Excellent point! Thanks for the comparison. :thumbsup:

 

Thank you very much. I was going to ask if anyone had done a similar type of comparison. I keep debating between 1 1/4 oz. 2s at 1450 and 1 1/8 3s at 1550.

 

where does a person buy ed's ballistic software? I think I would enjoy having this kind of info at my fingertips. is it the program to get?

 

where does a person buy ed's ballistic software? I think I would enjoy having this kind of info at my fingertips. is it the program to get?

It has been a while , but I think I got my copy at Precision reloading.

IMO it is a program that anyone who enjoys discussing shotshell ballistics needs.

 

I disagree totally with the statement that "speed" doesn't kill. I've had Lowry's Ballistic's program since it came out. It is a great tool to give average statistics, in jell. Real life shooting can place a different aspect on it tho. Myself, I think many/most of the projected killing distances are not realistic on actual birds. I can shoot my 1oz of 4's at 1704fps and kill ducks DOA all day long, out to 40yds. Why would I want to shoot 1 9/16oz of shot at some slower velocity? According to Lowery's program, you could shoot BBB at 1100fps and have more then enough energy to kill ducks. Sure doesn't mean that I'll pick such a load to use for my hunting. Shoot what you want, myself, I'll take a "fast" load any day.

 

Why didn't you compare apples to apples, i.e. why didn't you compare 3 shot to 3 shot, or 2 shot to 2 shot.

It stands to reason that 2 shot at 1300 FPS would penetrate similarly to 3 shot at 1550 FPS. 2 Shot has more mass and won't shed off its energy as fast.

I think velocity is definitely important in steel shot, it may not make a huge difference, but 2 shot at 1550 FPS will have more penetrating power than 2 shot at 1300 FPS.

As long as it patterns well, I'd rather have the faster shot any day, hence I focus on patterning rounds that go 1550 FPS.

 

I agree, you should compare apples to apples.

Try this, 1 9/16 #2 1300FPS to 1 1/8 #2 1550 FPS

 

Why didn't you compare apples to apples, i.e. why didn't you compare 3 shot to 3 shot, or 2 shot to 2 shot.

It stands to reason that 2 shot at 1300 FPS would penetrate similarly to 3 shot at 1550 FPS. 2 Shot has more mass and won't shed off its energy as fast.

I think velocity is definitely important in steel shot, it may not make a huge difference, but 2 shot at 1550 FPS will have more penetrating power than 2 shot at 1300 FPS.

As long as it patterns well, I'd rather have the faster shot any day, hence I focus on patterning rounds that go 1550 FPS.

:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

READ THE POST. The information is comparing two loads that are very similar.

If you do 1 9/16 3s vs 1 3/8 3s it is not as close. the heavy load is going to have about 38 more pellets. The faster load will have the same penetration at 53 yards as the slower load will have at 46 yards.

Your thinking is IMO one of the problems people have in choosing loads. If you speed up a load you lose payload. You need to find a balancing point. You can shoot loads that have plenty of power but not enough pattern density or you can shot loads with pattern density that does not have the penatration. Most people probally have more penetration than they need and not enough pattern density. The more pellets you have the more open a choke you can use.

Last year I shot 1 9/16 1300fps 3s. This year I'm shooting 1 1/2 @ 1500 fps 3s. I got them at a good deal. I had to go from a cylinder to a skeet choke to get the kind of pattern I wanted. If I really want to reach out I put in a light Mod. I have already killed a bunch of ducks in ND with them. They are some killing shells, but , they are also some of the hardest kicking shells I have used (on Lowrys's program they have 74 ft lbs of recoil. For the life of me I cannot tell the difference in a dead duck with the slower loads and the dead ducks with the faster loads. They are both DEAD. :hammer:

 

I would prefer comparing pinapples to pomegrannate or maybe grapes with blueberries

come on guys, he posted up some good numbers if you want to compare friut go to the grocery store yourself

 

Right now,fast steel is all the rage, it's the "in" thing.
It will eventually pass, and 1 9/16 1300fps loads will be all the rage
in about 5-7 years.You have to go with the fads/trends.
Like when everyone shot a 26" bbl for skeet, now they're all shootin 30-34"'.

 

This year I'm shooting 1 1/2 @ 1500 fps 3s. I got them at a good deal. They are some killing shells, but , they are also some of the hardest kicking shells I have used (on Lowrys's program they have 74 ft lbs of recoil

Are those federals? Their 1 1/2 oz 1500 fps shells are pretty punchy. Good, but punchy.

I think speed is good to a point. Every shell/load has a maximum efficency point in my opinion, and when you go past it just for the sake of speek, you sacrifice a lot of payload for very minimal gain in effective distance.

 

Those loads sound punishing at both ends of the gun.

As I have gotten older, I have become a big sissy regarding recoil.

It is my personal philosphy that "There is nothing postiive that comes from recoil."

I do not want to shoot loads that kick as much as those do.

I much prefer to shoot lighter loads at good speed.

 

Saying that "speed kills" is really just stating the obvious and over stating the silly notion the faster and faster and faster pellets are better and better and better.

There is clearly a balance to all of this. If you want to shoot smaller pellets at higher velocities or larger pellets at slower velocities, as long as the pellets retains ample pellet energy then knock yourself out, I won't quibble about a few fps here or there. But, I don't think you can state that one is "better" than the other, dead is dead!

Yes, a pellet has to have some minimum terminal velocity (I'll let the mathematicians out there crunch those numbers) to maintain some amount of energy! Once a pellet has enough energy (kinetic energy may be the correct term) to penetrate the vital areas of the bird in question and at the range in question then it has "enough" and more doesn't necessarily make it better. More isn't better -- sometimes it is just more!

Once you have reached the minimum pellet energy threshold for the type of bird and at the range it is being shot, then it is just a matter of having enough pellets in the pattern to reliably hit those vital areas, and of course putting the pattern where it counts is a must.

I like looking at the numbers and calculations Thundersnow posted (thanks) to make comparisons, but as some have said out in the real world is where it matters most. Not just what me or my buddies thought killed better that day or yesterday, I'm talking good data tested under hunting conditions. Where can a hunter go to get the best real world info on killing waterfowl? Well, I believe, the largest set of empirically tested lethality data is Tom Roster's CONSEP Lethality table.

This all makes for interesting reading and discussion though, good luck.

 

They are the Federals. They do kick especially when you don't have many clothes on. But, they did do a good job. My father, who is 66 about 165 lbs, was shooting the same loads through a Carlson skeet. He had a couple of days where he shot better than I can remember. He also made some very long 1 shot kills. But he said he disliked shooting them because they gave him a head-ache.... not so much the kick on his shoulder. He said the Kent 1 9/16 load that he normally shoots are soft kicking compared to the Premiums.

John, recoil doesn't bother me much, but, you are right "There is nothing postiive that comes from recoil." Most hunters will probally do better with a lighter kicking gun. If you want to use a 3 1/2" shell, you are probally better going up in pellet size a little and shooting the slower loads. Heck you can even do the same thing with 3" loads. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, some ways just may be better for different people.

 

Ahhh, the speed vs size debate. Love this one.

I've been all but referred to as a heretic on this site because I used 1300 fps bb's on ducks. I've been willing to bend, but I won't break on my philosophy, which is that you can achieve maximum range through effective speed, or via effective shot size, but not both in a 3" 12 ga. shotgun. And for the record, I still enjoy swatting flies with a sledge hammer.

Up until now, I've shot only factory ammo at ducks and geese, and given the restraints of factory ammo, I've been convinced that you get better range out of a 1300 fps load of good, old, slow BB's than you do out of a factory 3" "high velocity" load of #2's traveling at 1450 or whatever they're selling these days. I'm really not too much on trickieometry, but in the field, it seemed fairly clear.

Now, with the arrival of loads at over 1700 fps, I'm not so sure, and I'm willing to give anything a try. Either way, I suspect you can get there with a higher pellet count traveling at extreme speeds or a lower pellet count carrying greater mass and transferred energy per pellet, but you can't fit 'em both in one shell.

I do, however, think that there must be a magic combination of the two where science says that, given the confines of a 3" hull and the necessary pellet count for lethality on ducks, a certain shot size at a certain speed will generate the greatest lethal ranges. If anyone has that info, I'd love to take some notes.

 

There seems to be one thing most people miss in this debate. Shooting ducks at shorter ranges given the loads compared, the heavy load is probably better. Why? Larger shot and enough retained velocity to penetrate the vitals for a clean kill up to 40-45 yards depending on choke.
Remember that the reason lead kills better at longer ranges than steel is, again, terminal velocity. Steel, because it has less density than lead for the same shot size must be started much faster to have the same terminal velocity.
At longer ranges the faster lighter load will kill farther. Why? Again terminal velocity. That is why the load I choose for pass shooting is always the fastest load and the heaviest shot that will pattern well in my gun.
Those faster pellets will break a wing bone or punch through to the lungs much better than the slow load which can be over 300 FPS slower on the target.
I have tree topped too many ducks with Winchester Supreme steel to ever believe otherwise.

 

Recoil was mentioned somewheres. I did a quick a check, looking at Lowry's Ballistics Table. Comparing my 1oz of 4's at 1704fps vs. 1 9/16oz of 2's at 1300fps. My 1oz load shows 44.1ft-lbs of recoil and the 1 9/16oz "slow" load shows 51.8ft-lbs of recoil. Can't understand why anyone would want to beat their shoulder to death, if they didn't have to. If I choose to shoot farther then 40yds, I'll use shells loaded with 3's and have the same recoil.

 

Read Breznys latest article. Everyone I know that has went to faster small loads has increased his kill ratio tremendously like the most recent 8/8 in Canada. I doubled mine going to the smaller fast stuff with 2/3 bird per shell or 1 1/2 shells per bird. Ned S

 

Recoil was mentioned somewheres. I did a quick a check, looking at Lowry's Ballistics Table. Comparing my 1oz of 4's at 1704fps vs. 1 9/16oz of 2's at 1300fps. My 1oz load shows 44.1ft-lbs of recoil and the 1 9/16oz "slow" load shows 51.8ft-lbs of recoil. Can't understand why anyone would want to beat their shoulder to death, if they didn't have to. If I choose to shoot farther then 40yds, I'll use shells loaded with 3's and have the same recoil.

Come on now dutch. You know all this information well enough to know that *you're* now the one in this thread not comparing apples to apples. (someone please disinvent that phrase) lol A 1 oz load of 4's and 1 9/16 oz load of 2's have very little in common in terms of numbers, and you know that. You like to shoot a 1 oz load of 4's at 1704 fps. That's fine. But a 'comparable' load in terms of recoil would be more like a 1 1/4 oz load of 3's at 1450 fps. Exact same recoil in your gun, except the load of 3's has a few more pellets and a little greater effective range. Ballistically, it's a slightly better load. So your load would be one that I would describe as having gone past that maximum efficiency point I mentioned earlier. It's sacrificing payload for the sake of speed, past the point of benefit. That's not to say that you shouldn't shoot it or anything at all. You have a load that works for you, and you're condfident in it. In the end, that's all anyone wants. Thundersnow did his best to make a ballistically unbiased comparison of speed vs. weight though, so let's respect that and not try to sway people with unfair comparisons. :wink:

 

The comparison of recoil, of the light pellet charge vs the heavy pellet charge, wasn't meant to be fair. There were a few post above that stated the negativity of heavy recoil. The purpose of my post was to show the difference in recoil between a slow heavy load and a fast light load, both which can harvest ducks cleanly.

 

One reason I went to a 3.5" was for the speed. My dad and I were Killing ducks for years (since the day steel was made mandatory) with 2-3/4" steel and 1oz or 1-1/8 oz loads of #2. we both had Auto-5 light 12's. 1oz shot is plenty enough to take down ducks and geese all day long at 35yds. I just like the extra punch the 1-1/8 Kent fassteel at 1625 gives out at 50 yds if needed to catch up to a wounded bird that is trying to leave. I even know 2 older (70's) guys that get their limits just fine with a 20ga. so in reality what matters is how good you can shoot and how good your gun patterns the load you choose.

I will stick the the fast loads for now just because. :thumbsup:

 

Thundersnow

Great to see post like this, great info.

 

Has Tom Roster ever done any research using the fast (>1500fps/mv) cartridges?

 

Nope, Roster tried to get funding but no one came forward like the company's/Org that funded him for his CONSEP data. In one article he did say he did not understand why fast steel killed so well. Steel 4's at 1650 fps go clear thru Drake Mallards out to 30 yds (I shoot it at 1724 fps and 3's at 1650 fps out to 40 yds (I shoot it at 1740 fps, that's why fast steel kills. Have a great season. Just got a report that there are 500-600 ducks on the Playa we'll be hunting in the morning. We'll be hunting using our AB Rocket exercise chairs which propell you into a sitting position. Have a great season. Ned S

 

In the shotgunning section of the latest DU magazine the article states something to the effect:..."a higher velocity and more pellets equal a better killing load".