"The moving target showed quite clearly that the longer and heavier the payload of shot packed into the case of a cartridge--relative to the size of the bore--the greater the shot deformation and poorer the pattern percentage on crossing targets.
This is a direct quote from you Larry, which is the post which precipitated this lengthy discussion. For making a poor choice of wording, in my frustration, I humbly appoligize. However I am quite certain both you & myself understood from the get-go this "Relative to Bore Size" was what I was referring to. My posts were all addressed to this point.
Now for the sake of a good honest un-prejudiced discussion indulge me just one more time in a little math, which is actually more in your favor.
Shot deformation is generally accredited to two causes; inertial set back of the charge which affects the rear-most shot the most & barrel scrub occuring to the shot on the outer periphery in contact with the inner barrel wall. Shot cups have eliminated much of the latter & better cushioning have helped a lot with the former.
The inertial set back is of course affected by the length of the column. Hercules/Alliant handloaders guides over the years have given us a convinent chart showing the length of 1oz of shot in the various gauges. This shows the 12ga 1 1/4oz, 16ga 1oz, 20ga 7/8oz & 28ga 3/4oz all having a very similar actual physical length ranging from a short of .84" for the 16ga to a long of .91" for the 28, thus a max variation of less than 10%. Average of the four is .865 which is almost exactly that of the 12ga. Note though this is simply measured length, relative to nothing except the English Inch measuring system. When that "Relative to Bore Dia" is thrown in then what is denoted is the length in ratio to bore diameter or L:D. In this case the 12ga then becomes the shortest @ L:D :: 1.18:1 with the 28 being the longest @ L:D :: 1.65:1. Now for Bob's benefit, you see I am not realy trying to disparage the deceased, just trying to put his work in perspective, I think it quite likely he had a slight lapse in vocabulary (See I'm not the only one) & didn't really intend to put the column length relative to the bore. Most likely he was infering the two shot "Weights" were loaded relative to their bores which resulted in essentially equal column lengths. This I would have agreed with 100%.
To now put the .410 in perspective to this even the 1/2oz load has a 26% longer column length than the average of the 4 gauges above @ 1.09", with 3/4oz of shot it jumps to 1.635" or close to double that .865 average. Relative to bore that 3/4oz load is nearly 4 times as long as it is broad.
Thus when the science is applied the 28ga is not;
Particularly when it has to deal with more potential shot deformation (coming out of that skinny little bore) than do the larger gauges, all else being equal.
a skinny little bore in anything like the sense a .410 is. It is in fact just a slight step below a 20 while it is a giant leap down to the .410. The inertial set back is no greater than the "Larger Gauges", only the bbl contact is increased, but nowhere near that of even the 1/2oz .410 load.
The only Mystery to me is that he apparently did not seem to realize this even prior to his tests. He seems to have "Expected" it to perform more akin to the .410 thus his proclamation it shot better than it was "Supposed" to. Bottom line is the 28 always has & most likely always will shoot much closer to the 20 than to the .410 "Its Scientifically or Ballistically Supposed to" no mystery there at all.
As to the Remington ballistician I note he only applied the 1Ľoz to the "Pigeon" load, not even all 12ga 1Ľoz loads. No exact timeline is given for when all those patterns were fired, quite possibly many of them extended back to the pre plastic cushion/shot cup day. It is highly likely that pigeon load as well as most of the 28ga loads (At that point in time primarily intended for target shooters) were loaded with premium shot & the best of other components. These loads could quite well have been expected to pattern better than the run of the mill "Shur-Shot" field loads which were produced in greater quanity to a much closer cost point. Bob doesn't state Neil Oldridge's position with Remington nor what knowledge he should have had on the matter. As he had knowlwdgs of the patterns perhaps he was the man who fired the patterns, but didn't truly investigat what was inside the various loads. Perhaps his surprise re the 28 was that it was so much better than the .410 3/4oz load.
In Bob's own words on the shot-string he him self stated that due to the constraints of the process he was unable to run enough tests to be "Stastically Reliable". This is totally understandable & is not meant as any reflection upon him, but it certainly needs to be borne in mind. I am fully of the belief that if Statistically Reliable data were run with all 4 of the above loads in 12, 16, 20 & 28 all mystery would totally disappear & each would fall into place, producing extremely similar patterns with their effectibeness being proportional to the charge wts.
Until proven otherwise I will stand upon this & can see no magic or mystery involved in hole size. If there were would a.005" over or under bore throw it totally out of kilter??
