversely affect the pellets, merely that any such effect is insignificant and countered by measures such as harder pellets, good plastic wad design and the effects of the choke itself keeping the shot tighter together. 

"Speed kills patterns" - easily uttered but rarely qualified. What does it even mean ? Take half a dozen medium fast and fast quality shells to a pattern plate and fire them, stand back and tell me what it is that displeases you. Then take them to a clay shoot and smoke your merry way away, literally pulverising everything that's correctly tackled, at what point have they failed ? Do the same with a slow shell throwing "superior" patterns, no doubt it will give a decent enough account of itself but anyone who thinks they'll outperform the former batch is kidding themselves. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Hamster

[Hamster]

Incidentally it may be worth having a moment to re-think what shotguns actually are, Americans call them scatter guns, if I may be allowed a little digression, in Farsi they're referred to as Char Par (flies four ways), up down left right, how delightfully expressive and to the point is that ? Rifles are called Tak Tir (single bullet); what I'm trying to convey is that shotguns were never even meant to be precision instruments, they are designed to spread the column of shot in order to facilitate hitting targets/quarry on the move. 

Even if we could devise loads that hold a 90% pattern the chances of it helping anyone are remote to zilch. We already know for instance that most people (and I include myself in that) have trouble living with the lack of adequate "margin for error" inherent to Full choke, who needs more in other words ? Anyone who harbours visions of sauntering up to some Pool stand armed with a pocketful of slow shells ready to teach the boyz a lesson with some 70 yard Teal is sadly deluding themselves, they'll be hitting little more than fresh air most of the time because they're trading off margin against density which is not even needed anyway. 

Shotguns spread the shot for a reason. 

[neutron619]

2 hours ago, Hamster said:

I have never said slow is identical to fast merely that any difference is either undetectable, not meaningful or easily accountable for, it is the assumption that it matters which I am arguing against. If it even exists it is so insignificant as to be immaterial.

We disagree.

I can probably go so far as to agree that, in an ounce of #7½, the loss of 10% (I'll be conservative) of the pellets is neither here nor there. Even with "cylinder" performance, you're still going to get c. 150+ in the pattern at most ranges. Now - you might only be talking about 12 gauge clay loads, but my interest is broader: in the .410, losing 10% of the pellets can result in a significant loss of range / effectiveness of pattern (or render a shell entirely unusable) so "speed" is a potentially huge issue outside the comfortable world of high-volume clay shooting. Either way, I see these kinds of losses with fast 12 gauge cartridges against the slow ones; in the .410 it's even more pronounced.

Compare, from my patterning data set the Hull High Pheasant cartridge, which I'm told is rather "slow" with the Fiocchi version of the cartridge, which again, I'm told (and agree from experience) is somewhat faster.

Hull:

Fiocchi:

Let me give you one for free here: except for the wad, they're the same cartridge - except that the Fiocchi shell has about 1.5 grains more powder in it, according to my measurements.

At 30 yards, the Fiocchi patterns an 68% average through a 0.020" (nominal ¾) choke in my .410. The Hull patterns an 83% average through the same barrel. (You'd think, of course, that the Fiocchi, with the longer wad, should protect the pellets better and pattern more effectively, but that isn't the case. Likewise with the larger continental shot size, but again, that isn't the case.

Now I grant you, this could all be down to the wad and the fact that the pellets are leaving the barrel about 100fps faster in the case of the Fiocchi shell might be purely incidental, but we get back to the argument:

2 hours ago, Hamster said:

Plastic wads DO protect pellets through the barrel AND choke, we know this because of high speed films which show 95% of the pellets inside the cup at exit and the rest airborne in front. We also know this because we have to use steel shot via plastic wads. 

Well - maybe so, but they're having the opposite effect in this, single case. Less wad = better performance. I've seen it elsewhere too.

What I want to know though, is have you ever scraped your arm through your jumper? Let's say you're rolling around on the carpet with the kids and drag your elbow on the floor in the midst of the fun. You had a jumper between you and the carpet, but you still feel the heat and there's a sore, red patch on your elbow when you roll up your sleeve. The same is true of the plastic wad: yes, the pellets are inside it, but just because it's there, doesn't make them as hard as diamond, immune to scrubbing, crushing, the heat generated by friction with the barrel or anything else that damages them. Yes it helps, but only so much.

Take the first image that came up on google and look at the wad petal nearest the camera in the final frame:

Yep - there it is. The friction between shot column, wad and barrel has worn two holes clean through the wad. Furthermore, look at the pellets themselves. Hard to see here and easily confused with artifacts of the photographic process, but some of them are demonstrably no longer round. Something must have deformed them.

2 hours ago, Hamster said:

We have always been told that such and such throws "superior patterns" but no one bothers explaining what that superior means. We're told slower cartridges throw tighter therefore "better" patterns yet we can prove that nothing throws above 75% (+/- 5%) at 40 yards. It's not enough to be able to devise a load that somehow keeps 90% if it then fails to have the kinetic energy to break the clay when it arrives there, trust me I have shot slow shells (Victory 480 back in the 90's), I couldn't care less about the superiority of their patterns nor their comfort, because they bounced off clays one too many times. 

This is a straw man and obviously untrue. It's perfectly possible to devise a load which keeps 90% of the pattern within the circle at 40 yards whilst retaining required kinetic energy and it doesn't even have to be "slow". Hell, we could do 100% if you wanted. The reasons people don't do it are because generally, you end up shooting a gun behaving like that in much the same way as a rifle because the pattern is so small at all ordinary ranges. It's also because to do it, you need to either drop the velocity or cup the shot in a way which will not sell to the ignorant masses. Can you imagine it?

Quote

"Buy the new Eley Super Sloth 28g / #6 - the slowest cartridge ever."

It doesn't sell. But we do start to see why, to reference the post above, a lot of "top of the line" clay cartridges are actually pretty slow. You can hear the boss of the cartridge company talking to his Chief Engineer:

Quote

"Give the marketing manager the V0 value, but tell the loaders to keep it under 1200fps..."

Finally:

2 hours ago, Hamster said:

My point is not that the choke profile CANNOT adversely affect the pellets, merely that any such effect is insignificant and countered by measures such as harder pellets, good plastic wad design and the effects of the choke itself keeping the shot tighter together. 

Well is it significant, or is it not? You're arguing my point for me here.

Either it's insignificant and therefore it doesn't need to be countered by modifications to other parts of the cartridge, so they're selling us a pup with the hard lead, copper coating and all that ********, or the effect is significant and the modifications are justified and necessary to keep performance acceptable. Which is it?

As I've said above, it is significant, and the use of super hard (e.g. 5%) lead, whilst good in it's own right, becomes required when you push velocities up to silly numbers. They wouldn't spend money on expensive, hard lead, if they didn't have to - put it that way. See my example comparing the Hull subsonic containing good old cheap soft lead and the Sovereigns with their shiny, super-hard stuff. Imagine how **** the latter would be if they had the bog standard 2% stuff!

What would be much better in all of this, is if people would use hard lead and sensible velocities in combination, rather than reserving it for only the cartridges where "marketing" demands it.

PS: the answer to the 10-gauge problem is simple. Bigger arms.

Edited December 19, 2017 by neutron619
Post script.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

16 hours ago, Ultrastu said:

 

Yes .your right for the most part the put it in the pattern adage is enough .

But if I put a crow in the middle of of no 7.5 cart at 35 yds through my .hush 20b it won't fold. Fact. 

Unless in lucky enough to get a head shot .the other low energy7.5  pellets that strike the body wont drop it.

And I dont feel 35 yds is very far for a shot gun and there would have been enough pellet density also. Just not the required penetration or wound channel toreliable kill the crow. 

 

Don't use 7.5 Carts on crows then!

[Ultrastu]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Don't use 7.5 Carts on crows then!

I dont. As having tried and failed I learnt from the experience. 

 

[Hamster]

22 hours ago, neutron619 said:

This is a straw man and obviously untrue. It's perfectly possible to devise a load which keeps 90% of the pattern within the circle at 40 yards whilst retaining required kinetic energy and it doesn't even have to be "slow". Hell, we could do 100% if you wanted. The reasons people don't do it are because generally, you end up shooting a gun behaving like that in much the same way as a rifle because the pattern is so small at all ordinary ranges. It's also because to do it, you need to either drop the velocity or cup the shot in a way which will not sell to the ignorant masses. Can you imagine it?

Quote

That I gotta see, a load that holds 90% would be damn useful on big money shoots stateside, I think they call them card shoots where they win by putting the most holes on a playing card at long range, methinks someone would have come up with the right load by now. They also have shoots where the one hitting the longest going away clay wins so again such a load would be handy.

There may well be ways of pushing the boundaries a tad by combining several factors namely cupping the shot etc, but the real reason they don't do it is because there is no need, as mentioned people have enough trouble living with Full choke as it is, what would be the point in trying to re-invent the rifle inside a scatter gun ? This is why I don't accept the notion that tighter implies better in any case. 

Also remember that the pellets you call damaged and which end up outside the centre zone (or 30" circle) aren't exactly wasted, they account for a good many crosses on all our cards, back to the old margin for error thing. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Hamster

[motty]

9 hours ago, Hamster said:

 

The 10 gauge cannot be swung round in a hide or in the field and certainly not on the clay circuit so even if it were ballistically the better tool it fails to deliver all round. 

Regardless of the rest of the argument, why can't a 10 be "swung around"?

[Ultrastu]

Has to be said that baffled me a bit. 

Pretty sure my hush mossy is heavier and longer than a 10b ou and I use mine in a hide 

I have got big arms though 

[Hamster]

1 hour ago, motty said:

Regardless of the rest of the argument, why can't a 10 be "swung around"?

Because it would have to be a bigger, heavier gun than a 12g, it's not a case of can't be swung around as it clearly can, but most people will not be able to carry and swing a 10g in the field or the clay circuit as manageably as they can a 12g, by the same token even more people will be able to carry a 28 gauge around and they would too were it not for its shortcomings elsewhere, namely recoil management and issues such as moment of inertia, often talked about as "handling".

There has to be a compromise somewhere, with ballistics and all round performance the 12 gauge has proved itself to be the best compromise. 

[motty]

1 hour ago, Ultrastu said:

Has to be said that baffled me a bit. 

Pretty sure my hush mossy is heavier and longer than a 10b ou and I use mine in a hide 

I have got big arms though 

I would be surprised if your Mossberg was heavier than my o/u 10.

[neutron619]

3 hours ago, Hamster said:

That I gotta see, a load that holds 90% would be damn useful on big money shoots stateside, I think they call them card shoots where they win by putting the most holes on a playing card at long range, methinks someone would have come up with the right load by now. They also have shoots where the one hitting the longest going away clay wins so again such a load would be handy.

There may well be ways of pushing the boundaries a tad by combining several factors namely cupping the shot etc, but the real reason they don't do it is because there is no need, as mentioned people having enough trouble living with Full choke as it is, what would be the point in trying to re-invent the rifle inside a scatter gun ? This is why I don't accept the notion that tighter implies better in any case. 

Also remember that the pellets you call damaged and which end up outside the centre zone (or 30" circle) aren't exactly wasted, they account for a good many crosses on all our cards, back to the old margin for error thing. 

I said I could get 90% on the paper with sufficient kinetic energy. I didn't say that would be a lot of pellets. Percentage and absolute performance are very different things.

Beyond that, I agree with you on the full choke thing to some degree - and that tighter is not always better (though you need some fairly special circumstances for it not to be in my book) and it does make life harder - but the post on here (which I haven't yet been able to dig up) about that 60- and 100-yard Italian cartridge with the inverted cup that releases the shot some time after it's left the barrel is the most obvious solution to putting 150 in the circle at 100 yards (provided it isn't "one in the circle" because the thing hasn't actually functioned as intended). And by the way - I'm not saying I'd do it - only that it can be done.

Take your point about margin for error, for what it's worth, but if ever you're pondering it and have the time, shoot some 10- and 20- yard patterns with shells of known pellet count (i.e. which you've loaded yourself, having counted the shot charge). Every now and again, you'll find that a certain percentage of the shot charge has gone "missing". I.e. even at 10 yards, where you should be looking at a pattern the size of a tea plate, you'll find that some of the pellets simply failed to land in the circle, or hit any of the paper around it. Those are the fliers about which I'm most concerned, and particularly when I'm trying to get anything in .410 to behave itself.

Edited December 19, 2017 by neutron619
Grammar.