Steel Shot Penetration Table

Interact with others on shot gun shells, reloading, ballistics, chokes, or anything that has to do with your shooting.

Moderators: donell67, NV Guide, pennsyltucky, Ohio Wildfowler

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby goosepit2007 » Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:03 pm

UmatillaJeff wrote:I understand what he is saying as well as I can see that the tiny difference in speed undeniable shows an edge on paper.

Look at it my way.... If he guy can shoot in the first place he sure as hell doesn't need a cloud of small pellets to shoot a bird in the decoys ( You have to remember that nobody on duck hunters chat except me shoots over 35 yards) and since we all know that steel 2's are 100% effective to 40 yards the point of fast small pellets is just silliness!

It's like talking about weather or not you like the tooth fairy better then Bigfoot. Absolutely **** pointless. Jeff


jeff,

i shoot past 35 yards all the time at snows/honkers/ducks ect.....snows on purpose for testing and some honkers that others have shot at and they are going by at long range and dump one out just to show the other hunters that they need to practice shooting clays at long range..so they can hit them at close range and not just scare the heck out of them...and probably cripple alot of them is a better statment. plus i shoot alot of cripple geese/ducks at long range when we have guest hunting with us that tend to get alot of cripples because of lack of shooting skills..



goose
goosepit2007
hunter
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:13 pm


Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby UmatillaJeff » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:09 pm

goosepit2007 wrote:
UmatillaJeff wrote:I understand what he is saying as well as I can see that the tiny difference in speed undeniable shows an edge on paper.

Look at it my way.... If he guy can shoot in the first place he sure as hell doesn't need a cloud of small pellets to shoot a bird in the decoys ( You have to remember that nobody on duck hunters chat except me shoots over 35 yards) and since we all know that steel 2's are 100% effective to 40 yards the point of fast small pellets is just silliness!

It's like talking about weather or not you like the tooth fairy better then Bigfoot. Absolutely **** pointless. Jeff


jeff,

i shoot past 35 yards all the time at snows/honkers/ducks ect.....snows on purpose for testing and some honkers that others have shot at and they are going by at long range and dump one out just to show the other hunters that they need to practice shooting clays at long range..so they can hit them at close range and not just scare the heck out of them...and probably cripple alot of them is a better statment. plus i shoot alot of cripple geese/ducks at long range when we have guest hunting with us that tend to get alot of cripples because of lack of shooting skills..



goose
I know you do partner but just you and me!
If steel 2's are so wonderful why did they come out with Bismuth, hevi shot, tungsten, and TSS ? Why do people pay 2 to 5 dollars a shot when all you need is steel 2's? Hmmm......
UmatillaJeff
hunter
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:12 pm

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby zpstl321 » Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:41 pm

davkrat wrote:I put together a spreadsheet with some steel shot pellet sizes: BB, 1, 3, 5, and 7 at three velocities 1400, 1550, and 1700 fps. All the data is at 59 degrees F and at sea level. I put in the yardage for 600 fps. and penetration of 1.28" (ducks) 1.80" (geese). The velocity is in feet per second, the Time of Flight in seconds and the penetration is in inches. I thought some people might find it useful. There may be a few errors as I had to transcribe everything in to Excell.

Image



Please compare this table with the results posted in the videos using various steel BB loads and then ask yourself why this table is so far off from actual results. :)
zpstl321
hunter
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:17 am

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby zpstl321 » Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:50 pm

Average penetration at 5 yards was as follows:

Blind Side 8" (maximum penetration with this load was 11")
Hypersonic 11" (maximum penetration with this load was 13")
Black Cloud 14.5" (maximum penetration with this load was 18")
Hornady BB nickle plated Lead Magnum Coyote load 12" (maximum penetration with this load was 16")
zpstl321
hunter
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:17 am

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby zpstl321 » Sat Jul 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Note penetration of live geese compared to the table above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IJsdkop5Gg&list=WL

You can skip to about minute 19 to see penetration from the bottom of the geese to the top of the geese from 60 yards.

Makes one wonder how they came up with the table do it not?
zpstl321
hunter
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:17 am

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby zpstl321 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:02 am

davkrat wrote:I put together a spreadsheet with some steel shot pellet sizes: BB, 1, 3, 5, and 7 at three velocities 1400, 1550, and 1700 fps. All the data is at 59 degrees F and at sea level. I put in the yardage for 600 fps. and penetration of 1.28" (ducks) 1.80" (geese). The velocity is in feet per second, the Time of Flight in seconds and the penetration is in inches. I thought some people might find it useful. There may be a few errors as I had to transcribe everything in to Excell.

Image



It might be time for a reality check for those that use this data. Now that we know the BB load data is off by as much as 14" let's think about the following. How many of you have ever used a shotgun up close and personal? If you have you may know where I'm heading. In the above chart we see zero yard numbers that range from 5.4" to 2.1" depending on shot size. My question...In what universe is and duck or goose going to stop a load of anything fired 12 gauge at zero yards? Even the load of steel #7 (quoted as 2.1" of penetration) is going to blow a 2" hole front to back, or top to bottom completely through either bird. Yes I know this data if fake/simulated, but one would think the person presenting it would validate the data before publishing it. Furthermore, I would expect all of you people with years of experience would have caught on by now. My best guess is the person fired a single BB from an air rifle, measured the speed and penetration a few times and tried to calculate the rest of the data. I can think of a few other methods one might use, but they wouldn't produce data nearly as far fetched.
zpstl321
hunter
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:17 am

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby J J Mac » Mon Aug 11, 2014 7:24 pm

Duplicate posting deleted
Last edited by J J Mac on Mon Aug 11, 2014 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
J J Mac
hunter
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby J J Mac » Mon Aug 11, 2014 7:27 pm

J J Mac wrote:
zpstl321 wrote:
davkrat wrote:I put together a spreadsheet with some steel shot pellet sizes: BB, 1, 3, 5, and 7 at three velocities 1400, 1550, and 1700 fps. All the data is at 59 degrees F and at sea level. I put in the yardage for 600 fps. and penetration of 1.28" (ducks) 1.80" (geese). The velocity is in feet per second, the Time of Flight in seconds and the penetration is in inches. I thought some people might find it useful. There may be a few errors as I had to transcribe everything in to Excell.

Image



It might be time for a reality check for those that use this data. Now that we know the BB load data is off by as much as 14" let's think about the following. How many of you have ever used a shotgun up close and personal? If you have you may know where I'm heading. In the above chart we see zero yard numbers that range from 5.4" to 2.1" depending on shot size. My question...In what universe is and duck or goose going to stop a load of anything fired 12 gauge at zero yards? Even the load of steel #7 (quoted as 2.1" of penetration) is going to blow a 2" hole front to back, or top to bottom completely through either bird. Yes I know this data if fake/simulated, but one would think the person presenting it would validate the data before publishing it. Furthermore, I would expect all of you people with years of experience would have caught on by now. My best guess is the person fired a single BB from an air rifle, measured the speed and penetration a few times and tried to calculate the rest of the data. I can think of a few other methods one might use, but they wouldn't produce data nearly as far fetched.

zpstl321,

Some pertinent facts about spherical pellet penetration in Ballistic Gelatin that you apparently do not know are given below.

1. Experimental work was done using spherical pellets in 20% Ballistic Gelatin by Dzimian in 1958 not 10% as I'd guess you are writing about
2. Ed Lowry used Dzimian's data and developed a correlation for spherical penetration in the 20% gelatin. He said that only the penetration numbers for velocities < 1000 fps were valid using his correlation. Perhaps he considered velocities < 1000 fps as the only velocities of interest when birds are killed downrange. Or perhaps it was because the pellets would be too close together at the higher velocities and would not act independently when penetrating the ballistic gelatin. It is unfortunate that he allowed results to be calculated and tabulated by his software for velocities > 1000 fps when he considered them invalid. He published his work in The American Rifleman in 1988.
User avatar
J J Mac
hunter
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby zpstl321 » Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:02 pm

Actually, it was more to the point I was making. Today is it known 20% gel is a very poor choice, but many used it because Fackler once though it was okay to use. He was proven wrong but just as the chart above many still quote his work and use it as an example. As to the speed and calculated data...Even had he used 1000 fps for his calculations their are still glaring errors in the charts numbers. I'm quite shocks people with field knowledge/experience would ave believed it even if they had know engineering or laboratory background.
zpstl321
hunter
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:17 am

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby BT Justice » Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:04 am

zpstl321 wrote:Actually, it was more to the point I was making. Today is it known 20% gel is a very poor choice, but many used it because Fackler once though it was okay to use. He was proven wrong but just as the chart above many still quote his work and use it as an example. As to the speed and calculated data...Even had he used 1000 fps for his calculations their are still glaring errors in the charts numbers. I'm quite shocks people with field knowledge/experience would ave believed it even if they had know engineering or laboratory background.

I don't think it's so much a question of believing it as using the information provided in any ballistics chart in the correct manner for the type of hunting you'll be doing.
I believe to many people start looking at these charts as a Bible (so to speak) and not another tool in load making or load selection choice. Your looking at single pellet penetration/speed/energy with these charts and not overall load performance, you have to use them for what the information is worth and then combine them with patterning and in the field experience to IMO get the results you want.
How many can honestly say they have brought many birds down with single pellet hits, in 30 years of hunting and examining birds shot, very few have single pellet hits in them that I've seen. Some do if you get lucky and hit the right spot, but for the most part I've noted from many of our hunts that most birds had on average a minimum of 3 hits/holes in them that were either dead or retrievable. Again others may have different results.
As was stated by others, hitting the bird is just as important as having enough energy to penetrate, having enough pellet count and your overall load performance for your hunting situation should be your main guide in load selection and pellet choice.
User avatar
BT Justice
hunter
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby J J Mac » Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:55 am

zpstl321 wrote:Actually, it was more to the point I was making. Today is it known 20% gel is a very poor choice, but many used it because Fackler once though it was okay to use. He was proven wrong but just as the chart above many still quote his work and use it as an example. As to the speed and calculated data...Even had he used 1000 fps for his calculations their are still glaring errors in the charts numbers. I'm quite shocks people with field knowledge/experience would ave believed it even if they had know engineering or laboratory background.

Just curious why you say that 20% gelatin is a very poor choice and Fackler was proven wrong. Are you saying that 10% gelatin more closely mimics the penetration of soft tissue in waterfowl, so that if you get 2" penetration in 10% gelatin, you get about 2" penetration in waterfowl soft tissue but the agreement is not so good with 20% gelatin?
User avatar
J J Mac
hunter
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby zpstl321 » Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:23 am

Sorry for the missing details, but it took about 30 years to resolve the above question. I'll not go into what was discovered a the end with Fackler and MacPherson but is wasn't pretty. I pretty much followed the whole thing from beginning. Turns out Fackler spent millions to come up with the wrong answer and the group tried to intimidate companies, magazines, publishers, and individuals in the industry. Turns out that is appears Fackler's lab may have been host to the test that brought the trust to light. When the results were 180 degrees from what he and his group had been preaching they tried to cover it up. That's when one of the people involved knew how important the result were and sent them out to people that he thought might help publish the results.

The short answer is 20% gel at room temperature simulates muscles like your butt or thigh tissue and 10% gel at 37 degrees simulates organ tissue like kidney or liver tissue. Lungs offer almost no resistance to projectiles. Muscle tissue where one aims to shoot humans, ducks, geese, deer and other animals are not nearly as thick or as hard as leg muscles and in many cases is only 1/4" thick. Other factors such as skin type come in to play, but in humans if you take 500 or more shootings and review the average penetration of shotgun, rifle, and pistol projectiles they match almost exactly (less that 1% difference) to those same penetration depths achieved in 10% gel. Keep in mind this includes all types of shots from all angles, clothed or bare skinned, big or small, bones hit or not, etc. found in real world shootings.

I studied the effects and related them to what I found in Deer to try to come up with a more efficient projectile. Based on what I learned I can assure you a duck or goose in no way resembles 10" to 12" of harden muscle in Fackler's studies. Most people do not realize human chest only measure 10" front to back. They do know it isn't all muscle but fail to relate that to Fackler's incorrect teaching. he was studying the effects of wounds in heavy muscle and tried to relate that to cause of death...Mostly in pigs.
zpstl321
hunter
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:17 am

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby J J Mac » Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:40 am

BT Justice wrote:
zpstl321 wrote:Actually, it was more to the point I was making. Today is it known 20% gel is a very poor choice, but many used it because Fackler once though it was okay to use. He was proven wrong but just as the chart above many still quote his work and use it as an example. As to the speed and calculated data...Even had he used 1000 fps for his calculations their are still glaring errors in the charts numbers. I'm quite shocks people with field knowledge/experience would ave believed it even if they had know engineering or laboratory background.

I don't think it's so much a question of believing it as using the information provided in any ballistics chart in the correct manner for the type of hunting you'll be doing.
I believe to many people start looking at these charts as a Bible (so to speak) and not another tool in load making or load selection choice. Your looking at single pellet penetration/speed/energy with these charts and not overall load performance, you have to use them for what the information is worth and then combine them with patterning and in the field experience to IMO get the results you want.
How many can honestly say they have brought many birds down with single pellet hits, in 30 years of hunting and examining birds shot, very few have single pellet hits in them that I've seen. Some do if you get lucky and hit the right spot, but for the most part I've noted from many of our hunts that most birds had on average a minimum of 3 hits/holes in them that were either dead or retrievable. Again others may have different results.
As was stated by others, hitting the bird is just as important as having enough energy to penetrate, having enough pellet count and your overall load performance for your hunting situation should be your main guide in load selection and pellet choice.

Simple probability theory dictates that for 95% probability of hitting a target (a vital area for example) with at least one pellet, there must be an average of three pellet hits to the target. Here is a table with more information

Probability of at----Average number
least 1 hit (%)-------of hits
99-----------------------4.6
95-----------------------3
90-----------------------2.3
85-----------------------1.9
80-----------------------1.6
75-----------------------1.4
70-----------------------1.2
User avatar
J J Mac
hunter
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby wildflights » Tue Aug 12, 2014 10:28 am

zpstl321 wrote:Sorry for the missing details, but it took about 30 years to resolve the above question. I'll not go into what was discovered a the end with Fackler and MacPherson but is wasn't pretty. I pretty much followed the whole thing from beginning. Turns out Fackler spent millions to come up with the wrong answer and the group tried to intimidate companies, magazines, publishers, and individuals in the industry. Turns out that is appears Fackler's lab may have been host to the test that brought the trust to light. When the results were 180 degrees from what he and his group had been preaching they tried to cover it up. That's when one of the people involved knew how important the result were and sent them out to people that he thought might help publish the results.

The short answer is 20% gel at room temperature simulates muscles like your butt or thigh tissue and 10% gel at 37 degrees simulates organ tissue like kidney or liver tissue. Lungs offer almost no resistance to projectiles. Muscle tissue where one aims to shoot humans, ducks, geese, deer and other animals are not nearly as thick or as hard as leg muscles and in many cases is only 1/4" thick. Other factors such as skin type come in to play, but in humans if you take 500 or more shootings and review the average penetration of shotgun, rifle, and pistol projectiles they match almost exactly (less that 1% difference) to those same penetration depths achieved in 10% gel. Keep in mind this includes all types of shots from all angles, clothed or bare skinned, big or small, bones hit or not, etc. found in real world shootings.

I studied the effects and related them to what I found in Deer to try to come up with a more efficient projectile. Based on what I learned I can assure you a duck or goose in no way resembles 10" to 12" of harden muscle in Fackler's studies. Most people do not realize human chest only measure 10" front to back. They do know it isn't all muscle but fail to relate that to Fackler's incorrect teaching. he was studying the effects of wounds in heavy muscle and tried to relate that to cause of death...Mostly in pigs.

Interesting post! Thanks.
wildflights
hunter
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 4:57 pm

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby J J Mac » Tue Aug 12, 2014 1:37 pm

zpstl321 wrote:Sorry for the missing details, but it took about 30 years to resolve the above question. I'll not go into what was discovered a the end with Fackler and MacPherson but is wasn't pretty. I pretty much followed the whole thing from beginning. Turns out Fackler spent millions to come up with the wrong answer and the group tried to intimidate companies, magazines, publishers, and individuals in the industry. Turns out that is appears Fackler's lab may have been host to the test that brought the trust to light. When the results were 180 degrees from what he and his group had been preaching they tried to cover it up. That's when one of the people involved knew how important the result were and sent them out to people that he thought might help publish the results.

The short answer is 20% gel at room temperature simulates muscles like your butt or thigh tissue and 10% gel at 37 degrees simulates organ tissue like kidney or liver tissue. Lungs offer almost no resistance to projectiles. Muscle tissue where one aims to shoot humans, ducks, geese, deer and other animals are not nearly as thick or as hard as leg muscles and in many cases is only 1/4" thick. Other factors such as skin type come in to play, but in humans if you take 500 or more shootings and review the average penetration of shotgun, rifle, and pistol projectiles they match almost exactly (less that 1% difference) to those same penetration depths achieved in 10% gel. Keep in mind this includes all types of shots from all angles, clothed or bare skinned, big or small, bones hit or not, etc. found in real world shootings.

I studied the effects and related them to what I found in Deer to try to come up with a more efficient projectile. Based on what I learned I can assure you a duck or goose in no way resembles 10" to 12" of harden muscle in Fackler's studies. Most people do not realize human chest only measure 10" front to back. They do know it isn't all muscle but fail to relate that to Fackler's incorrect teaching. he was studying the effects of wounds in heavy muscle and tried to relate that to cause of death...Mostly in pigs.

See sentence above in blue print. Can you please direct me to the references that show the correlation between penetration in 10% gelatin and humans? Also, please direct me to the data on penetration of shotgun pellets in 10% gelatin.
User avatar
J J Mac
hunter
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby resnipesite » Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:11 am

I appreciate the work that goes into any ballistic testing. It is time consuming and expensive. Thanks guys
resnipesite
hunter
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby zpstl321 » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:41 pm

J J Mac wrote:
zpstl321 wrote:Sorry for the missing details, but it took about 30 years to resolve the above question. I'll not go into what was discovered a the end with Fackler and MacPherson but is wasn't pretty. I pretty much followed the whole thing from beginning. Turns out Fackler spent millions to come up with the wrong answer and the group tried to intimidate companies, magazines, publishers, and individuals in the industry. Turns out that is appears Fackler's lab may have been host to the test that brought the trust to light. When the results were 180 degrees from what he and his group had been preaching they tried to cover it up. That's when one of the people involved knew how important the result were and sent them out to people that he thought might help publish the results.

The short answer is 20% gel at room temperature simulates muscles like your butt or thigh tissue and 10% gel at 37 degrees simulates organ tissue like kidney or liver tissue. Lungs offer almost no resistance to projectiles. Muscle tissue where one aims to shoot humans, ducks, geese, deer and other animals are not nearly as thick or as hard as leg muscles and in many cases is only 1/4" thick. Other factors such as skin type come in to play, but in humans if you take 500 or more shootings and review the average penetration of shotgun, rifle, and pistol projectiles they match almost exactly (less that 1% difference) to those same penetration depths achieved in 10% gel. Keep in mind this includes all types of shots from all angles, clothed or bare skinned, big or small, bones hit or not, etc. found in real world shootings.

I studied the effects and related them to what I found in Deer to try to come up with a more efficient projectile. Based on what I learned I can assure you a duck or goose in no way resembles 10" to 12" of harden muscle in Fackler's studies. Most people do not realize human chest only measure 10" front to back. They do know it isn't all muscle but fail to relate that to Fackler's incorrect teaching. he was studying the effects of wounds in heavy muscle and tried to relate that to cause of death...Mostly in pigs.

See sentence above in blue print. Can you please direct me to the references that show the correlation between penetration in 10% gelatin and humans? Also, please direct me to the data on penetration of shotgun pellets in 10% gelatin.


Sorry, I just seen this request. Mostly the data is available to ammunition manufactures and LEO. There are three books on the market (I believe they are still available) that compare 20 plus years of shooting data from the FBI database with 10% gelatin test done over a number of years. The data was also compared to another source in which I'll not go into here. All three matched and allowed a formula to be created that successfully predicted the shooting results of newly created ammunition before it even hit the streets. The new ammunition results were tracked from as few 10 shooting to hundreds to over a thousand in some cases. The larger the number of shootings the closer the results matched the prediction. Low numbers (10) matched to within 3% with number off shootings in the hundreds matching to less than 1% error over 10 years. Shotgun data was included with all types of shot. Most would be surprised to see how much of a difference there was with the same shot size (and number of pellets) when only the speed changed, the shot hardness changed, or both. perfectly round hard shot is a very poor performer.
zpstl321
hunter
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:17 am

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby lostknife4 » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:55 pm

Perfectly round shot is a very good performer ballistics wise IMHO so I am a bit perplexed by your statement "perfectly round hard shot is a very poor performer."
If you can't get the shot on the target at range with sufficient pattern density and velocity then your definition of "performance" doesn't hold much credence.
Lost.
"It's not the game but the chase ~ not the trophy but the race !" from my Dad, many years ago.
User avatar
lostknife4
hunter
 
Posts: 4358
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:32 pm
Location: Eastern Canada

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby zpstl321 » Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:05 pm

lostknife4 wrote:Perfectly round shot is a very good performer ballistics wise IMHO so I am a bit perplexed by your statement "perfectly round hard shot is a very poor performer."
If you can't get the shot on the target at range with sufficient pattern density and velocity then your definition of "performance" doesn't hold much credence.
Lost.


I did some field studies and the difference is notable and easy to detect. That aside, the studies in which I talked about above the exact time to expire (in 10th of a second) was measured along with many, many other things (blood pressure, brainwaves to list a couple) to determine the performance. You have to realize it was very important to know exactly how each and every round performed because not knowing could very well mean the life of a Navy Seal, FBI personnel, LEO, etc.. I think most people are pretty clueless to what is exactly known about ballistic performance of shotgun, rifle, handgun and everything possible that can be fired from them.
zpstl321
hunter
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:17 am

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby zpstl321 » Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:38 pm

Lost,

There was some test done with specialty ammo in which many very small projectiles were use that acted as a fragmenting round that turned in some very good numbers (in one case the best number) but most people don't understand why they worked. They dumped 100% of their energy in a very shallow wound. Penetration was limited to the mid level of the target and focused. I'll have to go back and look at my data to see if the type of shot you sell was included in any of the test. Basically the more a projectile penetrates the poorer it performed. If a projectile were to reach greater depths than another of the same weight it tells us it is not doing as much work where the work needs done.That said, I think you may be taking offence based on misunderstanding. The product you sell allows for a configuration that can overcome some of these factors.
zpstl321
hunter
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:17 am

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby lostknife4 » Thu Aug 21, 2014 3:56 pm

First I do not sell any products.
Lost
"It's not the game but the chase ~ not the trophy but the race !" from my Dad, many years ago.
User avatar
lostknife4
hunter
 
Posts: 4358
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:32 pm
Location: Eastern Canada

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby zpstl321 » Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:58 am

I think of marketing and advertising as selling. :)
zpstl321
hunter
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:17 am

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby lostknife4 » Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:41 am

I think of Marketing as trying to sell anything that isn't what is advertised or can be proven in a lot of cases, propaganda at its best.
Advertising is at least trying to provide a close description of what you are trying to sell.
Selling on the other hand is receiving compensation for the products that others have advertised and marketed.

I receive no compensation in any way shape or form, except for the personal satisfaction of money well spent, for any of the products I endorse.
Lost
"It's not the game but the chase ~ not the trophy but the race !" from my Dad, many years ago.
User avatar
lostknife4
hunter
 
Posts: 4358
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:32 pm
Location: Eastern Canada

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby billybob123 » Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:26 pm

After looking at the tables and having 50+ years practical experience it didn't take me a second look to get to the conclusion that the tables are junk science and totally worthless. I only read a portion of the posts but I have to agree with those that disagree with the table data and conclusions. Besides, why were two of the most popular shot sizes for waterfowl left out, #2 & #4. I could write an essay on this topic but don't care to waste my time. And just to add, as a degreed wildlife biologist, the studies used to outlaw lead shot were junk science too.
billybob123
hunter
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:04 am

Re: Steel Shot Penetration Table

Postby skb20 » Sat Aug 23, 2014 5:24 am

zpstl321 wrote:
lostknife4 wrote:Perfectly round shot is a very good performer ballistics wise IMHO so I am a bit perplexed by your statement "perfectly round hard shot is a very poor performer."
If you can't get the shot on the target at range with sufficient pattern density and velocity then your definition of "performance" doesn't hold much credence.
Lost.


zpstl321 wrote:I did some field studies and the difference is notable and easy to detect........etc............ etc.......I think most people are pretty clueless to what is exactly known about ballistic performance of shotgun, rifle, handgun and everything possible that can be fired from them.


Yes, yes of course. Everyone knows that hard round shot is a dreadfully poor ballistic performer... everyone except for the clueless people of course. Like all those clueless yokels who compete in the live pigeon rings of the world, who always choose the hardest (for lead), plated, most uniformly round pellets available. Yeah, they may be among the very top shotgun shooters in the world, competing for jaw-dropping amounts of cash, in the most realistic and demanding shotgun hunting game ever devised..... but they obviously are totally clueless about shotgun ballistic performance on birds at realistic field hunting ranges and velocity. Like... they are clueless about all that pertinent technical stuff that can only be learned from shooting wired goats and pigs at relatively high velocity and point blank ranges. Speaking of clues - here is a quarter ZP... ya just might wanna go buy yourself one.

Oh, and DAVKRAT, I too am TOTALLY SHOCKED that you would ever promote such "junk science".... like information developed by Ed Lowry (one of, if not THE premier shotgun ballistician of the late 20 th century). My guess would be that Ed likely included the short range stuff to demonstrate the very rapid drop in velocity between muzzle and reasonable game-shooting ranges... never dreaming that anyone would ever attempt to place credence in the penetration figures where the shot column is obviously functioning mostly as a single mass. No, begone with this "junk science"!! Far better that we all should listen to some guy on the internet who "did some field studies" or... "could write an essay"... on this topic.

Sheesh!! Some of this stuff gets pretty silly.
skb20
hunter
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 11:55 am
Location: montana

PreviousNext

Return to Shotshell, Reloading, Ballistics, & Chokes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests