Minimum pattern density

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: Minimum pattern density

Postby Frank Lopez » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:21 pm

Yuchi1 wrote:
mudpack wrote:ned's numbers have been proven ( by whom? ) to be ridiculously low in the last five years, so you can disregard them.

I like solway's post and Elvis' is worth noting, too.

Minimum pattern density is that which will reliably (that doesn't mean half the time, either) put 5 pellets into the vital area of the bird you're trying to kill.

By the way, two BB's are not a reliable killer of birds, whereas 4 or 5 number 4's is.

Yes, birds are killed by one Golden Pellet every year. Does that mean that a load consisting of ONE pellet is a viable load?
Of course not.
Look at it this way: the more appropriately-sized shot you have in a pattern, the better the chance of ONE of those pellets striking a vital....and that's what you're looking for: at least ONE pellet in the vitals.


Well, since Ned has admitted to using Burrard's method of using the birds body weight in ounces to determine the area of the vital organs as the basis for determining the minimum pattern and since Burrard, in subsequent writings eschewed that method for something more empirical, you could say that Burrard himself was one. George Secor did some work on this as well. And, of course, there's the 25,000 or so necropsies by Roster and CONSEP that indicate that the numbers listed by ned are utterly ridiculous. And, if I recall correctly, there were several state game commissions that published data in support of these denser pattern recommendations.

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: 2912
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York


Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby blackened89 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:38 pm

who cares
User avatar
blackened89
hunter
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Sagebrush » Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:07 am

I just don't think a lot of pellets are needed for ducks.........
This picture shows one died of one pellet strike and the other 5 died of a heart attack, I think? :beer:

Well maybe ?
Would I lie to you guys and girls ?

Image
User avatar
Sagebrush
hunter
 
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:28 pm
Location: Reno Nev.

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby z51 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:16 pm

Cause by a sudden rush of sh## to the heart! :wink:
z51
hunter
 
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:02 am
Location: Central Arkansas

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Elvis Kiwi » Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:17 pm

thems are some FAT birds :thumbsup:
User avatar
Elvis Kiwi
hunter
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:16 am
Location: South Island New Zealand

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby MK10 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:32 pm

blackened89 wrote:who cares


Any responsible hunter, who wants to reduce or eliminate game bird wounding.........
User avatar
MK10
hunter
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:10 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby mudpack » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:26 pm

Yuchi1 wrote:You are misquoting/wordsmithing the man. His comment (taken in its proper context) indicates it was predicated upon actual field experience.

There's a problem with using "field experience"; field experience is simple anecdotal evidence, which is not evidence at all.
In this case, this "field experience" is based on what one man thinks he sees in the field. What he thinks he sees may or may not be what is actually happening. We all know how reliable "eye witnesses" are.

Field experience has no consistency, it's all variables that change from year to year, from month to month, from day to day, and from shot to shot. There is no basis, scientific or otherwise, for the conclusions that come from "field experience". FE is simply saying "this is one man's opinion".

When someone backs up his theories with his "field experience", that tells me he has nothing more substantial to back his point up.
That's why someone like Frank or MK10 has so much more credibility than someone like ned or yuchi.
mudpack
hunter
 
Posts: 5616
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:40 am
Location: Central Kansas

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Elvis Kiwi » Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:07 pm

so you are saying????Bell or Selous werent really correct about how to shoot elephants as the had no scientific proof that what they used worked???? :huh: :huh:
to mind me Im in one of those moods :fingerpt:
to each their own... if it works for you...thats good enough for me :thumbsup:
User avatar
Elvis Kiwi
hunter
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:16 am
Location: South Island New Zealand

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby solway gunner » Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:46 pm

Sagebrush wrote:I just don't think a lot of pellets are needed for ducks.........
This picture shows one died of one pellet strike and the other 5 died of a heart attack, I think? :beer:

Well maybe ?
Would I lie to you guys and girls ?

Image


were they realy shot or just plain "free range" birds..? :yes:

great cleaning job!you could do mine anytime- what machine you using?
solway gunner
hunter
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:50 am
Location: scotland uk

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Yuchi1 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:27 pm

mudpack wrote:
Yuchi1 wrote:You are misquoting/wordsmithing the man. His comment (taken in its proper context) indicates it was predicated upon actual field experience.

There's a problem with using "field experience"; field experience is simple anecdotal evidence, which is not evidence at all.
In this case, this "field experience" is based on what one man thinks he sees in the field. What he thinks he sees may or may not be what is actually happening. We all know how reliable "eye witnesses" are.

Field experience has no consistency, it's all variables that change from year to year, from month to month, from day to day, and from shot to shot. There is no basis, scientific or otherwise, for the conclusions that come from "field experience". FE is simply saying "this is one man's opinion".

When someone backs up his theories with his "field experience", that tells me he has nothing more substantial to back his point up.
That's why someone like Frank or MK10 has so much more credibility than someone like ned or yuchi.


First, the gentleman offered his field experiences as simply that, field experiences, and yet you (and others) are trying to extrappropriate this into the realm of forensic evidence. As a ~47 season waterfowler, I will place more weight on such that any prognostications of the sisterhood of paper duck chasers which is precisely why this gunner places more credibility on the likes of Ned, et. al. over that of the internet magpies.
Sent from my Sumerian tablets

Does the number of bands claimed simply mean you have an Ebay account?

FSH Pro Staffer

High Potentate, NSSB (no spinning shotcup brotherhood)
Yuchi1
hunter
 
Posts: 1597
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: Creek Nation of Oklahoma

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Yuchi1 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:28 pm

Sagebrush wrote:I just don't think a lot of pellets are needed for ducks.........
This picture shows one died of one pellet strike and the other 5 died of a heart attack, I think? :beer:

Well maybe ?
Would I lie to you guys and girls ?

Image




Shot their heads off? :yes:
Sent from my Sumerian tablets

Does the number of bands claimed simply mean you have an Ebay account?

FSH Pro Staffer

High Potentate, NSSB (no spinning shotcup brotherhood)
Yuchi1
hunter
 
Posts: 1597
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: Creek Nation of Oklahoma

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby BBK » Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:32 pm

For something to work in the field, it has to work scientifically on paper. Not all things on paper work in the field, but all things in the field will work on paper. :thumbsup:
BBK
hunter
 
Posts: 2953
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Sagebrush » Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:26 pm

All hand picked with lots of love.................the old fashion way.

My father cut the wings and feet off the gutted birds, stuffed the cavity with news paper, ruff picked them then dunked
them under hot water with wax and laid them on a table covered with more news paper to cool. Then the wax with the feathers was removed from the ducks. Too much bother for me.

I even try to have a Honker picked the same way for thanksgiving if possible. That is a major under taking........ but boy
is it ever tasty and moist.

Breasting is quick but I enjoy a duck split in half and put on the BBQ with the skin on to help keep the juices in. As teens,
we would eat skin and all. Today just the meat to make my doctor happy. :lol:
User avatar
Sagebrush
hunter
 
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:28 pm
Location: Reno Nev.

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby solway gunner » Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:27 am

Sagebrush wrote:All hand picked with lots of love.................the old fashion way.

My father cut the wings and feet off the gutted birds, stuffed the cavity with news paper, ruff picked them then dunked
them under hot water with wax and laid them on a table covered with more news paper to cool. Then the wax with the feathers was removed from the ducks. Too much bother for me.

I even try to have a Honker picked the same way for thanksgiving if possible. That is a major under taking........ but boy
is it ever tasty and moist.

Breasting is quick but I enjoy a duck split in half and put on the BBQ with the skin on to help keep the juices in. As teens,
we would eat skin and all. Today just the meat to make my doctor happy. :lol:


:clapping: superb.
solway gunner
hunter
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:50 am
Location: scotland uk

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Elvis Kiwi » Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:33 am

sage not trying to tell grandma how to suck eggs but if you want a real clean pluck do it straight after dog brings it in from the retrieve...still hot, we often do this while jump shooting and man do those feathers come out easy..the down/bum fluff will rub off with a little thumb pressure after majority of feathers are gone.
not a great idea in the maimai though :grooving:
User avatar
Elvis Kiwi
hunter
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:16 am
Location: South Island New Zealand

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby BT Justice » Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:06 am

mudpack wrote:
Yuchi1 wrote:You are misquoting/wordsmithing the man. His comment (taken in its proper context) indicates it was predicated upon actual field experience.

There's a problem with using "field experience"; field experience is simple anecdotal evidence, which is not evidence at all.
In this case, this "field experience" is based on what one man thinks he sees in the field. What he thinks he sees may or may not be what is actually happening. We all know how reliable "eye witnesses" are.

Field experience has no consistency, it's all variables that change from year to year, from month to month, from day to day, and from shot to shot. There is no basis, scientific or otherwise, for the conclusions that come from "field experience". FE is simply saying "this is one man's opinion".

When someone backs up his theories with his "field experience", that tells me he has nothing more substantial to back his point up.
That's why someone like Frank or MK10 has so much more credibility than someone like ned or yuchi.

I've posted this picture up enough that it's getting old but it's the best example, perhaps most extreme, of why you must use in the field experience also to back up what SHOULD work on paper.
By all accounts the F steel pattern pictured should be a killer goose load, even at 1300 fps F steel should have enough energy to kill well out to 60 yards, we worked on the patterning for quite a while, got it right and chronoed the loads to an average of 1310 fps.
I also figured let two different shooters give their opinion on this so one of my hunting partners was also shooting this load at birds . Also led to less of one guy couldn't shoot correctly, figured two could at least get it right.
Most of you know the story, in the field on both snows and canadas the load did not perform well at all, on paper and according to the computer programs it should have.
My guess not enough pattern density, but even with one pellet hit F steel should have done the job. We found BBB or T to be much more effective..to many sailors with the F steel loads.

Image
User avatar
BT Justice
hunter
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby 10gaOkie » Sat Oct 19, 2013 8:35 am

I like loads that pattern at least 73% at 45 yards. The best of the best factory loads normally give this percentage at tops. Handloads can be tailored to give 90% patterns at that same range. The evenness of the pattern and how it performs in the field should also be taken into consideration and are very important.

Chris
10gaOkie
hunter
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: OKC

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby z51 » Sat Oct 19, 2013 9:51 am

Federal Speed Shock 3" 1 1/4 #2 will average 85 percent all day through my Carlson Long Range tube at 40 yards. I don't pattern at 45 yards but I'm sure it will hold 75 percent for another 5 yards. I haven't found 80 percent hard to attain at all with decent, not premium, factory loads. The key is medium velocity, uniform shot, and the correct choke.
z51
hunter
 
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:02 am
Location: Central Arkansas

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Sagebrush » Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:08 am

Elvis;
tried duck and dove while still warm............
hated the down and feathers floating around and all over you and in your nose if unlucky.
True it is quick, some do the warm water chicken/pheasant thing after the hunt............
Oh, and about plucking pheasant.................better pack a lunch !!

ok, enough........... back to targets !!

BT;

+1 on field testing loads.
I had a 3/4 oz #4 at 1850 fps that looked great on paper at 30 yards ..........
Out in the field I missed 11 ducks straight with the load !!
Even put two on the water to get an idea of its speed and pattern with the choke in the gun.
The other half of the box netted only four birds in the next few morning hours.
I am thinking that speed is good but you also need pellets in a "Pattern" to kill birds !!
User avatar
Sagebrush
hunter
 
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:28 pm
Location: Reno Nev.

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Elvis Kiwi » Sat Oct 19, 2013 6:31 pm

Sagebrush wrote:Elvis;
tried duck and dove while still warm............
hated the down and feathers floating around and all over you and in your nose if unlucky.
True it is quick, some do the warm water chicken/pheasant thing after the hunt............
Oh, and about plucking pheasant.................better pack a lunch !!

I never said it was tidy.... :grooving:
great in a howling NW Wind :thumbsup:
User avatar
Elvis Kiwi
hunter
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:16 am
Location: South Island New Zealand

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby arey60 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:29 am

Started following CONSEP recommendations with commercial shells last year and it really does make a difference. This year using one choke and 3 shell selections for appropriate species and distance. It is worth the time patterning
arey60
hunter
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:20 pm

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Frank Lopez » Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:37 am

arey60 wrote:Started following CONSEP recommendations with commercial shells last year and it really does make a difference.


Careful, there arey. You'll be labeled a heretic! :wink: :lol3:

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: 2912
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby BBK » Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:18 am

Screw that minimum pattern density crap. I'm done wasting my time with counting holes. I'm just shooting 1 1/4 #2 & 1 3/8 #1 and keeping my 3'rd shot under 40 yards (unless its a cripple). If I shoot a patterning board and there are no big holes in the pattern, good enough. If I hit a bird with those loads at 40 yards its dead. If I get a cripple it was because I missed.

GO BIG OR GO HOME!

But here is some proof that correct pattern/choke selection matters. 1 1/4 #4 load that patterns great at 40, stretched to 45-50 which is beyond its limit IMO. I'm pretty sure I was dead on that bird with the 2nd shot (first shot on video) but I only got one through the gut. Hole's in the pattern. Keep the shots close and you won't have to worry about minimum this and maximum that.

*that bird came out of the other guys downriver hit so I tried to knock him down, he did the death glide for about 50 yards and crashed into the sand dead*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqDBJEh9j_g
BBK
hunter
 
Posts: 2953
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Jon Bergren » Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:01 pm

Frank Lopez wrote:
Yuchi1 wrote:
mudpack wrote:ned's numbers have been proven ( by whom? ) to be ridiculously low in the last five years, so you can disregard them.

I like solway's post and Elvis' is worth noting, too.

Minimum pattern density is that which will reliably (that doesn't mean half the time, either) put 5 pellets into the vital area of the bird you're trying to kill.

By the way, two BB's are not a reliable killer of birds, whereas 4 or 5 number 4's is.

Yes, birds are killed by one Golden Pellet every year. Does that mean that a load consisting of ONE pellet is a viable load?
Of course not.
Look at it this way: the more appropriately-sized shot you have in a pattern, the better the chance of ONE of those pellets striking a vital....and that's what you're looking for: at least ONE pellet in the vitals.


Well, since Ned has admitted to using Burrard's method of using the birds body weight in ounces to determine the area of the vital organs as the basis for determining the minimum pattern and since Burrard, in subsequent writings eschewed that method for something more empirical, you could say that Burrard himself was one. George Secor did some work on this as well. And, of course, there's the 25,000 or so necropsies by Roster and CONSEP that indicate that the numbers listed by ned are utterly ridiculous. And, if I recall correctly, there were several state game commissions that published data in support of these denser pattern recommendations.

Frank


The numbers I post are not ridiculous, they are based on field observations just like Rosters. In fact he tauted geese needed 5 pellets before CONSEP was published as well as 4 pellets for mallards. I still kil geese with 7/8 oz of B's out to 50 yds where I lose killin pattern density. Again Frank does not reload steel, just another "arm chair ballistician. Ned S
Jon Bergren
hunter
 
Posts: 1356
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Frank Lopez » Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:09 pm

Jon Bergren wrote:Again Frank does not reload steel, just another "arm chair ballistician. Ned S


Well, at least you're making some progress! You finally are ready to admit that I do reload and have reloaded for a long, long time, just not steel. But, reloading and wounding ballistics are two very different subjects. In fact, while reloading has some effect on the overall external ballistics of a given load, it is far from the only influence, nor is it the main influence.

Regarding 5 pellets in a goose, that's fine, though somewhat light, but your premise is that you need to get five into a goose to get one in a vital. As I said, earlier, it doesn't quite work that way. You need to look at the vital area as a whole and calculate that off the total area of the 30 inch pattern AND factor in the Gaussian distribution of the pattern. Fact, there are NO even patterns, period.

Have a nice day, Ned. Glad to see you're back.

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: 2912
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

PreviousNext

Return to Shotshell, Reloading, Ballistics, & Chokes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests