S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
1 members (MattH),
466
guests, and
4
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,500
Posts562,119
Members14,587
|
Most Online9,918 Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,572 Likes: 165
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,572 Likes: 165 |
" ............ That said, I really think that the initial purpose of this post was to provide proof that setback of pellets in a shot shell does occur, and the percentage of pellets in the load that are deformed increase as the bore diameter decreases, naysayers notwithstanding .......... and not that it necessarily makes huge differences at the target. Stan you are correct I agree set back and deformation does occur, I also agree that small bores experience it more than larger bores. I agree it does not necessarily make a huge difference. Going back to Brister, he stresses the important difference in shot string between loads using hard vs soft shot. Here, I think, is where we come to the difference between the impact of deformation on a smallbore vs a 12ga. As noted, the obvious advantage of the 12 is that it can push a bigger load. Thus a heavier load with soft shot might perform as well as the lighter load of a smallbore with hard shot. But if you use soft shot in a smallbore, where you have fewer pellets to start with, then you're going to see more impact. I'd say that using quality loads with good components is more important when you're pushing less than an ounce of shot than when you're pushing 1 1/8 or more. Or at least that seems logical to me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
This has to me at least been a very enjoyable discussion. now let me throw out one more little tid-bit for thought. A .410" firing 11/32oz; a 28 with 5/8oz; a 20 with 3/4oz; a 16 with 7/8oz; a 12 with 1 1/8oz & a 10 with 1 1/4oz. Anyone want to make a guess as to what all these loads have in common.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,196 Likes: 20
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,196 Likes: 20 |
Ding Ding, A winner!
Sorry, Don. It was too hard not to do that;-)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Right on; within a narrow range these loads all have near the same column length in a nominal size bore. It is also noted that these are pretty much what the standard loads were a decade or so either side of 1900 when powder was limited to black or the early Smokeless which all burned at similar rates. As stated in a previous post it was the development of progressive shotshell powders beginning in the 1920'that allowed the smaller bores to be "Loaded Up" to heavier charges.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 460
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 460 |
Bob Nichols, Editor, Arms and Ammunition Dept., Field & Stream in a letter dated Oct 1, 1940:
As regards the 16-gauge, I think the English loaders for a long time recommended 15/16 of an ounce of shot as being about as much as the 16 could handle with "good grace." I still think the 1 1/8-ounce maximum load in the 16-gauge is a cock-eyed load- because I don't see any sense in having the 16-gauge weigh more than 6 pounds- or 6 1/4 pounds at the most- and believe me, the 1 1/8 ounce load in front of 3 drams equivalent modern smokeless powder is just too heavy in recoil for the 6-pound gun.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,071 Likes: 72
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,071 Likes: 72 |
Bob Nichols, Editor, Arms and Ammunition Dept., Field & Stream in a letter dated Oct 1, 1940:
As regards the 16-gauge, I think the English loaders for a long time recommended 15/16 of an ounce of shot as being about as much as the 16 could handle with "good grace." I still think the 1 1/8-ounce maximum load in the 16-gauge is a cock-eyed load- because I don't see any sense in having the 16-gauge weigh more than 6 pounds- or 6 1/4 pounds at the most- and believe me, the 1 1/8 ounce load in front of 3 drams equivalent modern smokeless powder is just too heavy in recoil for the 6-pound gun. Dr, I am afraid I must disagree. For targets 1 oz is a fair limit for a 6lb sixteen, but for game (pheasant) I often shoot 1 1/8 and occasionally 1 1 1/4 out of my medium weight 16 (6lb). I believe the classic rule of 96 to 1 applies for sustained shooting, half a dozen heavier loads every now and again will not kill you.
Last edited by old colonel; 06/08/16 09:02 PM. Reason: Spelling
Michael Dittamo Topeka, KS
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,071 Likes: 72
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,071 Likes: 72 |
PS on clays I normally shoot 7/8ths
Michael Dittamo Topeka, KS
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
I have fired factory 3" 1¼ oz loads from a 6¼ lb 20 gauge as well as handloaded low velocity 1¼ oz loads from a 16ga which was 2oz under 6lb. I would want to use neither for continuous firing but for spaced out shots in many hunting situations they were not at all uncomfortable. Over the years I did seem to do some of my best shooting in the hunting field with guns in a 6½lb-7lb range. In this weight range the normal 3-1 1/8 loads were quite comfortable & up to 3¼-1¼ were no problem. In a 12ga of at least 6 3/4lb I had no problem with the 3 3/4-1¼ loads.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,572 Likes: 165
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,572 Likes: 165 |
One reason the Brits focused on lighter loads for the 16ga: 2 1/2" chambers. That being said, even when the standard chamber length for the 16ga in this country was 2 9/16", a 1 1/8 oz load was available. And in 1940, the conversion from 2 9/16" to 2 3/4" chambers as standard had only taken place very recently. But our 16's, in general, have always been built heavier than Brit 16's. It's a pretty rare American 16 that weighs much under 6#.
My first classic double was a pre-WWII Sauer 16. I never put that gun on a scale, but I doubt it went much over 6#. Had the chambers punched to 2 3/4" (LONG before I knew better) and shot a whole lot of pheasants with that gun, mostly with the high brass 3 DE, 1 1/8 oz loads. Didn't shoot a lot of targets back then, but when I did, I reloaded the standard 1 oz formula for the 16. Not at all unpleasant for a couple rounds of skeet.
Last edited by L. Brown; 06/09/16 09:45 AM.
|
|
|
|
|