Tungsten shot

[mchughcb]

Dropped my first fox with TSS #7 on the run. First one was too far back. But it stopped him. Second shot was 40 yards. 4 pellets straight through the brain box. Good pattern, good penetration.

 

 

[enfieldspares]

On 01/01/2021 at 13:39, figgy said:

I know what your getting at it's just the way you worded it. 

You can't believe how such a small quantity can weigh so much. A jar of mercury is much like that.

Heavy! Yes. When I had my first class, lecture, introduction (call it what you will) at the Royal Armoured Corps School at Lulworth they showed us the then in use tungsten penetrator from the 120mm gun fitted to Chieftain. And invited you to pick it up. It would have easily fitted into the tube in which Pringles come. But you almost struggled with one hand to pick it up from the table.

I still almost word for word remember the opening words "On it's own a tank can't hurt you unless you walk into it on a dark night and bang your head on its barrel. What can hurt you are the crew inside. So all anti-tank weapons are actually anti-crew weapons to kill those men inside. And to do that we use...."

Edited March 14, 2021 by enfieldspares

[mchughcb]

So this week I tried TSS #10 on ducks using a 15 gram load in the 20 gauge. No problems at 40+ yards.

 

 

[wymberley]

On 11/02/2021 at 12:53, rbrowning2 said:

As I think you may be hinting at, reports suggest tungsten is one of the Carcinogens, more science needs to be done on the various non toxic shot available to confirm the risks are really lower than using lead for both humans and wildlife.

 

Although I agree with rb2's sentiments, that is not what I was hinting at. This material is undeniably something else, but is it as good as we're told. It's not for me though, when lead goes so do I - provided I last that long - but I'm trying to advise my step-son and I'd rather get it right. We've come across the discrepancy between the BCs that we use in the UK and those elsewhere before on PW. Unless we were to rely on the superior energy density of this stuff, as  assuming  1500 ft/sec at the muzzle the No 10 is just 0.9 ftlbs at 40 yards - never mind 40+, is it really good enough to cleanly kill, say, a mallard?

This from a previous post stands;

 If our government is to force feed us NTS (if that is actually what tungsten is) and we're prepared to fork out for it - as is already obvious - then perhaps they can chip in and have a word with their (our) Defence Academy and see if they can come up with an unbiased assessment of its performance in order to give us a better idea of what's what that we can then take to the field and modify the findings as experience reflects.

[mchughcb]

Thought I'd give an update. While the tungsten doesn't appear to have gone through the wads with the wrapping it has definately done a lot of damage to all my forcing cones. Looking at a borescope I can see the indentations and quite severe of the tungsten, gouging out the steel and you can see the imprint of the pellets of all sizes. Looks like somehow the pellets are getting in front of the wad in the forcing cones. I've getting my forcing cones lengthened and hopefully that will take the indentations out. However i'm going to have to get a cheap gun and play around with the setup because its not keeping the tungten inside the wad with the current setup.

Performance wise though its the best stuff around. But not if it wears out the forcing cones.

[islandgun]

4 hours ago, mchughcb said:

Thought I'd give an update. While the tungsten doesn't appear to have gone through the wads with the wrapping it has definately done a lot of damage to all my forcing cones. Looking at a borescope I can see the indentations and quite severe of the tungsten, gouging out the steel and you can see the imprint of the pellets of all sizes. Looks like somehow the pellets are getting in front of the wad in the forcing cones. I've getting my forcing cones lengthened and hopefully that will take the indentations out. However i'm going to have to get a cheap gun and play around with the setup because its not keeping the tungten inside the wad with the current setup.

Performance wise though its the best stuff around. But not if it wears out the forcing cones.

Thats bad news, what wad are you using

[Guest cookoff013]

I think hard wad s like ranger / ranger plus would be good for this in 12. Shame it has an awful gas seal.

shot set back is due to initial firing in the chamber. Not forgetting the chamber is way bigger than the barrel bore. In 12ga 800 thou to 729.

Ive seen double wadded shells to stop this damage.

[Smiler23]

For that reason alone, I load mine with a 20 bore was inside of a 12 wad. The petal joints lined up so that they are not in line with the outside wad ( if that makes sense)

[roughshooter]

8 hours ago, mchughcb said:

Thought I'd give an update. While the tungsten doesn't appear to have gone through the wads with the wrapping it has definately done a lot of damage to all my forcing cones. Looking at a borescope I can see the indentations and quite severe of the tungsten, gouging out the steel and you can see the imprint of the pellets of all sizes. Looks like somehow the pellets are getting in front of the wad in the forcing cones. I've getting my forcing cones lengthened and hopefully that will take the indentations out. However i'm going to have to get a cheap gun and play around with the setup because its not keeping the tungten inside the wad with the current setup.

Performance wise though its the best stuff around. But not if it wears out the forcing cones.

Thank you for your update. I have heard a lot of stories similar to yours from the states and it has given me cause for concern (which is probably why my 2KG of TSS 7’s has remained unloaded)

I do believe that either a Mylar wrap or double wadding is essential and also that chamber length must be adhered to. ie if it is a 12g 3 1/2” gun then a 3 1/2” shell should re used even for a 24g load.

I watch with interest but do not feel I will use the TSS as I have other Non Toxic that is safer to use with my guns

Regards

Graham

 

[mchughcb]

19 hours ago, islandgun said:

Thats bad news, what wad are you using

I was using the B&P CT-20.

19 hours ago, Smiler23 said:

For that reason alone, I load mine with a 20 bore was inside of a 12 wad. The petal joints lined up so that they are not in line with the outside wad ( if that makes sense)

Very interesting and that's an option too. That would be pretty thick too. I'm thinking how do I set the tungsten back far enough so there is zero chance of it getting in front of the wad in the forcing cone. One possibility is a duplex load with steel infront of the TSS. I really need to experiment in a cheaper steel proofed gun.

[rbrowning2]

32 minutes ago, mchughcb said:

I was using the B&P CT-20.

Very interesting and that's an option too. That would be pretty thick too. I'm thinking how do I set the tungsten back far enough so there is zero chance of it getting in front of the wad in the forcing cone. One possibility is a duplex load with steel infront of the TSS. I really need to experiment in a cheaper steel proofed gun.

Why bother when clearly the goal is non toxic shot used in a biodegradable wad? 

 

[roughshooter]

I think it would be far better to ban plaswads and go back to lead and fibre loads all round

[Ferretlurcher1970]

Here

Here

Well said

[wigeon jim]

When loading TSS you need a lot of packing in the wad so with setback there is no way any shot is anywhere near the front of the wad to damage any part of the barrel 

[steve s×s]

On 30/06/2021 at 19:08, roughshooter said:

I think it would be far better to ban plaswads and go back to lead and fibre loads all round

Agreed 👍

[mchughcb]

On 01/07/2021 at 23:35, wigeon jim said:

When loading TSS you need a lot of packing in the wad so with setback there is no way any shot is anywhere near the front of the wad to damage any part of the barrel 

Yes, I'll need to experiment with a cheaper shottie so I can inspect the performance. I'll be playing around with it later in the year.

On 28/06/2021 at 23:18, rbrowning2 said:

Why bother when clearly the goal is non toxic shot used in a biodegradable wad? 

 

We'll not sure how long I'll have to wait until I get a biodegradable wad down here.