Does a 70% pattern = a 70% pattern
I frequently read here that shooters using magnum shot or premium ammo feel their ammo patterns better than reloads with low quality shot or promo ammo.
Does it really matter? If you have decided that for your purpose and at you desired distance you would like a specific pattern density, say 60%, does it really matter if you get your desired 60% pattern with magnum shot or premium ammo and .xx degree of choke, or if you get your desired 60% with cheap shot or promo ammo and more choke?
Doesn't 60% = %60, or 70% = 70%?
Does it really matter? If you have decided that for your purpose and at you desired distance you would like a specific pattern density, say 60%, does it really matter if you get your desired 60% pattern with magnum shot or premium ammo and .xx degree of choke, or if you get your desired 60% with cheap shot or promo ammo and more choke?
Doesn't 60% = %60, or 70% = 70%?
- Status
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
No it wouldn't matter, sam., "all things being equal" whether you use hard or soft shot, I think. The problem, at long yardage, is getting similar pattern percentages and I've not seen that it can be done. In other words, all things are _not_ equal. It does matter if the pellets are not there to break the bird.
OK, if the score doesn't matter then the pellets you use don't matter, but that's a special case.
Take the following case, about which an earlier poster suggested the soft-shot shooter just select a tighter choke, but tighter than X-full is not available. There's no way to get equal pattern percentages, therefore, for long-yardage handicap, it does matter.
![]()
At 40 yards , the hard shot was at least pretty good (though better would be better) and the soft shot was no good.
It's important to notice the difference in the number of pellets in the 30-inch circle. This is not a difference that can be explained away by imagining a way that it would not be so bad for soft shot by inventing equal pattern percentages which do not exist or invoking specious "evenness" or "compensating advantages" arguments.
Soft shot is a "no go" at long yardage. Deal with it; don't try to dream up reasons "why it's not so." It is so. After all, that's why soft shot is cheaper; it's not as good. Why would you expect anything else?
Neil
PS The Wright's choke I used is one step tighter than X-Full and it's 0.040 inches restriction in my 391.
OK, if the score doesn't matter then the pellets you use don't matter, but that's a special case.
Take the following case, about which an earlier poster suggested the soft-shot shooter just select a tighter choke, but tighter than X-full is not available. There's no way to get equal pattern percentages, therefore, for long-yardage handicap, it does matter.
At 40 yards , the hard shot was at least pretty good (though better would be better) and the soft shot was no good.
It's important to notice the difference in the number of pellets in the 30-inch circle. This is not a difference that can be explained away by imagining a way that it would not be so bad for soft shot by inventing equal pattern percentages which do not exist or invoking specious "evenness" or "compensating advantages" arguments.
Soft shot is a "no go" at long yardage. Deal with it; don't try to dream up reasons "why it's not so." It is so. After all, that's why soft shot is cheaper; it's not as good. Why would you expect anything else?
Neil
PS The Wright's choke I used is one step tighter than X-Full and it's 0.040 inches restriction in my 391.
Neil, let's throw in a variable at this time that I don't recall you or anyone commenting on.
Using good quality paper, one can distinguish between round pellets and irregular/ flattened pellet when shooting paper. Obviously those irregular sharpened pellets won't carry the same energy imparted upon the true to original form BB's. But I bet they get counted the same!
So let's take a stroll down this road.
PS. This is where newspaper ends and such come into play as well as other items.
Using good quality paper, one can distinguish between round pellets and irregular/ flattened pellet when shooting paper. Obviously those irregular sharpened pellets won't carry the same energy imparted upon the true to original form BB's. But I bet they get counted the same!
So let's take a stroll down this road.
PS. This is where newspaper ends and such come into play as well as other items.
Neil, How soft is the "soft" shot in this test relative to the "hard" shot? Is this the kind of difference we could expect to see between premium shells and the same companies slightly cheaper offerings, ie, STS and Gun Clubs or Gold Medal and Top Guns? Or would we have to go to more extremes, like premium shot compared to pure lead?
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
OH, I hope num-nuts don't find this thread..
Joined
·
1,658 Posts
Also, I wonder how the results would vary if we were comparing some different choke constriction, say MOD or IM instead of X-Full?
Easystreet
Easystreet
pheasantmaster, If those out of round pellets are the same weight why wouldn't they "carry the same energy"? If they are elongated or flattened, wouldn't they transfer even more energy to the target? If they are fragments , of course they wouldn't but I will take all I can get.
Johnny, do you think a flattened/irregular shaped pellet is going to arrive in a time interval relative to pattern performance of aerodynamic pellets?
A flattened pellet will transfer energy over larger surface area and thus not have as much to a specific area, would it?
A flattened pellet will transfer energy over larger surface area and thus not have as much to a specific area, would it?
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
Johnny, for hard shot I take AA's apart and when I test the shot it crushes about 0.022 in my test rig. If it passes that test, and it always does, I load those pellets in my experimental "hard shot" test shells.
For soft shot I take Remington Gun Clubs apart and when I test the shot it crushes about 0.030 in my test rig. If it passes that test, and it always does, I load those pellets in my experimental "soft shot" test shells.
These are "extreme" examples, true, but they are premium and cheaper offerings. I pick those two because they so consistently represent the two kinds of shot.
Neil
For soft shot I take Remington Gun Clubs apart and when I test the shot it crushes about 0.030 in my test rig. If it passes that test, and it always does, I load those pellets in my experimental "soft shot" test shells.
These are "extreme" examples, true, but they are premium and cheaper offerings. I pick those two because they so consistently represent the two kinds of shot.
Neil
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
Martin, in the videos Ron and I have made (and you can see plenty of at the link above, look for tech corner than then my name and pick any video) we have many, many examples of targets hit, and broken, by pellets at the very far edge of the pattern. What is striking is how long they hit _after_ the main body of the shot-cloud has passed. You are right, they are way, way later and so slower, but they almost always break the target anyway. "Almost always", that is, when the launch-speed is "normal, " which is to say light, heavy, or handicap. Slow them down to "reduced recoil" and they bounce off on far, far greater numbers.
What that has told Ron and me is that there is something like a threshold - faster is OK, slower is not - and the speeds we who want to win use ensure that even when pellets are slowed a lot by being on the edge of the pattern, they still retain enough speed to do the job, almost all the time.
It's for this reason we count them with the others.
My visualization of "temporal" (if not literal) shot-strings is an open umbrella. The tip is the center of the pattern which is "time zero." and as you move from that center pellets go slower and slower but still, for the most part with "light" shells, even those at the edge of the umbrella are, for the most-part, going just fast enough.
Neil
What that has told Ron and me is that there is something like a threshold - faster is OK, slower is not - and the speeds we who want to win use ensure that even when pellets are slowed a lot by being on the edge of the pattern, they still retain enough speed to do the job, almost all the time.
It's for this reason we count them with the others.
My visualization of "temporal" (if not literal) shot-strings is an open umbrella. The tip is the center of the pattern which is "time zero." and as you move from that center pellets go slower and slower but still, for the most part with "light" shells, even those at the edge of the umbrella are, for the most-part, going just fast enough.
Neil
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
Easystreet, you have but to rub the magic QWERTY lamp and . . . Abracadabra!
![]()
Another wish, Sahib?
Neil
Another wish, Sahib?
Neil
Neil, sorry that I am not seeing what you want me to for issue convincing. You know I am dense and viewing on small screen phone where I need to view on large monitor. Maybe angle is involved.
What I do know is experiments I've played with in the past. At the grand you will have a box of trap loads which contain all flattened pellets to shoot a practice round with.
What I do know is experiments I've played with in the past. At the grand you will have a box of trap loads which contain all flattened pellets to shoot a practice round with.
Joined
·
3,913 Posts
Okay, I understand that it may not be possible in many (most?) cases to get 70%+ at 40 yards with ammo or reloads with softer shot. But lets you don't need 70% at 40 yards. Maybe 70% percent at 35 yards works best for your purpose. And you can get that with Premium ammo or reloads and choke .XXX, and you can also get that cheap Promo ammo and choke .YYY.
Is there any advantage to the 70% Premium ammo pattern over the 70% Promo ammo pattern at 35 yards, or 30 yards, or any achievable yardage?
Is there any advantage to the 70% Premium ammo pattern over the 70% Promo ammo pattern at 35 yards, or 30 yards, or any achievable yardage?
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
