Non lead cartridges chrono results

[johnnytheboy]

1 hour ago, Fen tiger said:

I  agree with the Dane absolutely its not just his your other my observations it has been debated on many American sites in the past.

    What you tend to find in 1s ,American 2s is though they can kill at one range where they have adequate pattern the Centre is sparse and any more range is down on density of pattern.

  Choking it down the typical thing to do never seems to give percentages you would see with other shot sizes.  This is in 12bore.  

  I have a crash helmet so  this controversial as itmay seem is how I see it too justas the. Dane did.

He has actually tried more to get me to use their loads which are duplex and triplex loads, they stack the shot to ensure they get even better core density than a single shot size, I haven’t reloaded for years as I have all these surplus cartridges from this chrono Test so he was just advising me on which ones to use for best results. They get incredibly into it as lead is banned and they have no other option. 

But that said, I should introduce them to motty to tell them the full nation is getting it wrong and that no matter how hard you try there is no point as no one would notice it anyway and striving for perfection is just a waste of time!

[wildfowler.250]

1 hour ago, Fen tiger said:

What you tend to find in 1s ,American 2s is though they can kill at one range where they have adequate pattern the Centre is sparse and any more range is down on density of pattern.

I can’t say I’ve noticed any problems with either pattern or killing ability. Somethings the theory don’t always match field results ?

[motty]

38 minutes ago, johnnytheboy said:

He has actually tried more to get me to use their loads which are duplex and triplex loads, they stack the shot to ensure they get even better core density than a single shot size, I haven’t reloaded for years as I have all these surplus cartridges from this chrono Test so he was just advising me on which ones to use for best results. They get incredibly into it as lead is banned and they have no other option. 

But that said, I should introduce them to motty to tell them the full nation is getting it wrong and that no matter how hard you try there is no point as no one would notice it anyway and striving for perfection is just a waste of time!

I really don't like it when people talk bull. Firstly, you reckon there is this mystical sweet spot of 1450fps. I will always maintain that you will definitely not be able to tell the difference between a 1450fps shell and a 1350fps shell in the field. Also, explain my success with the 1260fps Remingtons.

Then your Danish friend says to avoid 1s in favour of 2s. There is no way you could tell them apart in a blind test!  Please explain how you think he possibly could.

Unfortunately, with shotguns, you will never achieve a perfect shell. It is always a matter of compromise.

[greenergp]

9 hours ago, motty said:

I really don't like it when people talk bull. 

I dont think it is bull, it is an opinion and people are allowed to have them.

[motty]

30 minutes ago, greenergp said:

I dont think it is bull, it is an opinion and people are allowed to have them.

Absolutely, but an opinion should be based on something.

[Fen tiger]

4 hours ago, motty said:

Absolutely, but an opinion should be based on something.

It is and that something is what some people have found with regards 2 Steel, the findings are probably difficult to prove one where the other and it's probable many won't agree with such conclusions but that doesn't take away the fact that's some have chosen rightly or wrongly to share their observations so that perhaps just perhaps some others may have felt at sometime exactly the same way as they do, more import is a good thing and who knows somebody more knowledgeable than me or others on here might just have dare I say a scientific explanation as to why we found what we found.

[motty]

32 minutes ago, Fen tiger said:

It is and that something is what some people have found with regards 2 Steel, the findings are probably difficult to prove one where the other and it's probable many won't agree with such conclusions but that doesn't take away the fact that's some have chosen rightly or wrongly to share their observations so that perhaps just perhaps some others may have felt at sometime exactly the same way as they do, more import is a good thing and who knows somebody more knowledgeable than me or others on here might just have dare I say a scientific explanation as to why we found what we found.

So you're saying (I assume for shooting geese) to use 2s in preference to 1s due to the extra pattern density. Does that mean you disclude anything bigger than 2s, then?

[islandgun]

On 26/08/2018 at 13:22, 6.5x55SE said:

Totally agree. When we first had to use Non Toxic i used Express 3" 1-1/4oz 3's and 1's through 1/4 an 1/2 chokes which i recoil was only 1150fps I'd like a £ for every Goose ( numerous species ) i cleanly killed with them . Yet when i first joined a certain Wildfowling Forum i got slated beyond belief called a Liar unsportsmanlike etc until a long time member who shot with me jumped to my defense. My belief is hit em under the chin Pattern and Penertration Kill not one or the other

As above, I know Im not as experienced as most,  but ideally head shot would equate to smaller shot size denser pattern and perhaps high speed to aid penetration, this is my aim this year. patterning and more patterning at the range i normally shoot..... [my opinion..?] 

 

[Fen tiger]

2 hours ago, motty said:

So you're saying (I assume for shooting geese) to use 2s in preference to 1s due to the extra pattern density. Does that mean you disclude anything bigger than 2s, then?

No certainly not. To reiterate no 2 Steel in 12  does appear in more than a few cases to print patterns which are lacking in core density compared to other shot sizes in the respective gunsguns, made no mention too bigger or smaller shot sizes.

[motty]

1 hour ago, Fen tiger said:

No certainly not. To reiterate no 2 Steel in 12  does appear in more than a few cases to print patterns which are lacking in core density compared to other shot sizes in the respective gunsguns, made no mention too bigger or smaller shot sizes.

I don't even know where we are now. To me, 1s are 4mm and 2s are 3.8mm.

I have no idea where your theory comes from, when there are dozen of variables at play.

[wymberley]

2 hours ago, islandgun said:

As above, I know Im not as experienced as most,  but ideally head shot would equate to smaller shot size denser pattern and perhaps high speed to aid penetration, this is my aim this year. patterning and more patterning at the range i normally shoot..... [my opinion..?] 

 

Experience as expressed in time elapsed is meaningless unless knowledge has been gained in that time.

If two pellets of different sizes have the same energy, then the smaller is more lethally effective.

The nearest thing we have to assess penetration is soft target gelatin. To alter that choice of medium would simply require a change in 'T' which is a constant in the formula for determining P

'P'enetration into it is P=SUT. Having eliminated 'T' then it's worth noting that neither 'S' nor 'U' relate to energy, but 'U' relates to velocity.

Enjoy your year, IG

[Fen tiger]

57 minutes ago, motty said:

I don't even know where we are now. To me, 1s are 4mm and 2s are 3.8mm.

I have no idea where your theory comes from, when there are dozen of variables at play.

I believe Steel shot size 2 tend to throw patterns with less core density  in many cases when compared to the same load with other Steel shot sizes. this does not happen 100% of the time but I have noticed this fact on many occasions and that is why when prompted by Johnny boys statement I agreed with those others observations which were the same as my own findings.

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Fen tiger

[islandgun]

14 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Experience as expressed in time elapsed is meaningless unless knowledge has been gained in that time.

If two pellets of different sizes have the same energy, then the smaller is more lethally effective.

The nearest thing we have to assess penetration is soft target gelatin. To alter that choice of medium would simply require a change in 'T' which is a constant in the formula for determining P

'P'enetration into it is P=SUT. Having eliminated 'T' then it's worth noting that neither 'S' nor 'U' relate to energy, but 'U' relates to velocity.

Enjoy your year, IG

Thanks for that........ I think !

Is your first line your own, because it is a very worthy sentiment.

Q would two pellets of dissimilar size have the same energy,  I have assumed not but a smaller pellet may have  greater penetration due to less resistance, but in turn a larger pellet may cause more damage. however a small target [goose head] would be more likely to be hit if there were a greater number of pellets in the area....We have not mentioned choke,  which is my reasoning for patterning and the purchase of another gun with a huge array of chokes !

Thanks for the good wishes I will enjoy my year and hope you will as well  

[wymberley]

15 minutes ago, islandgun said:

Thanks for that........ I think !

Is your first line your own, because it is a very worthy sentiment.

Q would two pellets of dissimilar size have the same energy,  I have assumed not but a smaller pellet may have  greater penetration due to less resistance, but in turn a larger pellet may cause more damage. however a small target [goose head] would be more likely to be hit if there were a greater number of pellets in the area....We have not mentioned choke,  which is my reasoning for patterning and the purchase of another gun with a huge array of chokes !

Thanks for the good wishes I will enjoy my year and hope you will as well  

Guilty as charged, the first line is my own.

Sadly, I'm also guilty for a different reason with the second; this I stole from Ed Lowry. Originally, it did refer to comparing different shot materials back in the day when NTS was somewhat embrionic, but, yes two dissimilarly sized pellets of the same material can have the same energy as this is dependent upon muzzle velocity. It just depends whether or not that energy level is sufficient. The greater pattern density of the smaller one whose energy level might well be sufficient when these two factors are combined  for an effective head shot whereas the larger one's equal energy level may well be too low for an engine room shot. Incidentally, this is where the 'S' in the formula I gave comes in to play and which relates to the pellet's sectional density. I posted because rightly or wrongly I got the impression that this was your train of thought.

Again, incidentally, I believe the Dane has it right. I can remember - although I've not heard it discussed for many years now - the same used to be said of the patterns with No. 5 shot - lead that is - patterns.

[johnnytheboy]

20 hours ago, motty said:

I really don't like it when people talk bull. Firstly, you reckon there is this mystical sweet spot of 1450fps. I will always maintain that you will definitely not be able to tell the difference between a 1450fps shell and a 1350fps shell in the field. Also, explain my success with the 1260fps Remingtons.

Then your Danish friend says to avoid 1s in favour of 2s. There is no way you could tell them apart in a blind test!  Please explain how you think he possibly could.

Unfortunately, with shotguns, you will never achieve a perfect shell. It is always a matter of compromise.

 

[Fen tiger]

37 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Guilty as charged, the first line is my own.

Sadly, I'm also guilty for a different reason with the second; this I stole from Ed Lowry. Originally, it did refer to comparing different shot materials back in the day when NTS was somewhat embrionic, but, yes two dissimilarly sized pellets of the same material can have the same energy as this is dependent upon muzzle velocity. It just depends whether or not that energy level is sufficient. The greater pattern density of the smaller one whose energy level might well be sufficient when these two factors are combined  for an effective head shot whereas the larger one's equal energy level may well be too low for an engine room shot. Incidentally, this is where the 'S' in the formula I gave comes in to play and which relates to the pellet's sectional density. I posted because rightly or wrongly I got the impression that this was your train of thought.

Again, incidentally, I believe the Dane has it right. I can remember - although I've not heard it discussed for many years now - the same used to be said of the patterns with No. 5 shot - lead that is - patterns.

I never liked fives in lead, sixes as I saw it gave up very little energy to fives yet the sixers gained significantly in pattern, I preferred fours to fives despite the loss in pellet count if you got 4s to pattern they were better than 5s in my opinion.

[motty]

52 minutes ago, johnnytheboy said:

 

Your results are informative and credible. It is your belief that 1450fps in steel is a magic number, that is less so.

[islandgun]

1 hour ago, wymberley said:

Guilty as charged, the first line is my own.

Sadly, I'm also guilty for a different reason with the second; this I stole from Ed Lowry. Originally, it did refer to comparing different shot materials back in the day when NTS was somewhat embrionic, but, yes two dissimilarly sized pellets of the same material can have the same energy as this is dependent upon muzzle velocity. It just depends whether or not that energy level is sufficient. The greater pattern density of the smaller one whose energy level might well be sufficient when these two factors are combined  for an effective head shot whereas the larger one's equal energy level may well be too low for an engine room shot. Incidentally, this is where the 'S' in the formula I gave comes in to play and which relates to the pellet's sectional density. I posted because rightly or wrongly I got the impression that this was your train of thought.

Again, incidentally, I believe the Dane has it right. I can remember - although I've not heard it discussed for many years now - the same used to be said of the patterns with No. 5 shot - lead that is - patterns.

Cookie likes 3s in lead for his subsonic 12 bore loads. 

 I think I missed my own train some time earlier..? 

Do you have an opinion on the duplex loads ..?

[johnnytheboy]

8 minutes ago, motty said:

Your results are informative and credible. It is your belief that 1450fps in steel is a magic number, that is less so.

Aw thanks, that’s the nicest thing you have said to me. 

1450fps just seems to give me the results I’m looking for, dead birds, not injured or crippled just really dead! Don’t know why it just seems to happen for me at that number, consistently! 

[wymberley]

17 minutes ago, islandgun said:

Cookie likes 3s in lead for his subsonic 12 bore loads.

Yep, I think I'm right in saying that it's because they have sufficient poke and pattern to his needs with little or no choke.

 I think I missed my own train some time earlier..? 

Do you have an opinion on the duplex loads ..?

No, other than it's a word rarely used in the Uk - more USA and one connotation of its use reflects being "two-faced". To me, it smacks of something devised by someone who can't make their mind up so started to get silly. I don't think we need to see it this side of The Pond - or by the sound of it, The Channel.

 

[andrewluke]

35 minutes ago, johnnytheboy said:

Aw thanks, that’s the nicest thing you have said to me. 

1450fps just seems to give me the results I’m looking for, dead birds, not injured or crippled just really dead! Don’t know why it just seems to happen for me at that number, consistently! 

that's it for me!,1450fps and everything is dead, no more injured or crippled birds,i can shoot them up the **** and they be dead?

Edited August 27, 2018 by andrewluke

[islandgun]

17 minutes ago, wymberley said:

 

I think its easy to over think

[motty]

12 minutes ago, andrewluke said:

that's it for me!,1450fps and everything is dead, no more injured or crippled birds,i can shoot them up the **** and they be dead?

Really? So 1400fps is no good? You don't wound any birds?

[andrewluke]

5 minutes ago, motty said:

Really? So 1400fps is no good? You don't wound any birds?

from now on it's got to be 1450fps and nothing else will do

[andrewluke]

i think it's more to do with shot placement rather than speed that kills