Duck Hunting Forum banner
1 - 7 of 68 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
That's a lot of bismuth down range! Wonder how you could reclaim it. Some kind of backstop that wouldn't deform it... hm..

Why'd you choose VV powder? I've seen some steel data for various VV powders and hav always been curious. In the past, it cost too much for me to try. But now...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
I've seen some of that Finnish/Danish data. Some of it is pretty edgy. But I'm intrigued because VV powder is usually easier to find than A.Steel.

I feel like we're in a cul-de-sac with steel ammo right now. With alliant steel, we can easily achieve good enough performance in 20, 16, 12, and 10 gauges, and any push for better than good enough is channeled into HTL shot. How many other powders out there could do what steel does and more? Maybe none, but I dont think a lot of folks are looking.
Obviously, we're never going to turn steel into lead, but is 1.25 oz at 1450-1500 fps really as far as we can go?

This is merely a matter of curiosity on my part. One thing that annoys me to no end is the stick-in-the-mud mindset of so many shotgunners. Mention a 3" 16 ga hull and then find cover fast!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
I agree with you for the most part. However, I wasn't thinking about speed alone so much, but payload as well. Say a 3" 12 ga 1.375 oz at 1400 fps. (And yes, it would kick more, but not everyone has the same limitations,)

There's nothing magical about the 2.75" hull length. We're super excited about advances in other areas (like scope technology), why be bound by "square load" thinking? Sure, English gunsmiths honed a design style--but they weren't divinely inspired.
To my mind, a 3" 16 ga would allow for higher performance ammo because it would preclude older firearms. 1.125 oz of steel shot at 1350-1400 isn't too far on recoil from standard 16 ga field loads, but will require more space than a 2.75" hull will give. Only problem is there are only 5 people who'd buy one...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
I doubt they added more shot to insure a better crimp. A couple plastic beads like Federal or Remington use would be WAY cheaper. Or trimming the hulls the way Kent does (or has done). Yes, these might add some man-hours to the product, but I find it hard to believe it's more than the cost of the shot.
Perhaps they upped the payload for marketing reasons?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
Sure, that could be the reasoning. I still find it hard to believe it's the case. 1/16 of shot doesn't sound like much till you multiply it by several thousand shells. But again, I dont know all that goes into their decisions.

Of course, this is all assuming it is actually 2.125 oz of shot. Could be they are rounding up now.
 
1 - 7 of 68 Posts
Top