What shells?

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

Moderators: donell67, Ohio Wildfowler, NV Guide, pennsyltucky

Re: What shells?

Postby Mugzwump » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:29 am

I agree with frank again.

On the X, you can't base the performance of a shell on individual users end result in the field i.e. pictures of dead ducks that are "more dead" than someone else's dead ducks and reported cripples or lost birds)

That would be like saying "Shell gas" is better than "Esso gas" based on two different drivers skill using two different cars.

Mugz.
Mugzwump
hunter
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:42 pm
Location: CANADA


Re: What shells?

Postby On the X » Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:15 pm

Everyone of you guys, (you know whom I refer to) know you have claimed Hevi-Metal to be a crippling load yet you obviously have no personal duck crippling experience with this load to base your opinions on, spin all you want, it's you who gets dizzy, not me.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: What shells?

Postby Mugzwump » Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:37 pm

I think the point here is really that if you are using an appropriate load for the task, you wont see vast differences in performance between these shells. If putting it on paper nicely makes you feel better in the field... by all means go nuts. If you get good results with expensive shells or cheap shells its to no end. Guns, shells, pellets don't kill birds... good shooters do.

Mugz.
Mugzwump
hunter
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:42 pm
Location: CANADA

Re: What shells?

Postby Frank Lopez » Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:40 pm

On the X wrote:Everyone of you guys, (you know whom I refer to) know you have claimed Hevi-Metal to be a crippling load yet you obviously have no personal duck crippling experience with this load to base your opinions on, spin all you want, it's you who gets dizzy, not me.


If you're including me in that lot, I'd have to say you're wrong on at least two counts. First, I never said it was a crippler. In fact, I really don't remember anyone other than yourself, referring to it as a crippling load. What I actually said was that it doesn't perform any better than standard round steel out to about 40 yards and does so at a 50 to 60% increase in price. I've actually stated that there is a slight advantage to these loads based on the increase in pellets. But, realistically, that slight advantage is pretty moot inside of 40 yards. Beyond 40 yards, all loads start to become cripplers. Some more so than others. This is due to pattern degradation due to the bloom.

And second, when I tested these loads, I did so at the pattern board and on live birds. As a result of this, I've posted my findings. As I've often stated, these loads work inside of 40 yards. About just like every other load on the market. I didn't notice any birds being more or less dead than with other loads. But crippler loads are best defined on a pattern board, not on live birds. And it is the results of those patterns from beyond 40 yards that HeviMetal patterns degrade very quickly.

Frank
I feel slightly sorry for a man who has never patterned his gun, who has no idea how far his chosen load will retain killing penetration. But I'm extremely sorry for the ducks he shoots at beyond the killing range of his gun and load - Bob Brister
User avatar
Frank Lopez
hunter
 
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

What shells?

Postby Frylock » Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:21 pm

The entire basis for western science is based upon the scientific method - requiring empirical data that is repeatable with controlled variables - exactly the sort of information that Frank Lopez has presented us with. Photographic evidence of dead ducks is neither controlled for variables nor repeatable with consistent results - just one persons experience. I should be able to go into my back yard and reproduce numbers very similar to Franks if I control the variables as he did (same load, choke, gun, distance to target, etc...). Poor patterning is poor patterning no matter how you slice it, and without question leads to cripples. The problem with pictures of ducks and geese is that there is no control for hunting conditions and the shooters ability, and those are huge variables.
But with hard empirical data at least I can make informed decisions about load choices and not be a victim of the wild claims and hyperbole of shotgun shell manufactures marketing teams. Guys like Frank, Okie and others do us a great service by testing the claims that are plastered all over magazines and we pages so we can make informed decisions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
Frylock
hunter
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:48 am

Re: What shells?

Postby On the X » Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:50 pm

Mugzwump wrote:I agree with frank again.

On the X, you can't base the performance of a shell on individual users end result in the field i.e. pictures of dead ducks that are "more dead" than someone else's dead ducks and reported cripples or lost birds)

That would be like saying "Shell gas" is better than "Esso gas" based on two different drivers skill using two different cars.

Mugz.

You guys really need to move beyond your selective reading comprehension abilities. No where did I say that myself, or anyone else should form an opinion by viewing pictures of dead ducks. What i said was pictures of dead ducks and the claim that said ducks were dead from being shot and killed by Hevi-Metal was more legitimate evidence of the loads abilities than a persons opinion on the internet. Atleast they are to me, but common sense is still common where I'm from. Lets take Bug Docs pattern pics and use them as an example.....sure they look convincing enough I reckon, but they also look more like a computer image than a real photo. Now lets take Joe Hunters pattern post again, as it's been posted numerous times.....1 choke/gun combination surely wouldn't form my opinion if I was an up and coming duck hunter. I would want to see for myself. Mugz, I also forgot to reiterate, once again, that I had also said that I based my opinion on Hevi-Metals performance on my own usage and results. ESSO gas huh? Haven't seen that since the '70's.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: What shells?

Postby Mugzwump » Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:59 pm

On the X wrote: ESSO gas huh? Haven't seen that since the '70's.

Really? Its everywhere up here.

I'm with the science guys on this one. I'm not saying HM is a bad choice.. my buddy shot it for years but switched to my kents because he wasn't killing any more or less than I was with a cheaper round. Now that he's using kents for over a year hes actually killing more than i am... but I think its my eyesight.. ;)

Mugz.
Mugzwump
hunter
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:42 pm
Location: CANADA

Re: What shells?

Postby On the X » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:06 pm

Frylock wrote:The entire basis for western science is based upon the scientific method - requiring empirical data that is repeatable with controlled variables - exactly the sort of information that Frank Lopez has presented us with. Photographic evidence of dead ducks is neither controlled for variables nor repeatable with consistent results - just one persons experience. I should be able to go into my back yard and reproduce numbers very similar to Franks if I control the variables as he did (same load, choke, gun, distance to target, etc...). Poor patterning is poor patterning no matter how you slice it, and without question leads to cripples. The problem with pictures of ducks and geese is that there is no control for hunting conditions and the shooters ability, and those are huge variables.
But with hard empirical data at least I can make informed decisions about load choices and not be a victim of the wild claims and hyperbole of shotgun shell manufactures marketing teams. Guys like Frank, Okie and others do us a great service by testing the claims that are plastered all over magazines and we pages so we can make informed decisions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Science? Computerized ballistics don't count in real life field situations. They are no more than a guide line. Frank has not presented to you science, he's a person on an internet site who continually presents his opinion. Go out in your back yard or someone elses back yard and then form your own opinions, don't rely on someone else to do what you should do yourself.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: What shells?

Postby Mugzwump » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:12 pm

On the X wrote:
Frylock wrote:The entire basis for western science is based upon the scientific method - requiring empirical data that is repeatable with controlled variables - exactly the sort of information that Frank Lopez has presented us with. Photographic evidence of dead ducks is neither controlled for variables nor repeatable with consistent results - just one persons experience. I should be able to go into my back yard and reproduce numbers very similar to Franks if I control the variables as he did (same load, choke, gun, distance to target, etc...). Poor patterning is poor patterning no matter how you slice it, and without question leads to cripples. The problem with pictures of ducks and geese is that there is no control for hunting conditions and the shooters ability, and those are huge variables.
But with hard empirical data at least I can make informed decisions about load choices and not be a victim of the wild claims and hyperbole of shotgun shell manufactures marketing teams. Guys like Frank, Okie and others do us a great service by testing the claims that are plastered all over magazines and we pages so we can make informed decisions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Science? Computerized ballistics don't count in real life field situations. They are no more than a guide line. Frank has not presented to you science, he's a person on an internet site who continually presents his opinion. Go out in your back yard or someone elses back yard and then form your own opinions, don't rely on someone else to do what you should do yourself.


Are you joking? Sorry... i'm really asking.

mugz.
Mugzwump
hunter
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:42 pm
Location: CANADA

Re: What shells?

Postby On the X » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:13 pm

Frank Lopez wrote:
On the X wrote:Everyone of you guys, (you know whom I refer to) know you have claimed Hevi-Metal to be a crippling load yet you obviously have no personal duck crippling experience with this load to base your opinions on, spin all you want, it's you who gets dizzy, not me.


If you're including me in that lot, I'd have to say you're wrong on at least two counts. First, I never said it was a crippler. In fact, I really don't remember anyone other than yourself, referring to it as a crippling load. What I actually said was that it doesn't perform any better than standard round steel out to about 40 yards and does so at a 50 to 60% increase in price. I've actually stated that there is a slight advantage to these loads based on the increase in pellets. But, realistically, that slight advantage is pretty moot inside of 40 yards. Beyond 40 yards, all loads start to become cripplers. Some more so than others. This is due to pattern degradation due to the bloom.

And second, when I tested these loads, I did so at the pattern board and on live birds. As a result of this, I've posted my findings. As I've often stated, these loads work inside of 40 yards. About just like every other load on the market. I didn't notice any birds being more or less dead than with other loads. But crippler loads are best defined on a pattern board, not on live birds. And it is the results of those patterns from beyond 40 yards that HeviMetal patterns degrade very quickly.

Frank

Frank, if you say you haven't referred to Hevi-metal then I'm gonna reluctantly take your word on it, but so many of you guys have said that that you all end up sounding like one and the same. I have no problem with you or anyone else shooting what ever the hell you want to shoot and I've never argued that mine was better than yours. But it does get damn old and thats why I'm here. Your're all kinda fun to be completely honest though.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

What shells?

Postby Frylock » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:05 pm

On the X wrote:
Frylock wrote:The entire basis for western science is based upon the scientific method - requiring empirical data that is repeatable with controlled variables - exactly the sort of information that Frank Lopez has presented us with. Photographic evidence of dead ducks is neither controlled for variables nor repeatable with consistent results - just one persons experience. I should be able to go into my back yard and reproduce numbers very similar to Franks if I control the variables as he did (same load, choke, gun, distance to target, etc...). Poor patterning is poor patterning no matter how you slice it, and without question leads to cripples. The problem with pictures of ducks and geese is that there is no control for hunting conditions and the shooters ability, and those are huge variables.
But with hard empirical data at least I can make informed decisions about load choices and not be a victim of the wild claims and hyperbole of shotgun shell manufactures marketing teams. Guys like Frank, Okie and others do us a great service by testing the claims that are plastered all over magazines and we pages so we can make informed decisions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Science? Computerized ballistics don't count in real life field situations. They are no more than a guide line. Frank has not presented to you science, he's a person on an internet site who continually presents his opinion. Go out in your back yard or someone elses back yard and then form your own opinions, don't rely on someone else to do what you should do yourself.

I had to sit down after reading that; now you are saying that computer generated model results are less reliable than what I can do in my own back yard? I actually wasn't trying to single out you in my post, just trying to clear up why many of the guys here don't give much weight to dead duck pics (not just yours). But if you cannot understand why we want a very clear and repeatable model for what a round can do then I don't know how we go any further with this conversation.


Let me also apologize for something, I meant to give credit to Joe Hunter for the patterning info he put up. His use of one gun and choke is a good thing, by doing so he limited the variables down to one - the different shells - and that is what the OP asked for, not and endless combination of shells, guns and chokes.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by Frylock on Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Frylock
hunter
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:48 am

Re: What shells?

Postby Frylock » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:10 pm

To the OP (if he ever reads this far into the thread). Go buy a case of Kent Faststeel 3" 1&1/4oz of #2's and don't look back.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
Frylock
hunter
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:48 am

Re: What shells?

Postby On the X » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:37 pm

Mugzwump wrote:

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Science? Computerized ballistics don't count in real life field situations. [b]They are no more than a guide line. [/b]Frank has not presented to you science, he's a person on an internet site who continually presents his opinion. Go out in your back yard or someone elses back yard and then form your own opinions, don't rely on someone else to do what you should do yourself.[/quote]

Are you joking? Sorry... i'm really asking.

mugz.[/quote]
mugz, no I'm not joking, look at the above line in bold, they ARE just a guideline, anyone who would base their choice of load on this or Franks opinion should find another game to play. Nothing wrong with either form of considerations though, but one should form their own opinions and make their own choices after doing their own research. How could this be taken as a joke? damn dude, think on your own a little more. (that was a joke)
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: What shells?

Postby On the X » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:45 pm

Frylock wrote:
On the X wrote:
Frylock wrote:The entire basis for western science is based upon the scientific method - requiring empirical data that is repeatable with controlled variables - exactly the sort of information that Frank Lopez has presented us with. Photographic evidence of dead ducks is neither controlled for variables nor repeatable with consistent results - just one persons experience. I should be able to go into my back yard and reproduce numbers very similar to Franks if I control the variables as he did (same load, choke, gun, distance to target, etc...). Poor patterning is poor patterning no matter how you slice it, and without question leads to cripples. The problem with pictures of ducks and geese is that there is no control for hunting conditions and the shooters ability, and those are huge variables.
But with hard empirical data at least I can make informed decisions about load choices and not be a victim of the wild claims and hyperbole of shotgun shell manufactures marketing teams. Guys like Frank, Okie and others do us a great service by testing the claims that are plastered all over magazines and we pages so we can make informed decisions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Science? Computerized ballistics don't count in real life field situations. They are no more than a guide line. Frank has not presented to you science, he's a person on an internet site who continually presents his opinion. Go out in your back yard or someone elses back yard and then form your own opinions, don't rely on someone else to do what you should do yourself.

I had to sit down after reading that; now you are saying that computer generated model results are less reliable than what I can do in my own back yard? I actually wasn't trying to single out you in my post, just trying to clear up why many of the guys here don't give much weight to dead duck pics (not just yours). But if you cannot understand why we want a very clear and repeatable model for what a round can do then I don't know how we go any further with this conversation.

Once again for you as well.....look at the above in bold.
Yes they are less reliable, theres way to many factors involved to rely on computerized ballistic data. Nothing and I mean NOTHING will substitute you're own field research, which includes in your back yard. You guys really need to do a better job comprehending EVERYTHING you read, not just what you want to comprehend.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: What shells?

Postby On the X » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:46 pm

Frylock wrote:To the OP (if he ever reads this far into the thread). Go buy a case of Kent Faststeel 3" 1&1/4oz of #2's and don't look back.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You need to get that finger looked at, ain't looking good
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: What shells?

Postby Frylock » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:04 pm

On the X wrote:
Frylock wrote:To the OP (if he ever reads this far into the thread). Go buy a case of Kent Faststeel 3" 1&1/4oz of #2's and don't look back.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You need to get that finger looked at, ain't looking good

Tell me about it, $12,000 in surgeries and it's finally now back to (mostly) normal.
User avatar
Frylock
hunter
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:48 am

Re: What shells?

Postby 3200 man » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:30 pm

Well X , apparently you haven't put those gold shells on the board , comparing them to Others ( Kents ) preferably ? :huh:

And ( That's No Joke )
3200 man
hunter
 
Posts: 2819
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am

Re: What shells?

Postby 3200 man » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:33 pm

And , I think you're a smart enough guy to handle that , just marketable ....... :yes:
3200 man
hunter
 
Posts: 2819
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am

Re: What shells?

Postby Mugzwump » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:41 pm

On the X wrote:
Mugzwump wrote:

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Science? Computerized ballistics don't count in real life field situations. [b]They are no more than a guide line. [/b]Frank has not presented to you science, he's a person on an internet site who continually presents his opinion. Go out in your back yard or someone elses back yard and then form your own opinions, don't rely on someone else to do what you should do yourself.


Are you joking? Sorry... i'm really asking.

mugz.[/quote]
mugz, no I'm not joking, look at the above line in bold, they ARE just a guideline, anyone who would base their choice of load on this or Franks opinion should find another game to play. Nothing wrong with either form of considerations though, but one should form their own opinions and make their own choices after doing their own research. How could this be taken as a joke? damn dude, think on your own a little more. (that was a joke)[/quote]

Yea that part in bold... still a joke right?

I've worked on ballistic test ranges, done computerized models myself, it's more than just a guideline. At least how we did it.

I could maybe see your point, a little... as whatever models are often the foundation or basis for further study and everything must be tested in real life. If this is what your are trying to say then that I can understand. But I would put my money on a round that looked good in a real computerized ballistic simulation rather than on one that seems to work in the field. But, that all said I do choose my shells based on how they performed in the field the last few years, as I don't go around simulating birdshot... I am way too lazy a hunter to bother with even patterning any new rounds anymore. I just shoot 'em at birds till I get fed up or until there are no more ducks. Usually I'll know in the first few shots if I'm going to keep using a specific brand. Price is a huge factor for me too... it all adds up.

Mugz.
Mugzwump
hunter
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:42 pm
Location: CANADA

Re: What shells?

Postby On the X » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:54 pm

3200 man wrote:Well X , apparently you haven't put those gold shells on the board , comparing them to Others ( Kents ) preferably ? :huh:

And ( That's No Joke )

Phil Robertson said once "I like shooting mallards but I'm not a mallard purest" Well.....I like shooting HM but I'm not a HM purest. I like kents, I think they are probably the best you can get for the cost. But I like HM too and don't mind paying what I get them for. I shot for years slow Drylocks 2 3/4s and liked them, I also liked Fed Classic 3.5s in #1s til they dropped them. In regards to HM, I've only made 2 claims
1. they work for me and I have been satisfied with their performance under 40, 40, and over 40
2. The ones who continually try to debunk HM have killed very few or no ducks with it.
The 1st claim I can back up, the 2nd I can't but am willing to bet on.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: What shells?

Postby On the X » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:13 pm

Mugzwump wrote:
Yea that part in bold... still a joke right?

I've worked on ballistic test ranges, done computerized models myself, it's more than just a guideline. At least how we did it.

I could maybe see your point, a little... as whatever models are often the foundation or basis for further study and everything must be tested in real life. If this is what your are trying to say then that I can understand. But I would put my money on a round that looked good in a real computerized ballistic simulation rather than on one that seems to work in the field. But, that all said I do choose my shells based on how they performed in the field the last few years, as I don't go around simulating birdshot... I am way too lazy a hunter to bother with even patterning any new rounds anymore. I just shoot 'em at birds till I get fed up or until there are no more ducks. Usually I'll know in the first few shots if I'm going to keep using a specific brand. Price is a huge factor for me too... it all adds up.

Mugz.

Mugz, you sure seem like a nice guy, alot nicer than me. Now that thats out of the way......is this whole response a joke? Is this Canadian humor and i just don't get it? I underlined the best parts but looking back I should have underlined it all.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: What shells?

Postby Mugzwump » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:39 pm

On the X wrote:
Mugzwump wrote:
Yea that part in bold... still a joke right?

I've worked on ballistic test ranges, done computerized models myself, it's more than just a guideline. At least how we did it.

I could maybe see your point, a little... as whatever models are often the foundation or basis for further study and everything must be tested in real life. If this is what your are trying to say then that I can understand. But I would put my money on a round that looked good in a real computerized ballistic simulation rather than on one that seems to work in the field. But, that all said I do choose my shells based on how they performed in the field the last few years, as I don't go around simulating birdshot... I am way too lazy a hunter to bother with even patterning any new rounds anymore. I just shoot 'em at birds till I get fed up or until there are no more ducks. Usually I'll know in the first few shots if I'm going to keep using a specific brand. Price is a huge factor for me too... it all adds up.

Mugz.

Mugz, you sure seem like a nice guy, alot nicer than me. Now that thats out of the way......is this whole response a joke? Is this Canadian humor and i just don't get it? I underlined the best parts but looking back I should have underlined it all.


lol... sure man. There are definitely a few contradictions there maybe I should have separated the paragraph into two.

I was trying to make clear that though I have some experience in the science side of all this that I don't really apply it to my hunting past a few calculations on paper,more like calculated guidelines.... :wink:, for lead and for wind drift but that is based on the manufacturers info about the product and not my own findings.

I like you base it all on what works, but in discussing the particulars of a product with certain physical attributes or limitations it's only fair to keep an objective view, and not biased solely on one persons or your own experience. So here, I will support the scientific opinion that fits mine and debate the other. I won't sit here and post photos of dead stuff saying this is what makes 'em dead, though I will say "hey, this is what worked for me last time, I figure it's cuz of these reasons... etc"

And honestly I haven't even looked at a patterning board in at least 5 years... as I do think that it is only half the equation, and the other half is statistical chance, and the third half is skill. first thing I do when I get my hands on a new load is open it up to see whats in there, and the second thing is to shoot it out over the water and see how it looks there, its more of a 3D view than a piece of paper. I won't discuss patterns much, some angles of shots you're better off with a long string, other angles a short fat string... it's too much detail for me.. Then again I work in all this physics crap so maybe I just want to go home and hunt without trying to figure out the crazy science of all the little bang theories.

Anyhow... HM's work just like any other, are they the best? maybe for some people. Thats my opinion.

:thumbsup:

Mugz.
Mugzwump
hunter
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:42 pm
Location: CANADA

Re: What shells?

Postby On the X » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:56 pm

Mugz, I've read these pages for quite sometime, I read for reviews, updates and it's a damn good place to learn and findout about whats new. BUT..........DAMN, if you shoot anything but what the few self appointed experts approve of they will put you through the ringer and sometimes will get down right childish in the process. It is fun though, I find them somewhat entertaining if nothing else. I shoot a lot of doves, I'm a member of a dove shooting club, the club leases fields from many different farmers....pretty cool deal.....except........all the damn no-it-all "experts" who are decent dove shooters to say the most. Them, just like the ones here, get pretty old. They have nothing new to bring to the conversation so they repeat the same BS as if its on a loop. So......thats why I'm here.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: What shells?

Postby Mugzwump » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:16 pm

On the X wrote:Mugz, I've read these pages for quite sometime, I read for reviews, updates and it's a damn good place to learn and findout about whats new. BUT..........DAMN, if you shoot anything but what the few self appointed experts approve of they will put you through the ringer and sometimes will get down right childish in the process. It is fun though, I find them somewhat entertaining if nothing else. I shoot a lot of doves, I'm a member of a dove shooting club, the club leases fields from many different farmers....pretty cool deal.....except........all the damn no-it-all "experts" who are decent dove shooters to say the most. Them, just like the ones here, get pretty old. They have nothing new to bring to the conversation so they repeat the same BS as if its on a loop. So......thats why I'm here.


I hear ya. I mentioned a 10 gauge in another post and I think you could have measured the ground shake with all the flak I saw. And I've never even owned one. yet.

I'll be running the HM through it for a few days for sure, as Kent doesn't make a 10 ga. shell... I'll have to find something that works... we'll see how that goes.

Mugz.
Mugzwump
hunter
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:42 pm
Location: CANADA

Re: What shells?

Postby On the X » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:15 am

Just for the pure fun of it.....and to give the guru's something worth getting out of bed for, post up your finds on 10ga. HM. That should give them about 10 more pages to live off of.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Shotshell, Reloading, Ballistics, & Chokes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fetchingdrake and 13 guests