[4th. down]

Neil, have you done any pattern work concerning velocity with say a 100fps. spread?

There has been considerable discussion at my gun club that a 1200fps. load patterns better at distance (40 yds.) than a 1300fps. load but no factual data to support the argument.

Same gun/choke and load with the exception of more or less powder chg? If so, would you post your findings please?

 

[Scott Johnson]

Excellant question for Neil. We all know he shoots a 3 dram load for caps. I felt he must know an advantage to 1200 f.p.s. Maybe a trade off between higher recoil or better patterns or scores? I find that 20.5 grains of Green Dot with 1 1/8 oz of West coast # 7.5's does a great job at the back fence. Scott

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

Devon Harris won the 100 Grand shoot-out using Federal 2-3/4 dr 8s?

Looking at shotgun patterns and tuning the best loads for it is more complicated than sighting in your favorite hunting rifle. With a scoped rifle, a few shots and your there, not so with a scattergun! It takes many, many shots to come to a somewhat accurate consensus of pattern consistency!

It is far easier today than days of old using softer chilled shot and inferior wadding! I guess Arnold Reigger figured that out and the reasoning behind his use of a 2-3/4 dr load for all his dominate shooting in the old days?

With todays ammo/gun improvements, finding your personal best POI for you is about the easiest thing to accomplish. Mighty important too for shot to shot scoring consistency.

Hap

 

[hmb]

You will get the best patterns if your shot string does not have to pass through the sound barrier on it's way to the target after it has left the barrel. HMB

 

[Pocatello]

So since the speed of sound is approximately 1130 fps, I should use shells that are less than that? Doesn't that pretty much leave out all commercially available trap loads?

 

[Scott Johnson]

this is getting interesting. Scott

 

[Chango2]

Recommend: Refer to the classic book, Shotgunning, Trends in Transition, by the late Don Zutz. There is a big chapter and maybe more devoted to patterns and how to obtain them. e Bay or Amazon have copies now and then.

 

[wolfram]

I think Neil does have data on this subject but my personal belief is that it is important to use the ammo you are comfortable with. Being a recoil sissy , I like the 2 3/4 dram loads because I can shoot them all day without discomfort. The heavier shells take their toll on me - possibly imagined but the effect on the scores is real. So for me at least, the effect of velocity on the pattern is not as serious of a consideration as the effect of velocity on my body/mind.

 

[Setterman]

Devon Harris was shooting targets in near 100 degrees, and I'm sure his gun was well tuned and POI established for that load.

Not all of us shoot at those temps, at least not often. We were in the 20's again last night.

I'll go with Scott Johnson's load.

 

[K-EIGHTY]

Devon Harris was shooting from less that 27 yds.

 

[Johnny]

4th. down , Neil has commented on this subject more than once. Most recently saying in the
LONG CHOKES NECESSARY? thread


" the advice

'Remembering that the slower the shell the tighter the pattern and viceversa.'

would be a nice way to simplify things if it were true. But it's not. "




Wolfram probably gives a good reason why people may feel that patterns degrade past 1200, 1300 beats the stuffing out of them and they can't hit anything.

 

[johnpe]

I can't speak to the pattern differences between loads providing a 100 fps difference, I once did a lot of pattern testing to try to find tight patterns. This was the days of the RXP hulls or the early 1970's. According to the manuals of the day, I loaded the same shot, wads, primer, & hull to what was claimed as the same velocity for red dot, green dot and unique powders. The shot used was probably chilled shot since hard shot was just coming onto the scene and not widely available. Shots were fired through five of my full choke trap barrels. The results showed green dot beat red dot by 4.4% and unique beat red dot by 7.0%. I strongly suspect that differences in powder will make a lot more difference than 100 fps. Today with hard shot and a wide choice of powders, you can probably put together pretty much whatever pattern you want to shoot - you will just have to do the shooting and counting.

Johnpe

 

[FlaLagarto]

K-EIGHTY

Your mistaken.. Devon Harris is a 27 yd shooter.. and was when he won the $100,000

 

[3 wood]

No guessing here---
The old Mark 5 was 1200fps, std 3 dram.
3% Sb (antimony) chill shot,
out performed all not shot protected loads of the time

The black handicap was 1200fps, std 3 dram, maybe they were stored hot and powder dried out some?
shot was hardest available @ 8% Sb, but couldn't be manufactured at that high level on an ongoing basis, so dropped to 6%
Key was the wad as it tightened it's seal in the shell as the propellant burned, giving it the most consistent pressure/velocity of the time.

3 wood

 

[BigM-Perazzi]

Don <strike>Lutz</strike> Zutz? now there's a person to ask Neil's opinion about!!

re: Chango's TS.COM spellchecker...

 

[Chango2]

Don ZUTZ, NOT "Lutz".

 

[Neil Winston]

4th. Down, I've been looking all day for Andrew's book (mine is autographed!) but it has escaped me. I wanted to present a documented united front on this, but you will just have to take my word for it that Andrew found the same thing.

I've done the tests twice; I'll present the second one first.

With one ounce Remington shells, there was no pattern difference between lights and Nitros:

and when I added light and Nitro 1 1/8 oz shells there was no difference either:

I did a more organized test in September of 2006 using handloads with chronographed average speeds of 1030, 1130, and 1230 feet-per-second.

There was a small, small difference between the slowest 1030 fps shells and the next step, 1130 fps.

HMB says it's a "speed of sound" effect and I thought that too, for a while, but have since been given better advice and don't believe that anymore. I don't know why I got the effect I did, but I think it's "real," not just chance variation.

I'm sure you heard "lots of discussion" at your club about this; it's a favorite topic that everyone knows the answer to. But when you hear it, you should ask "How do you know?"

You will be told either that Don Zutz wrote a lot about it or that the speaker himself (or herself) "did some patterns" and that's how they came out.

Then you ask "How many patterns? How much did they differ, not in "appearance" but numerically? What was the pellet-count difference in 30 inches?"

By this time you will just have made them mad, but you should remember that it's just possible that they did do the kind of patterning everyone does (not even earning a rating of "half-assed") and just saw what was expected. Patterns are equivocal when just viewed and you can convince yourself you see just about anything.

Of course, "eyeballing " tells you nothing, but even if it did, what would you do with the data as it came it, pattern by pattern?

Patterns go up. They go down, and their interior components are always changing as well so how could anyone know if they were the same or different without really doing some work, organizing the results, and seeing what the evidence compelled one to believe?

Here's what's really going on.

If you ever want to talk about my results come on over to Metro; there's always plenty of room, plenty of empty chairs, at the table I sit at for some reason . . .

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

[4th. down]

Neil, as usual, thanks.

Andrew's book was stored in the attic and I hate going up there. Besides, I knew you would know.

I'll settle this discussion next Wed. with the boys and if necessary refer them to your posting on this forum - can't beat the facts.

 

[Avaldes]

WHAT?? There is no difference in pattern density between 1130 and 1230 ft/sec?!?!? That seems to be what the black lines are telling me in the last graph.

Mythbusting again Neil?

 

[Neil Winston]

Just the facts, Aaron, just the facts.

The reason everyone accepts whatever "seems to make sense" is that to find out whether it is true or not takes work. And that's the problem with all these old canards - they seems like they they are so reasonable that no one ever checks. Besides, what else would trapshooters talk about? How to hit more targets? Who would tell a competitor that?

The benefit of hauling theories like the one which started this thread to the brush pile is that as all the totally extraneous explanations are stripped away the real controlling variables of good shooting are left standing, and, bit by bit, the trees become more clear. Then shooters can concentrate on what makes a difference, get better, have more fun, and keep shooting which should be the goal of all of us - it surely is mine.

Neil