doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com MV vs. lead

David, unless you're one of the wizards you mentioned in your post, you're far more likely to miss or wound a pheasant at 70 yards than you are kill it. Shoot some patterns at 70 yards, loads of your choice, then tell me what you think your percentage of dead birds vs wounded would be.

As far as big shot and high velocity, there ain't no such critter if you're talking 2 oz, 3" 12ga loads--and as I said before, you pretty well need that much shot. Fastest 2 oz 3" 12ga going is 1200 fps, in the book I have. That compares to the old standard pheasant load of 3 3/4 drams-1 1/4 oz--which is a 1330 fps load.

Both LC Smith and Fox, with the "Super Fox", made some pretty serious claims about long-range patterning back in the 20's, when the Super-X shell first appeared. But there's a reason Fox started stamping 'Barrels not guaranteed" on the flats of Super-Foxes, and that was that unless Burt Becker bored those barrels, chances are the gun--as good as it was--would not live up to the claims Fox made in their ads.

This is a bit like all the Hevi-Shot nonsense, about 60 or 70 yard loads. In the case of HS, the loads may actually be that good. The problem is, only a tiny percentage of shooters are that good. In most cases, a gun with a lot of choke and a reasonably heavy load has a greater maximum effective range than the guy pulling the trigger.

Mr. Brown,
The Federal Premium 3" shells I was shooting were certainly high velocity. I believe they had 1 5/8 oz of buffered copper plated shot. It could have been 1 3/4. I am looking to see if I can find some of them. They were rated over 1300 FPS.
This was over 20 years ago. Federal still makes 3" shells that are rated over 1300 FPS. See their ballistics page:
http://www.federalcartridge.com/ballistics/Ammo_Search.aspx?act=choose&firearm=3&s1=1
I really don't care to debate this issue. For all clay sports (except buddy/annie oakley type shoots) I am a huge fan of light loads. See my first post on this thread. But, I have killed lots and lots of pheasants dead with consistancy at extreme ranges as I explained before. It is simply a fact.
I don't advocate it. But there it is.
The point I was trying to make was that big shot carries more velocity and, with its weight, much more shock power at much greater range than does small shot.
Do you disagree with that?
Best, Craig Clark (Jakearoo)

I note on my old WW chart, by adding 17.2% velocity (195fps) to a 1135fps to obtain 1330fps gains you with #4 lead shot 55fps @ 60yds (685 vs 630). The 37.3% increase in individual pellet energy at the muzzle has likewise been reduced to 18.4% by 60 yds (3.35 vs 2.83). With any reasonable velocity of 1100 fps or more the problem with shot of #4 & up is virtually always one of pattern, not penertration. Due to maintaining both pressure levels as well as recoil, the heavy shot Magnum loads are nearly always loaded to lower velocities than the "Regular" High Velocity load as Larry so well pointed out. There is no doubt a #4 shot will penertrate out to ranges of 60/70yds or a #2 at 80/100yds & is capable of killing when landing in a vital area. My question is, for every one cleanly killed "How Many" fly on, apparently unhit, carrying a single large pellet in a non-vital area to die a slow unrecovered death.

Miller, I would think probability would be over one in two. I have no dog in this 70 yd.+ pit & won't place one there, per se. However, perceived and actual lead better be somewhere between a Suburban and a Greyhound [Geno, 'Greyhound' is the name of an American bus or 'passenger lorry'?] if you want even a remote chance of connecting, at 70 yds +

And since this thread has gone on for a while longer than I might have anticipated .. on a skeet field the targets are the same speed irrespective of where the shooter is positioned or standing and the distance from station to station is constant to the center of the field or to the 'crossing point' where the regulation targets are 'hooped'. That means the only thing that changes is the perception, yes? Think about it, please.

edit: not intended to sound trite. I know it reads that way easily enough. Only trying to point out the obvious .. at long ranges even with sufficient shot size the pattern density is not there to do it consistently with anything but luck; perceived lead at long ranges is 'way out there', and I don't care what method you use; on a skeet field it is ALL perception.

No. As you work your way around the skeet field the actual leads DO change because the angle of the birds change. The distance from the stations to the center is constant but the lesser angles seen on 1,2,6 and 7 require less actual lead than 4,5 and 6. Not a matter of perception, it's a matter of fact.

Perception is everything, ain't it!? ;-) We have to see those elusive skeets differently to break them from the dif center field stations.

Jake, I guess the point becomes--since we're shooting at game birds, and since we're supposed to be hunter/conservationists--if you don't advocate it, then why do it? If I want a pheasant dinner that badly and I can catch them on the ground at 60-70 yards, I'm going to snipe them with a .22. Much more effective.

Yes, there are 3" loads that go faster than 1200 fps. And you'll note that all those loads have less shot than the 2 ounces I specified in my post. So . . . to gain speed, you're losing pattern density. Since the 2 oz load does retain sufficient energy at 70 yards, why would you want to give up pattern density--which is your real issue at that excessive range?

The people who have analyzed what it takes to kill pheasants suggest that you need a minimum of 2 pellets in the bird's vitals in order to ensure a clean kill. That's an area of about 17 square inches. So shoot some patterns, whatever loads you wish (as long as they're 4's or larger--nothing else retains sufficient energy) at 70 yards. First, see how well you're able to center your pattern on your aiming point at that distance--by mounting and firing as if you were shooting a bird, not by aiming the gun. (And remember, of course, it's going to be harder to do that on a bird in flight than on a stationary target.) Then cut out a circle with a diameter of 4 3/4", representing the vital area of a pheasant, and look at how many places in your 30" pattern circle you can place that small circle, where it won't get any hits at all, or maybe just 1. And how many places it will get at least 2. That might give you second thoughts about shooting 70 yard pheasants--assuming that your interest is not in making an occasional lucky kill while crippling a high percentage of the birds you do hit.

Mr. Brown,
A discussion has obviously gone on too long when points earlier discussed get lost or changed.
If you go back you will see the method I described for shooting herded up roosters late in the season was done many, many years ago. In fact, it was well over 25 years ago. I have stated more than once that I don't "do it" and never would "do it" again.
Frankly, I am sorry I ever entered the subject.
You win.
It is nearly impossible to kill pheasants reliably at 70 yards. Regardless of the situation, regardless of whether one uses wonderfully trained retrievers, regardless. I was wrong. The memories of my long ago youth are obviously clouded. There. Happy now?
I wonder if my sweet mother, god rest her, really didn't cook all those lovely pheasant dinners in a delicate cream sauce that I also seem to remember.
Jake

I enjoyed 2-Pipers post on shooter perceptions. It was very well thought out and very correct. It has caused my rusty old head gears to be in motion every since I read the post. Especially the part concerning perceived perceptions and fact. Good Job
David Lien

Jim, TW,
I think you guys are just using different measurement of lead. Jim seems to be referring to lead measured in angle and TW seems to be talking about actual distance. Although I will say that there is a slight difference in the distance a clay travels when talking incomer vs. outgoer, before the shot hits the target.