#5 steel shot

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: #5 steel shot

Postby ksfowler166 » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:00 pm

kenner wrote:I would fear that the new hunter, non-reloader would head to the field with a box of #6 steel.

There is nothing wrong with a new hunter, non-reloader using #6 steel. Roster in his 1999 lethality table say "Steel #6 (.110") has proven lethal out to 40 yards on all ducks tested. It has proven particularly effective out to 35 yards when used with chokes no tighter than modified." Roster was using loads between 1,225fps and 1,450fps with a minimum weight of 1oz. Myself and several others that I hunt with have found that Kent's 1 1/8oz 1,560fps #6 steel load is not a crippler on ducks. Though we do not range the distance the birds are shot.
De Oppresso Liber
User avatar
ksfowler166
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:24 pm
Location: NE Kansas


Re: #5 steel shot

Postby 3200 man » Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:36 pm

And , that Kent load is even better with 3's , so you don't have to wonder if it's in range if it's inside of 50 yds ! :yes:
3200 man
hunter
 
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby ksfowler166 » Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:11 pm

Except few shooters and load/choke combos are capable of consistently making 50 yard shots.
De Oppresso Liber
User avatar
ksfowler166
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:24 pm
Location: NE Kansas

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby 3200 man » Sun Jul 27, 2014 6:13 am

That I agree with you but why wonder if a shot size is capable of bring down a bird if its hit with the fringe of the pattern ?
There's a big difference between the energy / impact of a # 3 and a # 5 steel shot , just in the size wound channel much
more is its ability to break bones ! Sure a bird being shot with its ( soft tissue ) breast exposed is one thing but when that
same bird turns and all you have is a side / going away shot.......3's rule in my opinion ! :thumbsup:
3200 man
hunter
 
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby mudpack » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:03 am

kenner wrote:I'm confused.... Ned's gotten ripped over the years for shooting #4s; .... now we're talking #5s....


Yes, you are confused. Ned didn't get ripped for shooting #4 steel, he got ripped for shooting 7/8oz of steel 4's at 48.7 yard ducks.
Nothing wrong with #4 steel IN ITS PLACE. I consider its place being a great teal load in at least 1 1/8oz (preferably 1 1/4oz) load for adequate pattern density at 35 yards. :thumbsup:
mudpack
hunter
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:40 am
Location: Central Kansas

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby kenner » Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:34 am

Thanks for the clarification, Mud.

What choke would you be using with those payloads?
kenner
hunter
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:15 pm
Location: SoggyFoot, Oregon

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby Jon Bergren » Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:07 pm

hamernhonkers wrote:
goosepit2007 wrote:
hamernhonkers wrote:Goose that's exactly what I am after and I greatly appreciate it!

One other question, what elevation you at?



we hunt areas that the elevation is from 900 ft to 2100 ft elevation.



goose

Cool. I will be using these from 1300' to over 8000' up there I should be able to stretch them out a little further lol.


Killing distances at different elevations
0 elev -------40 yds
1300 ft-------42.9 yds
8000 ft-------55.4 yds
It pays to shoot high. Ned S
Jon Bergren
hunter
 
Posts: 1356
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby Jon Bergren » Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:12 pm

mudpack wrote:
kenner wrote:I'm confused.... Ned's gotten ripped over the years for shooting #4s; .... now we're talking #5s....


Yes, you are confused. Ned didn't get ripped for shooting #4 steel, he got ripped for shooting 7/8oz of steel 4's at 48.7 yard ducks.
Nothing wrong with #4 steel IN ITS PLACE. I consider its place being a great teal load in at least 1 1/8oz (preferably 1 1/4oz) load for adequate pattern density at 35 yards. :thumbsup:


Mudpack per usual doesn't know what he is talking about and probably never shot 7/8 0z of 4's at over 1700 fps. Same goes for 7/8 oz of B's that will kill gerese to 66.5 yds, I have killed them to 60 yds with a Terror choke. You just have to understand steel ballistics. There is 211 pellets in #4 1 1/8 oz load and 235 in a 1 1/4 oz load. Most of our teal are killed at 20-30 yds, Those loads will butcher teal at those distances. Ned S
Jon Bergren
hunter
 
Posts: 1356
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby mudpack » Sun Jul 27, 2014 2:37 pm

Jon Bergren wrote: Mudpack... probably never shot 7/8 0z of 4's at over 1700 fps.
You got that right ...and I never will.

Jon Bergren wrote: Most of our teal are killed at 20-30 yds, Those loads will butcher teal at those distances. Ned S

At those distances, ned, I just shoot 'em in the head. Problem solved. Seriously.


I shoot a Light Mod Briley in my duck gun, kenner. Works for me.
mudpack
hunter
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:40 am
Location: Central Kansas

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby J J Mac » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:09 pm

J J Mac wrote:
Frank Lopez wrote:Again, I agree that the work is statistically invalid and that it is by Brezny, so it is somewhat questionable. However, I also believe that you are reading too much into thing to suggest that I'm basing things on a single article. Ballistics Coefficients are typically established computationally. That number is then revised after several test firings and observations to arrive at a reliable number. To my knowledge, ballistics programs use the same BC when dealing with shotgun pellets. This may be a big mistake. Lowry observed that things weren't happening exactly as predicted with steel shot, so he revised the tables basing his work on 7/8 inch steel balls (IIRC). Still, the data was based on single projectiles, not pellets flying in a swarm. That swarm and the way the pattern blooms may have some effect on the pressure wave in front of the shot swarm.

Frank

Are you saying that Ballistic Coefficients for bullets are used for shotshell pellets? Ballistic Coefficients have several different definitions. Please define the Ballistic Coefficient you are talking about in blue above so we can discuss further. Here is a link that does a pretty good job of defining the different Ballistic Coefficients.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient This link has been corrected to direct to the proper article.

Here is a link that gives info on Ballistic Coefficients also. http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/5th/221.cfm
Please define the Ballistic Coefficient you are talking about as described in the first article being as specific as possible.

Frank, where are you?
Last edited by J J Mac on Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
J J Mac
hunter
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby kenner » Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:47 pm

So, with the only variable being shot size, will #6/#5 steel shot have the same pattern diameter as #1 steel shot?
kenner
hunter
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:15 pm
Location: SoggyFoot, Oregon

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby hamernhonkers » Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:35 am

Well good news for my wallet and marriage but bad news for you guys today.

Image


They arrived. Bring on the patterning. :lol3:
Hello

David wrote:
I have suspended the suspension on the suspended, allowing the suspended to post in a non-suspending manner.
User avatar
hamernhonkers
hunter
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:56 am

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby ksfowler166 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:17 pm

kenner wrote:So, with the only variable being shot size, will #6/#5 steel shot have the same pattern diameter as #1 steel shot?

Theoretically yes but each shotgun is a law unto itself so one would have shoot patterns to be sure.
De Oppresso Liber
User avatar
ksfowler166
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:24 pm
Location: NE Kansas

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby Frank Lopez » Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:57 pm

J J Mac wrote:
J J Mac wrote:
Frank Lopez wrote:Again, I agree that the work is statistically invalid and that it is by Brezny, so it is somewhat questionable. However, I also believe that you are reading too much into thing to suggest that I'm basing things on a single article. Ballistics Coefficients are typically established computationally. That number is then revised after several test firings and observations to arrive at a reliable number. To my knowledge, ballistics programs use the same BC when dealing with shotgun pellets. This may be a big mistake. Lowry observed that things weren't happening exactly as predicted with steel shot, so he revised the tables basing his work on 7/8 inch steel balls (IIRC). Still, the data was based on single projectiles, not pellets flying in a swarm. That swarm and the way the pattern blooms may have some effect on the pressure wave in front of the shot swarm.

Frank

Are you saying that Ballistic Coefficients for bullets are used for shotshell pellets? Ballistic Coefficients have several different definitions. Please define the Ballistic Coefficient you are talking about in blue above so we can discuss further. Here is a link that does a pretty good job of defining the different Ballistic Coefficients.http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/5th/221.cfm

Here is a link that gives info on Ballistic Coefficients also. http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/5th/221.cfm
Please define the Ballistic Coefficient you are talking about as described in the first article being as specific as possible.

Frank, where are you?


Sorry for your impatience. I've had some family business that has kept me away. Nevertheless, I'll see if I can address your concerns.

The Ballistic Coefficient of a projectile is a measure of how well that projectile is able to resist the opposing forces of aerodynamics and retain velocity. It is mathematically defined as the Sectional Density (Weight in pounds / Diameter squared in inches) divided by the Coefficient of Form. The Coefficient of Form, or Form Factor, is a number assigned to the projectile by comparing the projectile shape to the shape of a standard bullet. It is then revised by the data obtained form test firings of the projectile. This works well with uniform, symmetrical single projectiles that are stabilized around the axis of flight.

The problem with shotgun projectiles is that they are not so uniform, except in some very high quality loads, they are not stabilized around the axis of flight and are subject to tumbling similar to a knuckleball in baseball, and the pellets fly in a relatively close group.

If you cut open one of the heavier than lead tungsten based products, you'll find very irregular pellets. And while these irregularities can enhance the form factor (elongated or teardrop shapes), they are just as likely to hurt it (mushroom capped shapes). Then we have the latest craze of highly irregular shaped pellets like Blindside and Black Cloud. You might be able to assign a Coefficient of Form for the projectile as it travels in one aspect, but you'd have a completely different Coefficient of Form when it tumbled. Plus, as these pellets tumbled and presented different cross sections to the atmosphere, the sectional density would change.

Finally, and probably most important, is that shotgun pellets fly in a group. This group tends to share the burden of overcoming atmospheric pressure among the central portion of the pattern (a personal observation). There is a high speed video of a canister round from the 120mm smooth bore gun on an Abrams M1 tank. The pressure wave is very visible in the video. You will see that as the lead pellets are pried away from this central core, they tend to rapidly slow down. My take on this is that this is the point when the pellets are falling out of the influence of its companions and begin acting like single projectiles.

Finally, as I said earlier, it isn't just a single article. The F&S articles are interesting because the data is there even if the author is drawing some rather odd conclusions. (For the sake of clarity, the author wasn't looking at the difference between a ballistic program and an actual field result.)

So, when you stated
To my knowledge, ballistics programs use the same BC when dealing with shotgun pellets.
, I believe you are 100% correct. But, that is the problem. The BC doesn't really reflect what is actually happening down range.

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: 3011
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby kenner » Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:25 pm

Thank you for your eloquent explanation, Frank! I tried to put it in simple terms, in another post and was met with resistance.

So, answering my own question (bait) above, it would follow that, with all things being equal, and pellet size being the only variable, a load of smaller steel pellets should throw a wider diameter pattern than larger ones, due to inertia, internal forces, inter-pellet interactions, and the unequal forces, due to a greater air resistance effect on the smaller pellets, due to 1/2 Surface:Mass being greater for the smaller.

Back to the #5 shot.... I used to shoot #6 steel, but the birds were very close. I think a load of #5's would be very good for me, when the smaller ducks actually land in the dekes, in the very early light.
kenner
hunter
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:15 pm
Location: SoggyFoot, Oregon

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby kenner » Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:06 am

I loaded up some 7/8oz #5 and #4 and patterned yesterday:
My gun, Rem 870, 28"bbl, LM Carlson's ext. clays choke.

At 30 yds, #5s were ratty and there were big holes; #4s were nice and even.
7/8oz and 1oz #3s were threw very nice patterns. 1oz #2s had holes.
I did try the #5s with an IC, but 7/8oz, with that choke and distance, was just too wide spread

I've loaded 1oz #4s and not patterned, but they powdered the clay targets.

The #4s would give added distance and larger bird choice.

Sagebrush shoots #5s, extensively and could give you good advice.
kenner
hunter
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:15 pm
Location: SoggyFoot, Oregon

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby J J Mac » Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:13 pm

Frank Lopez wrote:
J J Mac wrote:
J J Mac wrote:
Frank Lopez wrote:Again, I agree that the work is statistically invalid and that it is by Brezny, so it is somewhat questionable. However, I also believe that you are reading too much into thing to suggest that I'm basing things on a single article. Ballistics Coefficients are typically established computationally. That number is then revised after several test firings and observations to arrive at a reliable number. To my knowledge, ballistics programs use the same BC when dealing with shotgun pellets. This may be a big mistake. Lowry observed that things weren't happening exactly as predicted with steel shot, so he revised the tables basing his work on 7/8 inch steel balls (IIRC). Still, the data was based on single projectiles, not pellets flying in a swarm. That swarm and the way the pattern blooms may have some effect on the pressure wave in front of the shot swarm.

Frank

Are you saying that Ballistic Coefficients for bullets are used for shotshell pellets? Ballistic Coefficients have several different definitions. Please define the Ballistic Coefficient you are talking about in blue above so we can discuss further. Here is a link that does a pretty good job of defining the different Ballistic Coefficients.http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/5th/221.cfm

Here is a link that gives info on Ballistic Coefficients also. http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/5th/221.cfm
Please define the Ballistic Coefficient you are talking about as described in the first article being as specific as possible.

Frank, where are you?


Sorry for your impatience. I've had some family business that has kept me away. Nevertheless, I'll see if I can address your concerns.

The Ballistic Coefficient of a projectile is a measure of how well that projectile is able to resist the opposing forces of aerodynamics and retain velocity. It is mathematically defined as the Sectional Density (Weight in pounds / Diameter squared in inches) divided by the Coefficient of Form. The Coefficient of Form, or Form Factor, is a number assigned to the projectile by comparing the projectile shape to the shape of a standard bullet. It is then revised by the data obtained form test firings of the projectile. This works well with uniform, symmetrical single projectiles that are stabilized around the axis of flight.

The problem with shotgun projectiles is that they are not so uniform, except in some very high quality loads, they are not stabilized around the axis of flight and are subject to tumbling similar to a knuckleball in baseball, and the pellets fly in a relatively close group.

If you cut open one of the heavier than lead tungsten based products, you'll find very irregular pellets. And while these irregularities can enhance the form factor (elongated or teardrop shapes), they are just as likely to hurt it (mushroom capped shapes). Then we have the latest craze of highly irregular shaped pellets like Blindside and Black Cloud. You might be able to assign a Coefficient of Form for the projectile as it travels in one aspect, but you'd have a completely different Coefficient of Form when it tumbled. Plus, as these pellets tumbled and presented different cross sections to the atmosphere, the sectional density would change.

Finally, and probably most important, is that shotgun pellets fly in a group. This group tends to share the burden of overcoming atmospheric pressure among the central portion of the pattern (a personal observation). There is a high speed video of a canister round from the 120mm smooth bore gun on an Abrams M1 tank. The pressure wave is very visible in the video. You will see that as the lead pellets are pried away from this central core, they tend to rapidly slow down. My take on this is that this is the point when the pellets are falling out of the influence of its companions and begin acting like single projectiles.

Finally, as I said earlier, it isn't just a single article. The F&S articles are interesting because the data is there even if the author is drawing some rather odd conclusions. (For the sake of clarity, the author wasn't looking at the difference between a ballistic program and an actual field result.)

So, when you stated
To my knowledge, ballistics programs use the same BC when dealing with shotgun pellets.
, I believe you are 100% correct. But, that is the problem. The BC doesn't really reflect what is actually happening down range.

Frank

Frank,
If you will reread your own posting, you will then remember that you wrote this, "To my knowledge, ballistics programs use the same BC when dealing with shotgun pellets.", not I as you wrote in this response. When I read your posting it appears to me that you wrote that ballistic coefficients for bullets were used for pellets in ShotShell Ballistics. Is that what you mean? I want to continue this discussion but before I do I would like to know the answer to this question. You have not answered it yet.
User avatar
J J Mac
hunter
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby Frank Lopez » Sat Aug 02, 2014 8:49 am

J J Mac wrote:Frank,
When I read your posting it appears to me that you wrote that ballistic coefficients for bullets were used for pellets in ShotShell Ballistics. Is that what you mean?


C=SD/I

C=Ballistic Coefficient
SD=Sectional Density
I=Form Factor as related to the Oglvie Standard.

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: 3011
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby kenner » Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:27 am

We can't be looking/interpreting at a shot charge as being simply, many single entities; there are other forces at work, from time of explosion to impact.

Soft, malleable shot, which will deform, add another dimension to the mix. TSS all but eliminates that factor.
kenner
hunter
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:15 pm
Location: SoggyFoot, Oregon

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby 3200 man » Sat Aug 02, 2014 12:00 pm

That's for sure Kenner ! with a well placed centered pattern you'll have a birds with many holes to prove it ! :yes:

And they won't look like the birds in the picture , above !
3200 man
hunter
 
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby J J Mac » Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:04 pm

Frank Lopez wrote:
J J Mac wrote:Frank,
When I read your posting it appears to me that you wrote that ballistic coefficients for bullets were used for pellets in ShotShell Ballistics. Is that what you mean?


C=SD/I

C=Ballistic Coefficient
SD=Sectional Density
I=Form Factor as related to the Oglvie Standard.

Frank

Oglvie = Ogive?

You apparently have a hard time saying yes or no to my question but I will take your answer as yes because of your definition of the bullet ballistic coefficient above for pellets. Your statement, "To my knowledge, ballistics programs use the same BC when dealing with shotgun pellets.", is also an indication of this. You are correct that the ballistic coefficient is defined as C = SD/i = M/(i d^2) where C is the ballistic coefficient, SD is the sectional density, M is the weight of the projectile, and d is its diameter.
In ballistics equations, the air resistance affecting acceleration (negative) is directly proportional to the drag coefficient of the projectile and inversely proportional to the ballistic coefficient. If the experimental drag coefficient is known for the projectile in question then the form factor , i, is 1.0 and thus the ballistic coefficient is equal to the projectile's sectional density. For bullets, typically the drag coefficients are not known and standard bullets whose drag coefficients are known are used. In this case, the form factor is given by i = (drag coefficient of bullet)/(known drag coefficient of the standard bullet). Most bullet manufacturers use the G1 standard bullet even though the G7 bullet drag coefficient is a better fit to modern streamlined bullets. See this link

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2013/01/g1-vs-g7-ballistic-coefficients-what-you-need-to-know/

Unless the bullet is very close in design to the standard bullet, bullet ballistic coefficients are good for only a certain speed range and it may take multiple ballistic coefficients if you wants to calculate the trajectory over a long distance or velocity range.

Some bullet manufacturers are now determining the drag coefficients of their bullets and thus for these the form factor is 1.0 and the ballistic coefficient is C = SD = M/d^2.

Now back to spherical pellets. The drag coefficient for spheres has been determined experimentally thus the form factor is equal to 1 or very nearly 1 so that the ballistic coefficient for shotgun spherical pellets of different sizes is given by C = SD = M/d^2 and bullet ballistic coefficients are not used for round pellets in Shotshell Ballistics. Another way of saying this is that pellet ballistic coefficients are not referenced to standard bullet drag coefficients (G!, G7, or any of the other standard bullets).
User avatar
J J Mac
hunter
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby Frank Lopez » Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:31 pm

JJ, you seem bent on starting an argument! Apparently, you've missed the whole point

Frank Lopez wrote:I've seen other test results of penetration at range that also contradict what the programs predict. Some are really interesting. To the point that I'm beginning to think we need to rethink (or at least empirically revise) those ballistics programs with respect to shotgun loads.


Use your program to determine the ballistic difference between a load of Remington Hypersonic #2 steel at 1700fps and a similar load of Winchester BlindeSide at the same velocity. Do the same with Federal's Black Cloud. Finally comparre Winchester Drylok and Winchester Xperts. Bet you'll get all the same answers for the same pellet size and velocity. Then go and field test them and compare those results to the computer predictions. Bet they don't match.

Ever wonder why pellets in the shot string exhibit various degrees of deceleration? Have you seen high speed videos of shot strings where it is obvious that the pellets peel off from the front and fall behind while those pellets that were trailing the main central cluster seem to maintain their velocity and push on? When a projectile bucks the atmosphere on its own, the programs are pretty close. But when they fly in a random group, all bets are off, at leas from the empirical data.

Hell, For years even Roster's been recommending things that work empirically yet they defy the programs.

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: 3011
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby kenner » Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:24 pm

Here ya go, Frank: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8
[/url]
kenner
hunter
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:15 pm
Location: SoggyFoot, Oregon

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby Theduckguru » Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:07 pm

I bought a bunch of #5 shot for $10 a bag on a closeout, and I load a few 5s in RSI 64 for bluewings and wooducks. I have shot sept canadas with them <25 yards and they will bring them down. I see no advantage for 5 vs 4 in the real world.
Banded Birds - Mallard / Black Ducks, 3 Jack Miners and 25 AVISE. BW Teal - 2, Wood Ducks - 1, Morning Doves - 1, Snow/Ross - 2 (both reward bands), Canada Geese - 12 (2 neck collars)
Theduckguru
hunter
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:54 am

Re: #5 steel shot

Postby J J Mac » Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:25 pm

J J Mac comments in red
Frank Lopez wrote:JJ, you seem bent on starting an argument! Not trying to start an argument . Trying to correct some misconceptions. Apparently, you've missed the whole point Oh. OK, I will address these points you now bring up

Frank Lopez wrote:I've seen other test results of penetration at range that also contradict what the programs predict. Some are really interesting. Would love to see the references. Please list so I and others can read. To the point that I'm beginning to think we need to rethink (or at least empirically revise) those ballistics programs with respect to shotgun loads.


Use your program to determine the ballistic difference between a load of Remington Hypersonic #2 steel at 1700fps and a similar load of Winchester BlindeSide at the same velocity. Do the same with Federal's Black Cloud. Finally comparre Winchester Drylok and Winchester Xperts. Bet you'll get all the same answers for the same pellet size and velocity. Then go and field test them and compare those results to the computer predictions. Bet they don't match.

Ever wonder why pellets in the shot string exhibit various degrees of deceleration? Have you seen high speed videos of shot strings where it is obvious that the pellets peel off from the front and fall behind while those pellets that were trailing the main central cluster seem to maintain their velocity and push on? Yes When a projectile bucks the atmosphere on its own, the programs are pretty close. But when they fly in a random group, all bets are off, at least from the empirical data.

Hell, For years even Roster's been recommending things that work empirically yet they defy the programs. Like # 6 shot range for big ducks? He could have clarified whether they were effective because of body hits or neck/head hits. Do you have any other examples?

Frank

Sorry to be late getting back. I have been fishing every day.

As I mentioned in my previous posting, Shotshell Ballistics uses drag coefficient data for spherical particles. Thus, you should not expect it to work very well for "cubes" (Blind Side), odd shaped particles (Black Cloud), or non uniform pellet sizes in one load (Expert and others). So I don't understand why you are criticizing shotgun ballistics programs for not giving good results when they were not designed to work with these non-standard pellets both for external ballistics and wounding ballistics (penetration)! I would also not expect the ballistics programs to give very accurate results for Blind Side, Black Cloud, or any others that use shot cups that do not open close to the muzzle for reasons I suspect you understand.

Shot strings for spherical particles are formed for a variety of reasons (different pellet size, somewhat different exposure to the atmospheric drag as you mention, etc. However, shot strings are sufficiently short that they may be ignored for the most part for downrange ballistics. Maybe they have a bigger effect on patterns. Lowry did extensive work on measuring pellet velocity/time of flight in the shot cloud at various distances. See this link for a brief summary
http://randywakeman.com/EdLowryOnShotshellBallistics.htm. The link shows the experimental setup that he used.

Based on this work, he gathered experimental data (or empirical as you prefer) and made improved shotshell ballistic tables (again for spheres!) - velocity vs distance. It is very difficult and really unnecessary to model every individual pellet in the shot cloud from first principles and so he used values that best represented the shot cloud based on the existing drag coefficient data. It is even quite difficult to model the drag on a single sphere from first principles. This is the data that was used to revise existing inaccurate ballistics tables. It was also used in his ShotShell Ballistics software. So, you see, the "empirical revisions" that you mention have already been done. One thing that he found out that was not understood before was that the 3-ft velocity as measured by coil-disjunctors and used by U S shotshell manufacturers must be revised in order to get accurate results. The amount of this revison depends on the choke used. Lowry's software is the only software that uses this correction.
User avatar
J J Mac
hunter
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Michigan

PreviousNext

Return to Shotshell, Reloading, Ballistics, & Chokes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blacklab7 and 12 guests