1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Shot Deformation

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by Mo Bill, Oct 21, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mo Bill

    Mo Bill Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    46
    I am loading some 1oz shells using the claybuster clone of the
    Win WAA12SL wads.I am getting one layer,or a bit more,of shot
    that is beyond the top of the wad petals...the shot weighs out
    very close to 438GR.Is this shot essentially a waste..deformed
    as it passes thru the choke without being enclosed by the wad...
    resulting in fliers? Is there another wad available for 1oz that
    has longer petals?


    Thanks in advance..

    Mo Bill
     
  2. 101voodoo

    101voodoo TS Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    234
    Don't worry about it Bill, the shot will 'set back' into the wad when fired.

    Jim
     
  3. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    I'd leave it alone and not worry about it. Like the man said, the shot will set back down into the wad and it won't be a problem. Even if the wad were longer, it would not make a real difference. The quality (Hardness) of the shot might matter more.
     
  4. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    Bill- Perhaps a little time at a pattern board would answer your question.

    MIA- The article you referred to does have some useful information: however, I am not sure about all of the information. If 1 oz shells put more shot in the 20 inch circle than 1 1/8 oz of shot, then I don't understand why 1 oz loads produce fewer holes in the pattern sheet 20 inch circle.

    Pat Ireland
     
  5. shadow

    shadow Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,445
    If it bothers you just use 1 1/8 wads and put a couple of grains of popcorn in the bottom of each shot cup before you dump the shot in. The popcorn will crush on firing and your shot charge will be completely enclosed.
     
  6. highflyer

    highflyer TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,474
    If you are worried about fliers use a high quality shot. I was using a shot called tournament shot. I thought it was high grade. Then I bought some magnum shot that was about 10 dollars more a bag. A lot of difference on the patterning board. I wasn't getting the wild fliers anymore. The shot stayed in the pattern.
     
  7. Jawhawker

    Jawhawker TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,734
    Its not the shot at top that is the problem but rather the shot on the bottom that will be deformed the most. Don't concern yourself...

    What month was the apparently famed article of 1 oz versus 1 1/8 oz shotgun sports article in?????
     
  8. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    September, P-master. Take a look.

    It's a classic of its type.

    Neil
     
  9. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Pat Ireland:

    I shared some of your questions/confusion on the use of lighter loads as expounded until I made up some and spent some time at the pattern board, and later on 16 yard targets. From my experiences what I found is that I get a higher percentage of available shot in the main pattern with 7/8 and 3/4 ounce loads than in 1 1/8 loads. Overall, of course, the heavier load will put more shot in the center pattern (more holes) since you are starting with more shot (but percentage will be less) but the lighter load with its higher percentage of available shot can approach if not equal the heavier load in effectiveness. Much better than I would have expected. After confirming this through extensive patterning, I then tried them at the trap range. I noticed no difference in breaks, getting the same amount of "dusted" targets (and of course of missed targets also) . But what I did really notice was how nice the reduced recoil was and how much less tired I would get during an extended shooting session. This reduced recoil effect seemed to improve my later scores, so that overall I shot better with reduced loads. Since breaks were just as good with the light loads, and recoil really down, I now use 7/8 exclusively at 16 yards, and 1 ounce for hdcp. Just my opinion, but works for me, at least in my Beretta combo, using Briley extended chokes.
     
  10. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    jimrich60- I absolutely agree that the reduced recoil from a lighter load can increase scores for some shooters. I also have no problem with your observation that a lighter load can increase or at least equal the percentage of shot in the 20 inch circle that is found in 1 1/8 oz loads. But, the total number of shot in the 20 inch circle is greater in a 1 1/8 oz load than in a 7/8 oz load. Percentages can be misleading.

    Pat Ireland
     
  11. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Pat Ireland: What I was trying to say about percentages (perhaps not clearly) is that in the lighter loads the percent of available shot in the center (20 inch) pattern is higher, (probably due to less shot deformation in firing because of the shorter shot column in the shell). To illustrate, if a 1 1/8 oz load of number 8s put say a theoretical 65 percent of its shot in center pattern, that would equate to 296 pellets in the center pattern (407 nr 8s per ounce). Using a 7/8 ounce load with a theoretical percentage of 75, you would get 266 pellets in the center pattern. Although in my test patterning, I did not actually calculate exact percentages (too lazy to count all those individual holes that many times), the ratio is pretty much what I experienced.
    Thus, it appears that the 7/8 oz 12 gauge load puts nearly as many (only a 30 pellet differential) in the center pattern as a 1 1/8 12 gauge load. As I noted, my actual target break experiences with the lighter loads seems to confirm, for me, these results, at least at the 16 yard line. So while the heavier load does indeed have more total shot in the center pattern, the difference is much smaller that one might expect. Hence, little difference in breaks, coupled with much reduced recoil made my decision to switch to lighter loads an easy one to make.
     
  12. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    Thanks for the explanation, Jim. I do see a couple of problems, however. The main one being "Although in my test patterning, I did not actually calculate exact percentages (too lazy to count all those individual holes that many times), the ratio is pretty much what I experienced" and then the quite precise pellet counts you follow it with.

    I think you will agree that it's a daunting task to look at the central 20 inches of a pattern and estimate the percentage of the original charge contained therein, particularly when you aren't counting the pellets you start with or the pellets you end up with. Can you really do this to the degree that you can calculate resulting differences down to "a 30 pellet differential?" And how much of what you see is influenced by what you expect to see, particularly with this shot-column speculation from Shotgun Sports which has so taken the popular imagination?

    While I must say you do a better job than the article's author did, none of this means a thing unless the underlying contention - that lighter loads pattern tighter - is itself true. I've seen recently way too much "explanation" of the effect and way too little evidence- none, really - that the effect really exists.

    Consider this. On similar fall days a couple of years ago I ran a few 10-pattern tests where pellets _were_ counted both in the shell and in the 20 central inches of the pattern. The gun is a full-choke Bowen; the shells are factory Remingtons: 2 3/4 Dram Equivalent and Nitros one-ouncers and 1 1/8 of the same designations. The shells are 7 1/2's and the distance is 40 yards. I've been sitting on this data for a while and have welcomed the motivation you've given me to dust it off and see what's there. Analysis was done with the aid of digital pictures of the patterns and Shotgun-Insight software.

    Let's start with the data from the "Nitros", that is, the fast ones.

    [​IMG]

    Just as you say, there are more pellets in the 20-inch circle from the 1 1/8 oz loads than from the one-ouncers. But is the one-ounce load "tighter;" is the pattern percentage in that area higher?

    [​IMG]

    No, there's no difference, and here's where we begin to see a big problem with "estimation," namely that the pattern percentage in this area is so variable. That why you need to count, and why, once you count, you see that the difference between the two shells is statistically non-significant, that is, you can't reject the hypothesis that there's no difference in the pattern percentages produced, in general, by these two shells under these conditions.

    How about the lights? Here are the pellet counts, way in favor of the 1 1/8 ounce loads . . .

    [​IMG]

    and the percentages

    [​IMG]

    Once again, the difference is not significant. In fact here it appears "the other way" but non-significant is non-significant, so the best bet is no difference.

    In short, in these tests, there's no evidence that one-ounce loads pattern tighter than 1 1/8 so there's nothing to "explain."

    Some may say that if I'd done it another way I'd have gotten different results, but I think that the way I did it - particularly the distance - is _most_ likely to show differences and that's why I chose it. The thing is, if there are other data - experiments done similarly to this one with counted pellets, sufficient patterns to make a case, and so on - it's up to those who have them to let us take a look. Is there an article somewhere with some data? Does a reader here have the information? Until it shows up, I'm still thinking there's nothing to account for; there's nothing "there" to explain, shot-column-height or no.

    Neil
     
  13. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Neil: An excellent bit of empirical data analysis which obviously goes well beyond what I roughly was doing. On the face of it, your data obviously does not support the article, and may well be right, although there are a number of variables I did not see taken into account, incuding varying velocities between heavier and lighter loads which were indicated as one of the factors which affected patterns according to the various studies. As to specificity of the figures I cited in my studies above, I noted these were "theoretical" percentages which enabled the determination of pellet differentials, not actual counting. No actual precise numbers could, of course, be derived without actual counting of many many patterns (as shown be the great variations in each pattern depicted in your charts) and then ony on an "average" basis since pattern variation from shot to shot is so great. But another and perhaps, or potentially of greater importance is that my testing (admittedly not nearly so precise as yours) was done with 7/8 and 3/4 ounce loads compared to 1 1/8 loads. The reason for this is although the article in Shotgun News was for 1 ounce loads, others I read (I believe the most recent some months ago was in "Sporting Clays" but I am not sure now) were similar in thrust, but based on the lighter 7/8 and 3/4 loads. That is what sparked my interest. There is little difference in shot column height between 1 1/8 and 1 ounce loads, but this differential increases at 7/8 and less, and since the differentials in column height are supposedly a determinative factor, at least as low as 3/4 ounce, the lowerloadings should show greater difference in patterning than say a 1 ounce load.

    In any case, based on my "guesstimates" of patterns of the various loads, it did appear to me that the 7/8 and 3/4 ounce loads did place a greater average percent of their shot in the center pattern during my informal testing phase, thus confirming for me that the pattern differential, while still existing (more initial shot equals more shot in the center pattern) might not be nearly as great as the loaded differential in shot weights. This in turn led to using the lighter loads on the range where actual shooting experience at 16 yards, as well as skeet targets indicated that for me, there was little difference in the target breaks I got. I got the same reaction from others I shoot with, asking them to observe my breaks (having known and shot with them for years, they are well aware of my normal shooting and how I break (or don't break) targets. They again confirmed my impressions that target breaks were generally similar to those I got with heavier loads.

    None of this is scientific in any way, of course, and may not hold true for others. But for me, real world use and experience is more useful than the theory, Although I see much criticism of the Shotgun Sports article, I think it was useful to start some thinking about whether or not lighter loads could be just as successful as heavier loads, at least in some situations. For me, this led to some basic testing, in turn leading to using lighter loads with no loss of target average-indeed a small increase as a probable result of less fatigue due to recoil over time. The improvement in felt recoil without loss of targets broke made the whole process worthwhile for me and shooting infinitely more pleasant as I get older. I think that was really the point of that particular article.
     
  14. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    Jim, I'm glad to have someone thoughtful to talk this over with.

    I'd like to start out by saying I think light loads work fine; I expect that few if any would lose a bird if they went to one ounce of 8's. I shot 7/8 and found that worked as well. Light loads are cheaper and kick less if you don't speed them up and lose all that advantage and I see plenty of that being done.

    So I've no quarrel at all with light loads being promoted for those two proven benefits. But I've seen a shift recently to a promotion of them for ballistic reasons, and I think it's mostly made up. So when I see it, I point that out. It makes a difference. For example in my case, based on circa 1985 received wisdom, I shot 3-dram 8's for years and years at singles based on the idea that my patterns would usefully open up. I didn't realize that the writers I was reading were simply making it up. I let my self be hammered for tens of thousands of targets for a benefit that existed only in typewriters.

    I still think, however, that you haven't quite understood my message. For example, you wrote:

    "although there are a number of variables I did not see taken into account, incuding varying velocities between heavier and lighter loads which were indicated as one of the factors which affected patterns according to the various studies. "

    The point I was making is that there is no difference in pattern percentages between one and 1 1/8 oz loads in the 20-inch circle we both think is critical. I did use varying velocities. Most important, if there's no difference, I don't need to take much "into account." This is an important point, one I deal with all the time in these experiments. I do not have to prove that other factors would have made a difference. Those who think they would have to prove that.

    I seem to remember something in Sporting Clays myself. I'll try to find it at the club this weekend. But I ask you to reconsider this text of yours anyway:

    ". . .were similar in thrust, but based on the lighter 7/8 and 3/4 loads. That is what sparked my interest. There is little difference in shot column height between 1 1/8 and 1 ounce loads, but this differential increases at 7/8 and less, and since the differentials in column height are supposedly a determinative factor, at least as low as 3/4 ounce, the lowerloadings should show greater difference in patterning than say a 1 ounce load."

    In another thread, Pat advised you that percentages can be misleading, and I think this is an example.

    It is certainly true that the percentage change from one ounce to 3/4 (25%) is twice that from one ounce to 1 1/8, is it really percentage that counts here? (Putting aside the fact that my tests show no evidence at all for the shot-column-height-theory in the first place.) Shouldn't it be the absolute, not relative, deformation which counts? After all, if the theory holds water, then the tall-column shot should me more deformed, and shouldn't that lead to a greater effect? In other words, shouldn't 112% deformation show up more strongly than 75% deformation, no matter what else is going on?

    Putting a couple of lines of your together:

    "But for me, real world use and experience is more useful than the theory, Although I see much criticism of the Shotgun Sports article, I think it was useful to start some thinking about whether or not lighter loads could be just as successful as heavier loads, at least in some situations."

    and

    "I think that was really the point of that particular article."

    Sure experience is more useful than theory. As is data. And one ounce and less are fine and the breaks are fine and everything.

    But go back and read the article. That was _not_ its point. Its point was shot-column height and its contribution to flyers. People love it and think that shot-column height is some big deal. You thought it explained something. It's hot air, Jim. Go back and read it.

    Neil





    "
     
  15. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    This is a great discussion. I would like to add, looking at the practical side, that that breaking targets has nothing to do with the percent of shot that remains in the 20 inch pattern core. Breaking targets is a result of the total number of shot in the core. Using 1 1/8 oz loads at handicap distances, holes large enough for a target to pass through, do occasionally appear.

    Another side of the question raised by Jim is the reduced recoil. If a shooter gains five targets due to the comfort of using a light shell and loses one target because of the reduced shot in the pattern core, he is clearly using the correct shell for him.

    Pat Ireland
     
  16. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Neil/Pat:

    I agree that this discussion is both refreshing and highly informational. Both of you have made excellent points, backed up by experimental results, as well as real world experience. Neils data from actual patterning has raised many questions and doubts as to the "reality" of the claimed increase in undeformed shot in shorter shot columns that can only be answered by extensive testing with varying shot charges, something unfortunately beyond my time and ability probably, but perhaps someone will do so at some date. In the meantime, whether or not the "data" propounded in the Shotgun Sports article (and in the other possibly Sporting Clays?) articles I have seen is factual, at least it served to spur some interest in testing lighter loads by some who have always used heavier loads-sometimes, I think, to their detriment. If for no other reason, I think the article was in this way useful, even if it is shown to rely on a non-existent phenomena in ballistics.

    As an illustration of that point, one of those I have shot with for years had always used a heavy 3 dram equivalent loading (as apparently Neil did) and swore that such loads were the only way he could get decent scores. As I noted earlier, my non scientific research was spurred by such articles, and resulted in lighter load usage. So using the article as an argument, along with my usage and improved scores, I was finally able to get my friend to try lighter loads, since like me he is getting older and subsequently more affected by recoil than he would like to admit. As a consequence, his overall scores did improve, and at the end of a long afernoon at the range, he would go home less tired and feeling "beat up." He is now a "true believer" in lighter loads.

    It may well turn out, as Neils data indicate, that shot column length has nothing to do with the ability of 1 ounce and less loads to break targets.
    Perhaps shot deformation, beyond using harder shot, better wads, etc, is not subject to this variable. In fact, one variable I had not considered in this process before now (nor have seen considered in any article either) is the difference in wads required in loading lighter shot loads. If there is some difference in shot deformation to be found, perhaps the change in wad required might be a factor rather than column height. But, indeed, perhaps only better accuracy by the individual resulting from less recoil may be the overriding factor here (that of course, is only a subjective factor and not readily tested or converted to some scientific testing methodology), But again, if such "articles" at least spur some to try new ideas, loads, etc and in some way improve their shooting enjoyment (and hopefully scores), then the shooting sports have gained immeasurably in my opinion at least.

    Again, I thank you both for an enjoyable exchange of information. I have learned a good bit more about this subject than I understood before, and while my real world shooting has convinced me that lighter loads are the way to go (at least at my age), simply because for me it works, it is always good to advance ones knowledge in understanding the science behind what we all enjoy doing so much.

    Jim R
     
  17. highflyer

    highflyer TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,474
    You can't take quality of the shot out of the equation. A once ounce load with good shot will put more pellets in the pattern than a 1 1/8 ounce shell loaded with cheap shot, and kick less too.
     
  18. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    Mark, when I wrote:

    ". . .if you don't speed them up and lose all that advantage"

    I was referring to the recoil-reduction available to 1-oz load shooters. Keep the speed down and enjoy what is undeniably a load which is easier and more fun to shoot. But "Handicap" 1-oz loads (such as I tested)? What's the point? They must kick nearly as much a 3-dram 1 1/8 oz loads (at least that's what my ballistic-pendulum gun told me in an informal test) and I find some of these current sporting clays loads reaching stratospheric speeds (though I've only _tested_ 1 1/8 oz examples.)

    Are they "all equal?" Not if you use 7 1/2's at long yardage, though I doubt there's much difference if you use 8's. The following graph describes the probability of a single-pellet hit in the innermost 10-inch diameter circle from the various shells tested above.

    [​IMG]

    As I say, I haven't done 8's but expect they would do fine in this test, producing basically similar probabilities with both 1-oz and 1 1/8 oz charges. The only question is will a single 8 break a target and I think it will, most places, most brands of targets.

    I've not found that one ounce shells "hold together" better than 1 1/8. They have acted about the same in my tests.

    Neil
     
  19. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    highflyer, you wrote:

    " A once ounce load with good shot will put more pellets in the pattern than a 1 1/8 ounce shell loaded with cheap shot, and kick less too."

    and while the "kick less" half is certainly true, the other half is not, at least it doesn't look like it would turn out that way.

    Hard shot is better than soft for many things but soft shot is not as bad as many (and I before I did this test) think.

    (Excerpts from an old post)

    "The Shot:

    Lawrence chilled 8’s crushed an average of 0.29 inches using my drop-test apparatus. This is about as soft as you can buy.

    Remington magnum 8’s crushed an average of 0.22 inches using my drop-test apparatus. This is about as hard as you can buy.

    Two other brands of magnum-labeled shot crushed 0.025 and 0.024 respectively, which is why you have to test it.

    The Test:

    Eleven-hundred-fifty foot per second shells were loaded with the two kinds of shot, using Red Dot and changing only the shot. Since the use of soft shot is commonly singles, 10 patterns were shot using each through the bottom barrel of a Perazzi O/U with a “factory” 0.028” choke. The distance was 34 yards, again to simulate singles. Patterns were photographed and analyzed with Shotgun-insight software."

    And here's how it came out.

    [​IMG]

    Since the pattern-percentage difference is about seven percent in favor of hard shot, and the pellet count advantage for 1 1/8 oz over 1 oz is about 12% in the other direction, it's unlikely that one ounce of hard shot will put more pellets in the pattern (in a typical situation which this test tried to emulate) than will 1/8 ounce of soft shot.

    Neil
     
  20. highflyer

    highflyer TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,474
    Your hard shot patterns through from 85 to 90 percent patterns. Your soft shot patterns ranged from 75 to 85 percent. That is a chokes difference. You could open up your hard shot choke. Tighter chokes put more shot in the core pattern. I haven't shot a lot of 12 gauge patterns on paper. I have shot a lot of 20 gauge patterns. What I found with my 20 gauge patterns between hard shot and soft shot was about one chokes gain on the pattern with the hard shot. Using the same choke the cheap shot would throw a modified pattern whereas the hard shot would throw a full pattern. I also found less shot wasted outside the pattern. If you pattern steel and tungsten shot you see the same thing. Less wasted pellets outside the pattern because they are harder and deform less. Look at the patterns on the Tungsten Super Shot site sometime. Very hard shot and virtually no wasted pellets. Even cylinder choke will throw full patterns.
     
Similar Threads
  1. ricks1
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    322
  2. start1
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    400
  3. Capt. Morgan
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    979
  4. ec90t
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    770
  5. zeroed4x
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,432
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Search tags for this page

shot deformation