Shotgun Pellet Size Identity

[wymberley]

The Subject topic has raised its head once more. As the PW majority is silent, it's not possible to state with accuracy that most of us think this needs reviewing. However, it is fair to say that the majority of those who have commented on this in the past believe that the pellets should either be identified by physical size - mms - or by pellets per ounce. Once that is sorted, the next logical step is to decide what would be deemed acceptable in terms of size deviation; ie, quality assurance. It has been suggested that only two members posting on the topic where this subject was raised are aware of a problem, but this suggestion missed my comment probably because I glossed over it. I have 2000 rounds of 1000 apiece; same maker and same version, but one at 28g and the other at 25 and both 7s. As it happens, the discrepancy between them is handy as the 28g are spot on for size, but the 25g are way down and have the same pellet count as the 28g. However, would I be pleased if I bought the 25g having wanted a No 7 performance? I think not as this relates to a nominal 5 yard shortfall in effective range and a 10% production error. For me, while trying to be reasonable, this is on the verge of being unacceptable for any make let alone the good and reasonable quality that these are supposed to be.

How say you?

[Stonepark]

Agreed

[Stonepark]

In no other part of life would we accept the variance in tolerance and mislabelling of a product or substitution of an unknown quantity without being informed.

 

I would go further and say that all lead cartridge boxes should display the folowing in addition to any informaton they currently display: -

 

Shot Size in MM and no/oz

Shot % Antimony

Cartridge Maximum Pressure

Cartridge velocity at 2.5m

 

 

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Yes, yes and yes, but the vast majority of us know of this ambiguity and allow for it.

 

It would be lovely to have a common approach to pellet size and to car bumper height and even to TV volume levels across all the channels.

 

But it is NOT going to happen fast!  

[London Best]

42 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

In no other part of life would we accept the variance in tolerance and mislabelling of a product or substitution of an unknown quantity without being informed.

 

I would go further and say that all lead cartridge boxes should display the folowing in addition to any informaton they currently display: -

 

Shot Size in MM and no/oz

Shot % Antimony

Cartridge Maximum Pressure

Cartridge velocity at 2.5m

 

 

 

Agreed. But why would you want to measure the shot in mm combined with pellets/ounce? That is effectively mixing two languages. I would prefer to see the shot measured in inches combined with pellet/ounce. Surely if measuring in mm you should be talking pellets/kilo.

[rbrowning2]

The U.K. went metric in 1965 😊

[Vince Green]

As I understand it there is no equiv of a British Standard for shot sizes, just a convention that has evolved over time. Even if there was, by the way shot is made it would be very hard to stick very precisely to weight or diameter of a pellet all the time.

The old way of grading shot was through a series of sieves,  So even there a range of sizes would exist within each sieve increment.

[London Best]

13 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

The U.K. went metric in 1965 😊

Bull! 
How many litres/kilometre does your car do? 
How many mph is the speed limit?
How many kilometres is it from, say, London to Glasgow? 
How many pellets in one ounce of number six shot?

Only the building trade went totally metric. Engineering is still a mixture of metric/imperial.

[Scully]

12 minutes ago, London Best said:

Bull! 
How many litres/kilometre does your car do? 
How many mph is the speed limit?
How many kilometres is it from, say, London to Glasgow? 
How many pellets in one ounce of number six shot?

Only the building trade went totally metric. Engineering is still a mixture of metric/imperial.

I’ve no idea about engineering, but the building trade still deals in a mixture of imperial/metric, and my picture framers don’t deal in anything other than imperial, which is really frustrating at times! 🙂

2 hours ago, wymberley said:

The Subject topic has raised its head once more. As the PW majority is silent, it's not possible to state with accuracy that most of us think this needs reviewing. However, it is fair to say that the majority of those who have commented on this in the past believe that the pellets should either be identified by physical size - mms - or by pellets per ounce. Once that is sorted, the next logical step is to decide what would be deemed acceptable in terms of size deviation; ie, quality assurance. It has been suggested that only two members posting on the topic where this subject was raised are aware of a problem, but this suggestion missed my comment probably because I glossed over it. I have 2000 rounds of 1000 apiece; same maker and same version, but one at 28g and the other at 25 and both 7s. As it happens, the discrepancy between them is handy as the 28g are spot on for size, but the 25g are way down and have the same pellet count as the 28g. However, would I be pleased if I bought the 25g having wanted a No 7 performance? I think not as this relates to a nominal 5 yard shortfall in effective range and a 10% production error. For me, while trying to be reasonable, this is on the verge of being unacceptable for any make let alone the good and reasonable quality that these are supposed to be.

How say you?

So there’s three of you! 

So who wants to tell us which brand of cartridges are sub standard? Anyone? 

[Ultrastu]

Good heavens  .the building trade is mostly  imperial . And with good reason .

12 is a better number than 10 for dividing into. 

[London Best]

7 minutes ago, Ultrastu said:

Good heavens  .the building trade is mostly  imperial . And with good reason .

12 is a better number than 10 for dividing into. 

Strange, my mate ran a builders merchants for 40 years and he always used to say building was totally metric. I dunno!

[enfieldspares]

1 minute ago, London Best said:

Strange, my mate ran a builders merchants for 40 years and he always used to say building was totally metric. I dunno!

Did you mishear him? And what he actually said was that it was totally manic? LOL!

[matone]

55 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

The U.K. went metric in 1965 😊

Only some of it!LOL

[wymberley]

53 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’ve no idea about engineering, but the building trade still deals in a mixture of imperial/metric, and my picture framers don’t deal in anything other than imperial, which is really frustrating at times! 🙂

So there’s three of you! 

So who wants to tell us which brand of cartridges are sub standard? Anyone? 

Can't answer that as apparently there are no truly bad game cartridges out there. If we could equate truly bad to sub standard and there were some out there - by that I mean you wouldn't buy them because of their 'faults' - what would be the unacceptable level of those faults regarding velocity (or energy - you choose) and weight - pellets/ounce - in terms of a percentage discrepancy?

Edited October 22, 2021 by wymberley

[GingerCat]

I would like to see the shot size in mm. Would be a lot easier when comparing eu to UK to us. I'd also like steel and lead shot to conform to the sames sizes. 

[rbrowning2]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

 

The old way of grading shot was through a series of sieves

Still is the way shot is graded.

[Ultrastu]

I'd like to see  lead and steel in 

2 , 2.25  , 2.5 ,2.75 ,3 , 3.5 ,4mm 

Or another way to say the same thing 

2  , 2 1/4   , 2  1/2  , 2 3/4   ,  3  , 3 1/2   4 

Standardised across the board 

With pellet count  and weight on the box .

Edited October 22, 2021 by Ultrastu

[Scully]

38 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Can't answer that as apparently there are no truly bad game cartridges out there. If we could equate truly bad to sub standard and there were some out there - by that I mean you wouldn't buy them because of their 'faults' - what would be the unacceptable level those faults regarding velocity (or energy - you choose) and weight - pellets/ounce - in terms of a percentage discrepancy?

Thought not. It would seem no one can, despite making the claim. 🤷‍♂️
I don’t understand how folk can try and make a case for a more accurate cartridge/ choke combination by rubbishing some commercial makes as sub standard, or as you state with ‘faults’, but then refuse to name them. Why would anyone take you seriously? 
I’m totally unaware of any ‘faults’ which would preclude me from buying a particular brand/type for either trap or game, although like I’ve said, I do have preferences. 
I will shoot ANY cartridge for clays without feeling at a disadvantage, and if I can’t get my preferred cartridge for game I will quite happily use what is available as I have in the past. 
There are just far too many variables at play to pin the blame for your misses on your choice of choke or cartridge. 
I’m also fully aware that there are those like yourself, who relish this sort of project, and all power to your elbow, but it really is ridiculous to believe that with all the variables involved, misses are the fault of  the cartridge. What do you blame when, after finding your desirable pattern, you miss? 
Professionals will happily chop and change their guns, chokes and cartridges dependant on a sponsorship deal. It’s NOT the cartridge. 
 

[London Best]

I’m with Scully.  
I will happily use any brand but do have preferences. But the end result generally seems the same.
Bang!   
If I’m on target, stuff dies.

[Vince Green]

2 hours ago, London Best said:

Strange, my mate ran a builders merchants for 40 years and he always used to say building was totally metric. I dunno!

Its soft metrication, you go and buy a bit of timber and its 102 .x 51mm and then you measure it and realise its 4x2"

But Rboowning2 is correct, we went metric decades ago (another useless EU directive we really didn't want or need) and it was/is enforcible  IN LAW. It would actually be illegal to sell cartridges with the load described as 1oz.

People have been prosecuted for not complying

BBC News | UK | Grocer fights metric laws

Edited October 22, 2021 by Vince Green

[wymberley]

36 minutes ago, Scully said:

Thought not. It would seem no one can, despite making the claim. 🤷‍♂️
I don’t understand how folk can try and make a case for a more accurate cartridge/ choke combination by rubbishing some commercial makes as sub standard, or as you state with ‘faults’, but then refuse to name them. Why would anyone take you seriously? 
I’m totally unaware of any ‘faults’ which would preclude me from buying a particular brand/type for either trap or game, although like I’ve said, I do have preferences. 
I will shoot ANY cartridge for clays without feeling at a disadvantage, and if I can’t get my preferred cartridge for game I will quite happily use what is available as I have in the past. 
There are just far too many variables at play to pin the blame for your misses on your choice of choke or cartridge. 
I’m also fully aware that there are those like yourself, who relish this sort of project, and all power to your elbow, but it really is ridiculous to believe that with all the variables involved, misses are the fault of  the cartridge. What do you blame when, after finding your desirable pattern, you miss? 
Professionals will happily chop and change their guns, chokes and cartridges dependant on a sponsorship deal. It’s NOT the cartridge. 
 

Oh well, never mind.

Had someone been paying attention instead of going off at a tangent, they would have noted that I'd already answered the question well before it was asked. After having been at it for over 60 years, I know full well who is to blame when I miss - an increasingly frequent occurrence. I do try though to keep it to a minimum by attempting to ensure that my kit is as I would wish and should it prove to be necessary, working within its limits. To achieve this I've always found that opening up a couple of cartridges from a fresh new batch and checking the load and a go at the pattern plate makes it easier and leaves no doubt in my mind who blew it. I can never understand how some folk can be certain that the fault is indeed theirs when they have no realistic idea how there kit is performing. When I started out things were as they should have been, but some few years back now cartridges - and particularly the shot - seemed to be on a gradual downhill spiral both in terms of the range (choice) available and the quality. I don't think that I'll be buying many more - if any at all - but I do feel sorry for the youngsters - assuming there are any and they still have shooting as a sporting option -  who will have to accept whatever they can get because we allowed the makers free reign as to what they produced.

[Scully]

27 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Oh well, never mind.

Had someone been paying attention instead of going off at a tangent, they would have noted that I'd already answered the question well before it was asked. After having been at it for over 60 years, I know full well who is to blame when I miss - an increasingly frequent occurrence. I do try though to keep it to a minimum by attempting to ensure that my kit is as I would wish and should it prove to be necessary, working within its limits. To achieve this I've always found that opening up a couple of cartridges from a fresh new batch and checking the load and a go at the pattern plate makes it easier and leaves no doubt in my mind who blew it. I can never understand how some folk can be certain that the fault is indeed theirs when they have no realistic idea how there kit is performing. When I started out things were as they should have been, but some few years back now cartridges - and particularly the shot - seemed to be on a gradual downhill spiral both in terms of the range (choice) available and the quality. I don't think that I'll be buying many more - if any at all - but I do feel sorry for the youngsters - assuming there are any and they still have shooting as a sporting option -  who will have to accept whatever they can get because we allowed the makers free reign as to what they produced.

You make some fair points, although I’m not sure at what point one can reliably state ‘well it’s not me so it must be the cartridge’. 🙂Anyone can have an off day even with their preferred cartridge…..variables. 

The makers may have free reign to produce what they produce, but that doesn’t mean we have to buy it. But that also means if no one protests then they’ll continue to produce it, and subsequently those not in the know will continue to buy it. I’d still be interested to know, simply to see if I’ve actually used and liked any of those regarded by some as sub standard, but it doesn’t matter. Someone rubbishing a certain cartridge another favours, means and proves nothing. It’s a funny old lark, is this shooting .

[London Best]

The only cartridges I have ever found ineffective were the Sellior and Bellot in the early 1960’s. I could not even kill 15 yard sitting pigeons with them. Other shooters found them OK.  

[Minky]

20 minutes ago, London Best said:

The only cartridges I have ever found ineffective were the Sellior and Bellot in the early 1960’s. I could not even kill 15 yard sitting pigeons with them. Other shooters found them OK.  

Has your shooting accuracy improved over the past 50 to 60 years or did  your gun have bent barrels.  ?  😊😊. I bet those pigeons had ringing ears for days. 😁😁

[Stonepark]

1 hour ago, London Best said:

The only cartridges I have ever found ineffective were the Sellior and Bellot in the early 1960’s. I could not even kill 15 yard sitting pigeons with them. Other shooters found them OK.  

Current examples would include Eley Blues (shot is soft resulting in patterns 15% below what they should be) and lyalvale sportsman similar for clays and Victory minimags No3 actually being No1 therefore patterns failing much sooner than expected,  Gamebore Super game high bird soft shot and poor patterns, amongst others in 12b, in 410 Eley, fiocchi, lyalvale, Gamebore shot is all too soft in 3 inch loadings, you really do need 5% antimony to achieve decent patterns due to the increased pressures of the smaller bore. Haven't tested the recent Hull loading yet but hopefully will get round to it shortly.