islandgun Posted March 17, 2018 Report Share Posted March 17, 2018 In my ongoing pursuit of reloading excellence..... i deconstructed a Lyavale max game hp steel shot 1's, . The payload was spot on but the shot size was much closer to the size 2 from clay and game, I have patterned the Lyavale and it is a better pattern than my homeloads but is this in part due to there being smaller shot than i imagined. Are clay and game shot sizes American, there is no mention of actual dimensions on the tub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Mat Posted March 17, 2018 Report Share Posted March 17, 2018 Clay game give the sizes in mm on their website, 2s are 3.8mm i think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted March 17, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2018 4 hours ago, Big Mat said: Clay game give the sizes in mm on their website, 2s are 3.8mm i think? yes mate your right, odd that Lyavale 1's should be the same though ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraai Posted March 17, 2018 Report Share Posted March 17, 2018 RC nr 1 steel is also 3.8mm Gamebore nr 1 steel is 4 mm Rotweill nr 2 steel is 3.8mm B&P the bb is 4 mm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraai Posted March 17, 2018 Report Share Posted March 17, 2018 Sorry rotweill nr 2 steel is 3.75 mm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted March 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2018 Thanks kraai strange how close they are in sizes must be American and European as apposed to English Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swan40 Posted March 18, 2018 Report Share Posted March 18, 2018 I think it is about time all cartridges should give the shot size in mils not some bizarre regional size . Comercial loaders would not like this however as they might actually have to put in what they say . Shot sizes seem to me to be a bit like muzzle velocity in that they are very flexible . I was told a long while ago that I was being unrealistic to expect the actual shot size that was printed on the box as it would not make any difference to the majority of shooters - one of the reasons I load what I actually want because to me it dose make a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted March 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, swan40 said: I think it is about time all cartridges should give the shot size in mils not some bizarre regional size . Comercial loaders would not like this however as they might actually have to put in what they say . Shot sizes seem to me to be a bit like muzzle velocity in that they are very flexible . I was told a long while ago that I was being unrealistic to expect the actual shot size that was printed on the box as it would not make any difference to the majority of shooters - one of the reasons I load what I actually want because to me it dose make a difference. Agreed Im not sure whether Im patterning 1's or 2's, On another thread I asked what was others preferred shot size was, 2's were popular.... Edited March 18, 2018 by islandgun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swan40 Posted March 18, 2018 Report Share Posted March 18, 2018 Once you have decided on the shot size and gone to the trouble of pattern testing them and decided it suits your needs who is to say the next batch you buy will be the same. I have found 3 different sizes of shot in one make of cartridge (that were all supposed to be the same) I have used in the past and no not a cheapy . This is one of the reasons that top competitive shooters buy large quatities of the same batch to ensure consistent known results . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldwanderer Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 I moved over to steel from c&g last summer (cheap as I can, for pigeons) I've been using 5s for years now and decided to stick with that. They do seem bigger though - I vaguely remember reading that if you'd use lead 6s you'd want steel 5s for the same result..... Is that what c&g have done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 4 hours ago, fieldwanderer said: I moved over to steel from c&g last summer (cheap as I can, for pigeons) I've been using 5s for years now and decided to stick with that. They do seem bigger though - I vaguely remember reading that if you'd use lead 6s you'd want steel 5s for the same result..... Is that what c&g have done? well not really, if you take a 1300fps model, to have the same performance at 35yards in energy retention, you would have to use 3 shotsizes bigger. so lead 6s are equivalent to steel 3s, lead 5s are equivalent to steel #2 thats the 1300fps model. the problems compound this are steel shotsizes are graded in size like lead, and there are some discrepensies with shotsize via US and UK. this is all about the density difference, 11.2 vs 7.x something. while the shotsizes do seem large, its the fact that its less dense. on the 1500fps model you probably could get away with using 2 shotsizes bigger. but it would take a whole heap of energy to get it there. and not much different from comparing 1500fps vs 1300fps energy wise. most are quite comfortable with the "go up 2 shotsizes rule" and that physiologically means that a lead pellet#6 weighs the same as a steel #4. shoot them and they will be very different energies at 40yards, the steel lacking in energy. the "go up 3 shotsize" rule was something to overcome the ballistic inneficiencies of steel shot and was something i do campaign for. afterall, all shots are critiqued at 30-40 yards, not what is put in the shell. whilst tungsten being very dense, and comparing the hw13 for instance it is very concieveable to go down 2 shotsizes to be near like for like for lead and still with the 1300fps model. so a lead 6 could be replaced with a hw13 8# or some such. you catch my drift? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted March 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 I did some simple penetration tests yesterday [next catalogue.. ] and found that the steel 1-2's penetrated at least as far as 3's lead... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 11 hours ago, cookoff013 said: well not really, if you take a 1300fps model, to have the same performance at 35yards in energy retention, you would have to use 3 shotsizes bigger. so lead 6s are equivalent to steel 3s, lead 5s are equivalent to steel #2 thats the 1300fps model. the problems compound this are steel shotsizes are graded in size like lead, and there are some discrepensies with shotsize via US and UK. this is all about the density difference, 11.2 vs 7.x something. while the shotsizes do seem large, its the fact that its less dense. on the 1500fps model you probably could get away with using 2 shotsizes bigger. but it would take a whole heap of energy to get it there. and not much different from comparing 1500fps vs 1300fps energy wise. most are quite comfortable with the "go up 2 shotsizes rule" and that physiologically means that a lead pellet#6 weighs the same as a steel #4. shoot them and they will be very different energies at 40yards, the steel lacking in energy. the "go up 3 shotsize" rule was something to overcome the ballistic inneficiencies of steel shot and was something i do campaign for. afterall, all shots are critiqued at 30-40 yards, not what is put in the shell. whilst tungsten being very dense, and comparing the hw13 for instance it is very concieveable to go down 2 shotsizes to be near like for like for lead and still with the 1300fps model. so a lead 6 could be replaced with a hw13 8# or some such. you catch my drift? I'm not in total agreement with you here. I have used a lot of steel 32gm 4 and 5, and they are a very nasty load for pigeons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClemFandango Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 1 hour ago, islandgun said: I did some simple penetration tests yesterday [next catalogue.. ] and found that the steel 1-2's penetrated at least as far as 3's lead... at what range? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted March 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 33 minutes ago, ClemFandango said: at what range? 30 metres, factory Lyavale and home load lead, it wasn't an exhaustive test by any means, the first of many.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClemFandango Posted March 21, 2018 Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 4 hours ago, islandgun said: 30 metres, factory Lyavale and home load lead, it wasn't an exhaustive test by any means, the first of many.... it will be interesting to see the difference at 40 and 50. My gut would tell me that Steel shot of the same size, being less dense than lead will start to lose energy more quickly at extended range. I have been wrong before though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continental Shooter Posted March 21, 2018 Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 8 hours ago, ClemFandango said: it will be interesting to see the difference at 40 and 50. My gut would tell me that Steel shot of the same size, being less dense than lead will start to lose energy more quickly at extended range. I have been wrong before though. The catalogue test is an empirical one but works when comparing like for like (lead Vs lead or steel Vs steel). When steel was first introduced in Italy I did run the same test but found it inconclusive as Lead give away more energy and deforms on impact while steel retains its shape and penetrates more. This doesn't necessarily translate in more energy though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClemFandango Posted March 21, 2018 Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 6 hours ago, Continental Shooter said: The catalogue test is an empirical one but works when comparing like for like (lead Vs lead or steel Vs steel). When steel was first introduced in Italy I did run the same test but found it inconclusive as Lead give away more energy and deforms on impact while steel retains its shape and penetrates more. This doesn't necessarily translate in more energy though That's an interesting observation. I have heard stories of duck shot with steel that fly on as if not hit only to crumple hundreds of yards away. I wonder is that is due to the increased penetration/decreased energy that you describe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted March 21, 2018 Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 1 hour ago, ClemFandango said: That's an interesting observation. I have heard stories of duck shot with steel that fly on as if not hit only to crumple hundreds of yards away. I wonder is that is due to the increased penetration/decreased energy that you describe. I think that theory is a load of rubbish. Anyone who has shot a lot of birds with lead has had exactly the same thing happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continental Shooter Posted March 21, 2018 Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, motty said: I think that theory is a load of rubbish. Anyone who has shot a lot of birds with lead has had exactly the same thing happen. True. Although similar the two issues are phisically different Steel penetrates the animal and if hits in a non vital point (assuming not all pellets required hit the target) the quarry is allowed to continue until the internal bleeding kills it or weakens it. With lead this happens even when the quarry is hit with many pellets and is due to the speed and residual energy e.g.when the pellets hit the targert with insufficient energy to stop it. However, the energy passed by the pellets causes sufficient damage to cause internal failures that will result in the death of the quarry. Obviously an internal organs failure due to trauma, kills the animal relatively quickly compared to a simple loss of blood. This is parlty compensated by the larger steel pellets and by the fact that steel patterns are tighter However, I need to stress that if you hit the quarry with sufficient pellets of the correct size at the intended distance, this situations can be limited to exceptions Edited March 21, 2018 by Continental Shooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClemFandango Posted March 21, 2018 Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 2 hours ago, motty said: I think that theory is a load of rubbish. Anyone who has shot a lot of birds with lead has had exactly the same thing happen. fair point. I don't know either way as I haven't shot a lot of steel cartridges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 1 hour ago, ClemFandango said: fair point. I don't know either way as I haven't shot a lot of steel cartridges. I have shot a lot of birds with steel. My findings are that birds that are hit correctly die the same as they do when hit with lead. Organs pierced sufficiently with any shot type usually means a swift death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 i love all these analogies and stuff, the best comparison i ever heard was comparing a needle penetrating skin vs bein hit with a freight train ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continental Shooter Posted March 24, 2018 Report Share Posted March 24, 2018 (edited) On 22/03/2018 at 08:15, cookoff013 said: i love all these analogies and stuff, the best comparison i ever heard was comparing a needle penetrating skin vs bein hit with a freight train ! Which one would you like to be hit by... at 1300 FPS though? What I do found amusing are people arguing science (and it's laws) based on...legends, stories or gut feelings... Edited March 24, 2018 by Continental Shooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClemFandango Posted March 24, 2018 Report Share Posted March 24, 2018 In my defence I wasn't trying to argue anything either way. I haven't shot much steel but I know a few who have with varying results, I'd like to better understand the reasons behind those results to decide whether or not to load steel myself. 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.