Have look at the Hull Cartridge site. It provides useful and interesting performance and specifications for the Game Shooting loads they make. The highlighted page is for their 'High Pheasant' - a performance load for 2 1/2" chambered guns.

It may be a useful comparison with the available SAAMI american loads you guys (I got told off for calling you 'chaps') have available and with the home loads you put together.

http://www.hullcartridge.co.uk/highpheas.htm

OUCH!!
Heavy recoil for the light gun
Mike

I can't figure out why someone would tell you off for calling us "chaps", no negative connotation in our vernacular that I'm aware.

Looks like some hot loads. I don't suppose these are available anywhere in the USA?

Getting that kind of velocity while staying within CIP standards would seem to be quite an accomplishment.

On the other hand, 3% Sb shot would not be a bragging point here.

It looks like some British shooters have fallen into the Bubba Magnunitis school of shotshell selection that is so prevalent here.

That's a shame as I always thought the British used a lot of common sense in the selection of both shotguns & shotshells.

Is the velocity difference & decrease in required lead between 1 1/16 oz loads starting at approx 1200 fps vs approx. 1400 fps @ 40 to 50 yards where high pheasants are shot really worth the extra recoil?

I've never shot high driven pheasants but I have shot some walked up & going away pheasants @ 40yds or a little more & I seemed to kill them OK with 1 1/16 oz of #5 @ around 1200 fps @ the muzzle when I pointed the gun correctly.

I would like to see the actual difference in required lead & the retained velocity difference out @ 40 & 50 yds. that the extra initial velocity provides.

I'm thinking the velocities listed are muzzle velocities, not the 3 foot instrumental velocities used here in the U.S. That would ( I think ) bring them back to 1300 fps or a little less.

Maximum pressure should not be that hard to keep within limits with a powder like Longshot. The problem with those loads I am told is that the pressure curve is elongated, meaning that the pressure down the bore is higher than other loads. So if load one produces 8K psi with pressure dropping to 2K by 9" and load two produces only 7.5K psi with pressure dropping to 4K at 9" you get in effect a 100% increase of pressure at 9". Pressure and distance are for example purposes, only so you get the point.

We have been told repeatedly that the pressure drops rapidly away from the chamber but what if it does not? Or not fast enough? You want to shoot a gun with marginal barrels that are .020 or so thick? I would not. Just another case of buyer beware.

This, of course is the strength of having a proof house and proof laws (though I am critical of some proof practises). We don't have to guess it a gun can take a load. If it is in proof, it will cope with these loads perfectly well, the manufacturers load them knowing to what standard they need to work. Choice then comes down to what is comfortable to shoot in the gun you have - much will be determined by weight.

I'm pretty sure you're correct, btdtst. Velocity is yet another area where we and our cousins across the Pond speak a different language. They sometimes speak in true muzzle velocity rather than our 3 foot measurement, which likely explains the difference here. You'll also see reference to "observed" velocity, which I believe is the average velocity over 20 yards (or meters). Most recently, in a British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) information sheet on steel shot loads, they refer to "mean velocity measured at a point 2.50 meters from the muzzle".
I wish they'd just settle on ONE of those!

Having shot driven pheasants a few times, we usually use 1 oz loads of British 6 shot. Kent Gamebore Pure Gold this year. Brit 6's are slightly smaller than American 6's (and slightly larger than our 7's). But that load has a higher pellet count (270 vs 253) than 1 1/8 oz American 6's. And with the birds being shot as incomers or crossers, where their vitals are more exposed, it seems to be more than adequate.

But I think the "high pheasant" label is a bit of a misnomer when applied to 2 1/2" cartridges. While they likely perform quite well on birds up to 40 yards or so, what many would think of these days as really "tall" birds are much higher than that--50-60 yards--and require heavy, target-like guns chambered 2 3/4" with loads of from 36-46 grams (1 1/4- 1 5/8 oz) of British 5 (like American 6) or, beyond 50 yards, British 4 shot (American 5). There are a couple of good articles on the subject of guns, loads, and technique for shooting the really high birds in the current issue of Shooting Sportsman, by Chris Batha and Vic Venters.

And for those who have not tried them, as both authors emphasize, just plain old "average" driven birds will provide more than enough of a challenge. The first time I shot them, Roger Mitchell--then managing director of H&H, and a pretty experienced driven shooter--was in our line of guns. I asked him what was a good average on driven birds. He said 1 for 3 on good, "sporting" birds. Sounded low to me before I tried it. Not so much afterwards.

Back when many of our 12ga guns were still chambered 2 5/8", the maximum load looks to be 3 1/4 drams equivalent, 1 1/8 oz--which would be about a 1300 fps load, as we measure velocity.

The Hull High Pheasant loads that Small Bore referenced are advertised as 1450 fps & I would assume that this is by CIP standard.

There is an interesting thread on the Shotgun World forum
"Difference between SAMMI & UK velocities" that lists velocities of various ELEY, RIO & some Australian loads that were tested under SAMMI standards.

The Eley & RIO shells velocities when tested by SAAMI standards were 35 fps to 123 fps less than the manufacturers published velocities so it is likely that the 2 1/2" Hull High pheasant load would be more than 1325 fps. under SAMMI testing procedures.

I'm not questioning the safety of the higher velocity shells, just the need & the desirability of their use in guns of game gun weight.

For most part Americans to not true Vo for testing and publishing velocities therefore to obtain actual muzzle velocity 75fps to 100fps must be added to what is printed on the American-made cartridge box.

I have been shooting Hull Imperial game 26 gramme No 6 with felt wad this last season through an AyA No 1, AyA Senior and Henry Atkin, all about 6 3/4 lbs.
I have found them an effective and pleasant to shoot cartridge. No interest in the velocity, but they do the job with no recoil issues.

I think this is the issue in nutshell.

Once we have selection of shells we know are safe to use in our guns, we experiment with them and settle on those which suit our guns. We don't care much about the figures.

For what it is worth, fro UK game shooting I use mostly Gamebore Pure Gold, Hull High Pheasant and Eley VIP in my 12-bores (No.6) but don't really care what the cartridges are as long as they are 2 1/2" and 28g, 30g. The loads I mention are not 'punchy', they pattern well and to tell the truth, I buy a couple of thousand at the start of each season and never think about what the ammo is doing again.

The guns I use are generally damascus barrelled,1870s hammer guns weighing around 6 3/4 or 7 lbs.

For super high pheasants there are much more powerful loads - see the wider range of Hull shells on the website - it gives data on each of them. I guess no marketing exec is going to launch a low partridge or 'average pheasant' cartridge - too much male ego to deal with!

If you're speaking about true MV--measured at the muzzle--versus the figure furnished by American ammo manufacturers, that's an accurate observation. For example, from John Taylor's very handy book "Shotshells and Ballistics", the 1 1/4 oz load of American 5's or 6's, long the standard for "rough shooting" (walking up pheasants over dogs), measures 1330 fps at 3 feet. At the muzzle, it's 1436 fps. Thus, not much different from the Hull High Pheasant load in terms of velocity.

I'm confused by the references to "muzzle velocity" when comparing SAMMI data to CIP data. SAMMI velocity is measured @ 3 feet & is stated so in their published information. I always assumed that US manufacturers published SAMMI standard velocity data & CIP manufacturers published CIP standard velocity data.

I can find several references that CIP velocity is measured at 2.5 meters (8.2 feet) but have not been able to confirm this by any CIP published info I can find.

In looking at published Winchester, Remington, Hull Cartridge, Game Bore, Eley, B&P & Rottweil info, only Rottweil states the distance @ which velocity is measured which is @ 2.5 Meters.

If some manufacturers are taking SAAMI & CIP data & converting it to muzzle velocity w/o stating so comparison with manufacturers that publish data obtained by CIP or SAAMI standards doesn't mean much.

In looking at the offerings by Hull, Game Bore & Eley I was surprised that only Eley offered 1 1/16 OZ (30 gm) loads at
<1300 fps.

In the Modern Shotgun Volume II Burrard states that "So the fact must be faced that a velocity of 1150 fps is the biggest practical increase which can be made for a 12-bore 2 1/2" cartridge" (he is talking about the 1 1/16 oz load in game guns).

I'm thinking he might have been a little conservative on the velocity limit but I'm not positive at what distance the velocity was measured so he is probably not too far off base when compared to 1 1/16 oz Eley Classic Game loads @ 1295 & the B&P High Pheasant @ 1280 fps which are a favorite of mine.

I don't care what load anyone else shoots as long as they effectively kill the game but with the current interest in the high velocity loads I'm finding the traditional loads in the 1200 to 1300 fps range more & more difficult to find.

When Burrard spoke of velocity he was generally using the standard "Observed Velocity" which was the average over 20 yds. The standard load of his day of 3 drams & 1 1/16oz shot had an observed velocity of 1050 fps. Converted to MV it was about 1300 fps. That 1150 velocity would have been over 1400 fps & likely pushing that 1450 fps. This was normally stated for #6 shot. If different sizes of shot were given the same MV, they would have different OV, larger shot being higher than smaller shot.

You might want to try RST's pheasant load: 1 1/4 oz 5 or 6, 1200 fps. Price listed on my sheet is $115/flat. Even with shipping, that'd be less than buying 10 boxes of the premium lead pheasant loads . . . at 14-1500 fps.

I think 2 Piper is correct here. Reading some of Burrard's writing takes a little time to digest & Burrard doesn't state the method of obtaining the 1150 velocity limit but taking the entire chapter into context "observed velocity" looks to be correct & Table XII (1150 fps observed velocity) does list #5 shot muzzle velocity @ 1450 fps & #6 @ 1475

Still, that makes the current loads in discussion that are listed @ 1450 fps by CIP methods (measured @ 2.5 meters) likely 1500 fps or more @ the muzzle.

I'm finding it difficult to determine what is normal or standard velocity is when comparing loads using multiple methods of stating velocity but I always considered 12 ga. game loads 1 1/16 to 1 1/4 of around 1250 fps (+ or - 50fps) using SAMMI or CIP velocity standards of measurement as standard velocity loads.

BTW, using Burrard's data & #5 shot the downrange velocity difference @ 50 yds between loads starting @ 1251 fps & 1450 fps (muzzle velocity) is 27 fps or a 4.8% advantage for the faster load & assuming a 6 3/4 lb. gun the recoil increase is 5.5 ft lbs. or 34.5%

[/quote]

You might want to try RST's pheasant load: 1 1/4 oz 5 or 6, 1200 fps. Price listed on my sheet is $115/flat. Even with shipping, that'd be less than buying 10 boxes of the premium lead pheasant loads . . . at 14-1500 fps. [/quote]

Larry,

I like & use RST shells but I've never shot any of their 1200 fps 1 1/4 oz pheasant loads. I would certainly prefer those to a 1 1/16 oz or heavier load @ 1450 fps. In a 6 3/4 lb gun the calculated recoil is 20.2 ft lbs compared to 21.3 ft lbs for the faster 1 1/16 ox load & I would much prefer the increase in pattern density to the extra velocity for approximately the same amount of recoil.

I used to shoot the old Winchester 3 1/4 DE 1 1/4 oz Pigeon load with #5 shot for pheasant. I think those were listed as 1220 fps if I remember correctly & they worked well but I wasn't concerned about pressure in the guns I was using at that time.

Brittany Man, those old pigeon loads were indeed 1220 fps. I used to be able to get them in 6 shot from Winchester, but they eventually dropped anything larger than 7 1/2. These days, outside of the RST's, try to find ANY quality 1 1/8 oz or 1 1/4 oz load from a US manufacturer at a velocity under 1300 fps.

Re observed velocity vs velocity as we measure it: I have a little note in my Eley Shooters Diary, which records all sort of interesting information about shotshells: comparative US/British/other European shot sizes, etc. I didn't record the source of the note I made, but here's what I wrote:

Standard British game loads, observed velocity 1070 fps = American velocity 1175 fps. High velocity observed 1120 fps =American 1235 fps. So looks like adding about 100 to an observed velocity figure is going to get us to our 3 foot velocity. Add another 100 fps or so to that and you have the true muzzle velocity.

Methinks you guys are fulla beans... again.

Butler in 'The American Shotgun', quotes a series of SAAMI tests. On page 197 of his book he shows a 'three foot coil measurement' of an undescribed load as 1336 fps. He equates that to a muzzle velocity of 'slightly over 1350'. That's 14 fps folks, or a little more, not 100.

The discussions and graphs in the same source refer to 'muzzle exit' conditions of a 3 DEq one ounce load as 1,284 fps, a figure we've accepted as reality for good long time.

The other references in this chapter are to 'muzzle velocity', not three foot velocity. The one instance of a discussion of exterior ballistics refering to a 'three foot' measurement shows the above mentioned +14 fps loss.

My own chronograph experience shows very little difference in recorded velocity with several feet variation in muzzle location relative to the screens.

Factory velocities are very close to advertised over my machine, and my handloads usually chrono scarry close to the published velocities. Again, I can back off a few feet or stick the muzzle almost even with the back of the machine and I don't see very much velocity difference. Certainly nothing approaching 100 fps in the first three feet!

I call BS on this one.

As a little PS to the above...

A few years back, when the guy in TX (Crocker) was importing them I bought a flat of Eley Hawk Grand Prix 65mm paper shells. I still have a couple boxes.

This is a fiber wad, 1 1/16 oz load of English sixes. The box shows '3 dram eq.'.

Their web site shows a 395 mps velocity for that load, which is 1295 fps.

My notes show that from an unaltered Fox 30" barrel they chronograph at 1265 fps. That's at 'roughly' 2.5 feet from the muzzle.

Their website now shows several faster loads in a 65mm case, comprabale to their competition (Hull).

Of course, I can't get my hands on either right now because nobody finds it profitable to import English shells to the USA.

Not sure about the BS in the difference between true MV and measured 3 foot velocity, Jones. The velocity figures in John Taylor's "Shotshells and Ballistics" come from the shotshell manufacturers themselves. And numerous shotshell companies, both American and foreign, are represented. The difference between the two figures is pretty consistent at around 100 fps, give or take a little in either direction. And it makes sense to me that pellets will slow down quite a bit shortly after their initial exit from the bore, because they're no longer being pushed by the burning gas from powder, and encountering more resistance from the air.

As for terminology, muzzle velocity in anything written by an American writer is assumed to be that measured at 3 feet, not at the muzzle--unless specified that it's true muzzle velocity. The measured 3 foot velocity is the only number SAAMI lists in its official charts for shotshell loads.

It is thus specified. 'Muzzle exit conditions'. And shown as such by internal ballistic charts.

Butler was an actual firearms engineer who worked for Winchester.

I just can't accept a 100 fps loss in velocity in the first yard. There is no mechanism for it.

I fully realize that drag increases with the square of the velocity, but 100 fps just cannot be so.

Butler seems to agree and as much as I respect the writings of ancient sources, my chronograph is better than anything Burrard et al had access to. Certainly Hull Cartridge has the same or better, and if they want to actually measure muzzle velocity instead of using a function (observed velocity) or a simple SWAG correction (+100) to calculate it they are quite capable of doing so.

I would thus expect to be able to measure the advertized velocity on my little chronograph here, and I'd expect it to be pretty close to what they claim for 'velocity'. Certainly within 30 fps or so, it is thus with Eley and I can't imagine Hull letting Eley get away with any BS to competitive advantage.

Larry- there are 3-1/4x1-1/4 loads still available at 1200 in a 12 bore. I use them. I have patterned them with satisfaction in a 12 bore Fox. I don't know the hardness of the shot these days. Mike

As I recall this applies only below the speed of sound. When you break that sonic barrier drag increases dramatically. As the shot exits the muzzle it does so as a mass acting much like a single projectile, but very quickly begins to separate into individual pellets, all occurring at a much less distance than that 9'.The Ballistic Coefficient of an individual pellet is far less than that of the compact mass at exit. These two factors of the drag swapping from a single mass to individual pellets, plus the vastly greater drag above the speed of sound" Very Easily" account for far more loss of velocity over those 9' than 14FPS.

Online references appear to show no significant or abrupt change in drag coefficient as a sphere goes subsonic.

http://arc.id.au/CannonballDrag.html

Don't be afraid to look at the NASA links, they're pretty good.

The biggest change occurs at about .8 Mach.

Sonic velocity is 1115 fps at sea level in dry air.

There is a well known drag reduction at about .3 M, depending on Reynolds number and a nifty effect on smooth vs. rough spheres that accounts for dimples on a golf ball.

Other than that, I can find no drag spike even at transonic speeds.

I just don't believe the huge variation in actual muzzle velocity vs. 3 foot measured velocity is at all real.

I'm open to actual data. My experiments are admittedly limited, and there may be effects I don't know of. But for now, I'm unconvinced.

Well Jones, here you go: From "Shotgun Stuff", a collection of Don Zutz's columns in Shotgun Sports magazine, in a chapter entitled "Waterfowl Loads and the 'New' Ballistics":

"Work done by Ed Lowry of Winchester and summarized in the December 1989 issue of American Rifleman magazine shows there can be a velocity loss of 50 to 100 fps during the first yard of free flight. For example, the new shotshell ballistics table worked out by Ed Lowry indicates a shot charge which reaches 1330 fps for a 3-foot chronograph reading needs an actual muzzle velocity of 1384 fps with BB's and 1447 fps with 7 1/2's to retain 1330 fps at 3 feet."

Ed Lowry was Winchester's ballistics guru for a very long time.

Thanks for the reference Larry. I do appreciate it.

Do Ed or Don offer any further explanation why they think this is so?

Perhaps someone has that issue of AR and can enlighten me.

Larry, Thanks for this information on 3' vs. muzzle velocity.

I've been attempting to confirm how the published velocity data for the more common English & European loads is obtained. So far I have found references to CIP standard velocity measurement being both 1 meter & 2.5 meters but the only manufacturer supplied data is from Rottweil which states velocity @ 2.5 meters so I'm still unclear of the CIP standard for velocity testing.

Eley lists velocity @ v-1 which I take as @ 1 meter & I have E-Mailed Eley for a conformation of this.

Hull, GameBore & B&P simply state "velocity" however I did find a "Cartridge Review" article in an old Sporting Clays magazine in which the writer stated that Hull & B&P velocities were measured @ 1 meter but this needs conformation from the manufacturers.

If 1 meter is the standard for CIP, comparison to SAAMI loads obtained @ 3' should be meaningful but this conflicts with some test data published over on Shotgun World that showed some of the English loads being slower than the published data when tested by SAAMI 3' standards. You have to wonder if some manufactures are taking CIP & SAAMI data & making a conversion back to muzzle velocity in an effort inflate the velocity figures for sales appeal.

One would think that cartridge manufactures would clearly state the distance @ which the of velocity their products are measured & especially if it deviates from the testing standards in place for the country where it is manufactured.

There was an article on this "Drag" in the American Rifleman many years ago as it related to the Hi-Velocity .22 LR vs the old Standard round. Seems when the new Hi-Vel loads came on the market outdoor target shooters who shot the LR round at comparatively long ranges flocked to them as a means of reducing Wind Drift. Turned out that even though the new round had a shorter Time Of Flight, they actually gave greater wind drift. Seems Wind Drift is based not on actual time of flight, but on lag time, IE difference in actual TOF from a theoretical TOF in a vacuum. The HV round proved to have greater lag time, thus more Wind Drift due to its greater Drag Factor in crossing the Sound Barrier. This phenomenon occurs only with those rounds straddling the SOS. When both rounds start either below or above this velocity increasing MV will reduce Wind drift.

Jones, we all recognize that there's a drop in velocity from the muzzle to 3 feet. We understand why. We're only disagreeing about how great that drop is. The article goes on to explain that Lowry also determined that downrange velocities weren't quite as high as those previously listed. I'm sure Winchester has more sophisticated instruments to measure velocity than do people with a chrono, and what Zutz reported is what Lowry measured.

Zutz goes on to stress that we should not confuse the 3 foot velocities, which are the standard numbers published in this country (and by SAAMI) with actual muzzle velocity. Most people don't realize that.

As for CIP numbers, per the latest information I have--which comes from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation--it now appears that velocity is measured at 2.5 meters. In the case of British velocity figures, that represents a change from both "observed" velocity and true muzzle velocity, both of which have been used in the past. Confusion will arise if you don't pay attention to the date of your source material. Gough Thomas, writing in the 60's in reference to Eley Grand Prix shells, said they had a "designed velocity" of 1070 fps--which seems very slow to us. However, he makes clear that that's the velocity over 20 yards: the old "observed velocity" figure.

If the CIP standard is now 2.5 meters (8.2 ft.) & the English Hull High Pheasant 1 1/16 oz @ 1450 fps that started this thread are measured under CIP standards,they are really fast & depending on your point of view, have all the benefits & negatives of the current speed trend in shotshells.

I'm betting that 1450 figure is true muzzle velocity. That would equate to over 1600 fps at the muzzle if it were 1450 fps at 2.5 meters. Our British cousins like to keep us guessing when it comes to weights and measures.

"As for CIP numbers, per the latest information I have--which comes from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation--it now appears that velocity is measured at 2.5 meters."

"I'm betting that 1450 figure is true muzzle velocity."

This is consistent how? Is not Hull Cartridge actually governed by CIP standards?


"Jones, we all recognize that there's a drop in velocity from the muzzle to 3 feet. We understand why. We're only disagreeing about how great that drop is."

Not exactly. In the case of a velocity decrease totally out of proportion to the second 3 feet, I certainly do not understand the 'why' of a 100 fps deceleration in the first 3 feet at all. That's what I'm trying to 1. verify, 2. understand.

I'm not in denial about not having a laboratory chronograph system, I'm am however stating that I do not observe this dramatic deceleration on what I have.

Has anyone verified Lowry's experiment? That's the essence of science, a repeatable experiment. Data seems to be scarce.

Has anyone seen interior ballistics graphs similar to what Butler published in the 70's that incorporate the new thinking since?

This is all very interesting, and I'd like to learn more.


Miller's post totally baffles me. The theoretical time of flight in a vacuum seems to be dependent on MV and only MV... assuming constant gravity vector. Is Newton wrong too?

[quote=Shotgunjones]"As for CIP numbers, per the latest information I have--which comes from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation--it now appears that velocity is measured at 2.5 meters."

"I'm betting that 1450 figure is true muzzle velocity.

This is consistent how? Is not Hull Cartridge actually governed by CIP standards?"

Good question & it appears to me that there is no consistency or truth in advertising when it comes to manufacturers published velocity figures.

I was impressed by Rottweil's stating 2.5 meters as their measurement point for velocity until I found different & apparently current Rottweil advertising stating velocity as "mouth velocity" and quoting the same exact velocities for the same loads as were published for 2.5 meter velocities. As we have discussed, it can't be the same for both. At least they do state something other than "velocity".

If you care what velocities your loads are providing(& my impression is that very few people do) I'm thinking that Shotgun Jones has the right idea about using chronograph to test the loads yourself. It might not be up to laboratory standards but it seems to me that the info will be of more use than the manufacturers published data in most cases.

I've been using a chronograph for handloading rifle cartridges for years but I never felt the need to chronograph shotgun cartridges until recently.

I don't think accurate velocity figures are as important in shotgun shooting as they are in rifle shooting but I would like to be able to compare & select loads that I can be confident will effectively kill game & will have the least wear & tear on the gun.

No; Newton is not wrong. Yes; the theoretical time of flight in a vacuum is based solely on Muzzle Velocity. It can be calculated by using the muzzle velocity & the range. Thus if a bullet were fired in a vacuum at 1250 FS over a 100 yd (300') range it would arrive in .24 seconds. When the atmosphere is thrown into the mix the the Drag factor comes in. I did not have a time of flight table I could immediately lay hands on but did have a muzzle & 100 yd velocity chart for the standard Velocity vs the a HV round. With both using a standard 40 gr bullet the HV round lost 290 fps over the 100 yds while the SV round lost only 171 Fps. At 1335 FPS the Theoretical TOF for the HV round would have been .225 Sec's while at 1145 FPS the theoretical TOF for the SV round would have been.262 Sec's.
Wind Drift is calculated, not from the actual time of flight in the air, but from the difference from the theoretical TOF to the actual. In this case the standard velocity round has less difference than the HV therefore it had less wind drift. This situation occurs only at this velocity level & occurs because of the greatly increased drag encountered as the sound barrier is broken. "Barrier" here is more than just a figure of speech.

Adhering to CIP standards does not mean all member countries arrive at those standards in the same way. Here's a very good example: Starting in 1989, the British proofhouses started using a proofmark that expressed the proof pressure of the gun in bars. For 12 bores, standard proof was expressed as 850 bar; magnum/superior as 1200 bar. A bar = 14.5 psi (or actually a bit more, but 14.5 is close enough for govt work). However . . . in 1989, the British proofhouses were still measuring pressure by the old crusher methods: lead crusher for lower pressures, like shotguns; copper crushers for higher pressures, like rifles. That confused a lot of folks on this side of the pond, because we thought you could multiply those numbers x 14.5 and get a figure comparable to our own psi figures--which were measured with electronic transducers, not crushers. Then, in the early to mid-90's, the British (and at least some of the other CIP countries) switched from crushers to transducers. However, the British did not change their proofmarks--even though 850 bar crusher = 960 bar transducer. (And once you get to the 960 bar figure, you can then multiply x 14.5 to get the correct psi equivalent.) All of which is a long way of pointing out, via an example, that the CIP does have common standards, but that does not mean that they all express pressure or velocity figures in the same way. And when it comes to velocity, that's not a question of a CIP standard anyhow, except in the case of steel shot loads. As long as the shell in question conforms to CIP PRESSURE standards--which they all do, if they carry the CIP stamp of approval--then you're good to go. For that matter, the same thing applies to American shotgun shells and SAAMI standards: there isn't any velocity standard, only a pressure standard.

But we are far less complicated on velocity than the Brits, because we ALWAYS express velocity measured at 3 feet unless clearly specified otherwise.

Larry,

Thanks for the clarification as to no standard for velocity measurement methods under CIP except for steel loads. I did see a reference on the Eley websight as to steel loads meeting CIP standard but I was not clear as to the meaning of the statement.

From this discussion my take is that an accurate comparison of manufacturer published velocities for loads produced under CIP & SAAMI standards is only possible if the CIP manufacturer clearly states the distance @ which velocity is measured.

With the Rottweil/RWS data listing identical velocity for identical loads @ both 2.5 meter velocity & "mouth velocity" (a translation glitch from muzzle velocity I think))in different publications I'm thinking a rather casual approach is taken with published velocity data by some CIP manufacturers.

Added as an afterthought: I did a search of CIP published info & could not come up with anything relating to velocity test standards so I'm assuming that "no velocity test standard is correct" but that seems strange to me given the stringent specifications on pressure & pressure test methods.

What is the source of your information that changed your previously posted information from conversation with the British Assn. or Shooting & Conservation that indicated 2.5 meters as the CIP standard to "no velocity test standard for CIP" .

Does the statement from the British Assn. for Shooting & Conservation mean that only the UK is establishing 2.5 meters as their own velocity standard for shotshells produced under CIP & is this voluntary or mandatory?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just trying to get good information on this subject.

Brittany, here's an example from the BASC information sheet I cited: "The mean velocity, measured at a point 2.5 meters from the muzzle . . . " To my knowledge, under CIP rules, steel loads are the ONLY ones that have a velocity limit. And that's how they state velocity will be measured--but only for steel loads. Therefore, ammo makers don't have to adhere to ANY velocity standard on ANY other ammo, as long as those shells meet CIP PRESSURE standards. Which leaves them free to express the velocity of their shotshells (other than steel) in whatever fashion they think buyers are most likely to understand.

It'd be nice if they'd all settle on one standard method of measuring and expressing velocity, as we have on this side of the pond. But I think they like to confuse us.

I think one reason there is no standard in the UK/Europe is that there is nothing like as much interest in velocity (in my experience anyway).

From my recollection, the manufacturers quoting velocities on the box is quite recent, and I don't think many buyers look anyway.

Generally here, buyers choose the cartridge size (usually 2 1/2 or 2 3/4 for 12 bore) shot size and shot load (often 28 or 30 grammes). Many have a preferred brand. As far as I know ALL cartridges sold are CIP approved, and of course virtually all UK guns are in current proof, so there is little thought of pressure or velocity.

Not sure how long ago it was, but formerly velocities in the US were quoted over 40 yards. The beginnings of these velocities over a longer range have their roots in when measurements were taken with a "Boulenge Chronograph". These instruments simply were not capable of measuring small enough time intervals to give accurate readings with close screen spacings near the muzzle. These often had the start wire attached to the muzzle itself, but the stop screen some distance down range. For shotshell velocities the 20-40 yard range was about the near & far limits of their range. Modern Chronographs capable of reading very short time intervals changed all this. The former though did prove to be quite accurate when used within its capabilities.

The Zutz article to which I referred earlier has him quoting Ed Lowry of Winchester as having learned that previous downrange velocity readings were inaccurate. Might be because of the older equipment you mention, Miller.

John and I concur. This has clearly caused a stir of interest and interesting information.

One thing i have observed from meetings with US owners of British guns, especially those who load their own shells, is a bit of over reversal of the old 'magnumitis' that is well known. It is that many feel that British vintage guns need to be loaded with very light, slow and ultra low-pressure shells.

Seeing what is commonly used in the UK in our classic guns might be a useful indicator of what they are made to withstand. any 2 1/2" shell sold in the UK will be safe to use in a gun proofed for 2 1/2" shells.

Some are more civilised than others, but a very wide range of suitable ammunition is available for this 'standard' British game gun chambering.

The problem for us, Dig, is that we don't know the pressures of your British loads--other than that they're within CIP specs. If they're well below the CIP maximum for a standard proof gun, that might mean pretty low pressure. If they're close to the CIP maximum, then they're not all that much different (about 800 psi) than our own SAAMI maximum of 11,500 psi.

I've never gone nearly as low as a lot of reloaders. I figure I'm safe in the 7-8,000 psi range, even figuring in some additional pressure for a longer hull used in a shorter chamber. And I've shot field loads of 7300 psi, 1 1/8 oz shot, 1200 fps--although not a lot of them--at pheasants. Seem to work fine (and produce very nice patterns) in vintage British doubles. But I've also never played around with anything older than 1920, except a couple sleeved guns from the 1880's.