Ok I have a theory about 3/4 oz. loads. I have used these in 12 and 20 ga. with good success. Part of my shotguning quirks is if aload seems to work well I don't pattern it and loose my faith in the load with pattern facts. The main theory is that it doesn't matter if you fire a 3/4 oz. load from a 12, 20, or 28 ga. you will an equal quality pattern with similar chokes. Has anyone else who is not as lazy as me and with a 28 patterned these loads to prove or disprove my idea. For what it is worth, 3/4 oz. 12 and open choke is great for skeet. and with a bunch of choke works well for 16yd. trap. Kind of like shooting a .22. Thanks MKII

Mark, I'm not the feller you're looking to for scientific data but common sense tells me 3/4 ounce in a 12 will result in patterns more uniform with fewer flyers than any smaller gauge can deliver. There has to be far less pellet distortion and shorter shot string. I know my short tens delivering 1 1/4 ounce hit geese and ducks like being hit with a pie tin in the face. Same principle.

As Joe points out: Theoretically, for a given shot charge, the larger the bore, the better the pattern. That being said, I've played around with a 28ga enough to believe--without comparing patterns to either a 12 or a 20 using 3/4 oz--that the little bore throws pretty darned good patterns. 12ga, I'm a magnum guy: I shoot mostly 7/8oz at targets. And I can remember when that would have been considered WAY light in a 12.

It's my belief that larger bores pattern better than small with the same shot charge. Can't prove it but believe it. Never wanted to spend the time to run definitive test.

Few patterns I have shot same shot weight 7/8 oz 20 & 12 indicate better with the larger bore. Have also patterned my Short 10 reloads, 1 1/8 oz. much better patterns than factory 12 G 1 1/8 oz. Not the same gun or components may account for the difference.


Boats

I believe that barrels have a mind of their own. Patterns from guns of the same gauge and choke may or may not pattern to your liking.
E.G. My best patterns come from a 16 Ga. #2 AyA with Imp. Cyl. and Mod barrels and those same loads pattern terrible in a 16 Ga. Browning choked mod.

Good shot cups have greatly levelled the field between gauges with the same shot charge.

If you're referring to an A-5, Standardweight or Sweet 16, it's very likely the Browning has a lot more constriction than does the Mod barrel of the AyA. The Belgian Brownings were typically choked tighter than most other guns of the same gauge.

L. Brown, good point, but I have seen pattern differences in many other shotguns of the same gauge and choke(s). My wife's 16 Ga. is a Stevens 311 with Imp. Cyl. and Mod Chokes and the gun patterns the same loads differently than my AyA and that difference is a spotty pattern.

The contrarian view, one espoused by no less than the likes of Bruce Buck, is that every 1 1/8 oz 12 gauge load has a 3/4 and 7/8 oz load riding on top.

That's the heavy load view...but in my own shooting, I'm still in love with the 7/8 oz load.

A quick note on Larry's comment about Browning's old chokes being somewhat tighter, that's true. Also true that there was quite a variation in constrictions with the same marking. I have a pair of Sweet Sixteens, one made in '62 the other in '73, both factory original and marked ** (modified). The older gun has .030" choke, the newer one .015". Go figure...

"I have a pair of Sweet Sixteens, one made in '62 the other in '73, both factory original and marked ** (modified). The older gun has .030" choke, the newer one .015". Go figure..."

GF1 of those two sixteen gauges, do they both have the same bore. Just measuring choke really tells you very little if you don't measure what the bore is.

For all my target shooting in 12 gauge vintage sxs, I shoot nothing but 3/4 oz. loads. I patterned the one set of 32" .041 constriction at 40 yards and was pleased with the number of #8 pellets in the 30" circle. This was off-hand and would have liked it to be rested for a proper pattern.

Both have same bore dimensions, and I'm not measuring just the choke. The older gun patterns much tighter than the newer one, corresponding to the choke dimensions I listed.

Seems I have heard that in International Trap; when they "went to 7/8 ounce loads;" scores went UP! I don't know if it's because of reduced recoil, or what.
Some 20+ years ago, I went from 1 1/8 ounce loads to 1 ounce, and for me, I really couldn't tell any difference.(No, I am NOT a world champion.)
My best round at sporting clays has been with 7/8 ounce.
Can I tell you why?.......no. But I'll keep shooting them until someone smarter than me tells me why I shouldn't.

I'm wondering whether maybe the choke on the newer Browning was opened to something closer to the "standard" mod constriction for a 16ga. O'Connor's "Shotgun Book" (1965) shows Browning's mod constriction at .025--but even that is tight compared to what he lists for Remington and Winchester in the same chart (.017 and .016, respectively). My most recent Sweet 16 is a 1967 gun marked mod; measures .023.

Mark II, this is a very good question. I don't have an exacting, unrefutible answer, however, I will post some data summations that are very close to what you asked. Anyone remotely interested in patterns must read "Sporting Shotgun Performance" by Dr. Andrew Jones. It is, IMO, the only source of statistically valid pattern data, including my own.

First fact to understand - patterns are all the same except for bloom time/distance. That is to say, a full choke pattern at forty yards will be the same as a cyl pattern at some shorter yardage.

Per Dr. Jones, the difference among pattern diameters of various shot load weights from a 12 bore is basically trivial.

Per Dr. Jones, the difference among pattern diameters of various shot load weights from various bore guns is small and basically trivial.

The book does not present data that directly answers your question, but the statistical validity of the data makes the extension reasonable.

Questions?

DDA

Neil Winston actually knows what he writes about. And he will answer your Q's if you feel the need to ask - tell him Charlie sent you to learn the truth

http://www.claytargettesting.com/index.html#

have another day
Dr.WtS

The challenge in judging patterns from the same barrels with different weight loads is that most patterns are measured on boards in two dimension and not the three dimensional cloud they actually are. Authors like Burrard, then Oberfell& Thompson, and Brister to name a few all address shot string. Having read their books and Jones too, I agree that patterns remain similar from the same barrel with different weight loads, and that the shot string is shorter. Perhaps there are less trialing shot and therefore the load either hits solidly or not at all, but there is a point, which is difficult to determine exactly, that reducing shot reduces effectiveness.

The mythic, or mystic belief in the square load is part of this question. Ultimately reducing weight reduces effectiveness. Skeet averages declining with the guage ( load ) size shows this.

Load efficiency in reducing loads is problematic as is increasing load weight with magnum loads is.

Wonko, that is a neat website, thanks for posting it

I don't buy the 2D/3D pattern thing at all. For the target the time difference between the first pellet and the last pellet is effectively Zero. The whole shot string thing is bogus relative to kill factor. Sure, the shot string out - BFD. Poor target breaks or kills are pointing errors not shot string effect


And many people still shoot 100x100 skeet w/ a .410 so how small a load do you need to kill a target? I've watched people shoot way impressive totals at pigeons in the 28ga race. Too bad the bore wasn't bigger, eh?

have another day
Dr. WtS

and Mr. Winston do love him some shotgun myth to shred

My original question was if you are shooting a 3/4 oz. load does it really matter what size hole it is coming out of?

My short answer is "yes," it usually matters.

I suspect, with a correctly designed experiment, it could be shown that it does not matter on paper. That's because in a laboratory setting, such as shooting patterns on paper from a benchrest, it would be possible to eliminate virtually every other variable but bore size. But who would be interested in such data unless it could be related to the field. And that's why I say it "usually matters."

Once you move to any sort of real world scenario, be it the target field or the game field, a plethora of other variables having to do with the shooter and the equipment overwhelm any attempt to isolate the bore size variable. It matters because, typically, no matter how hard competitors try to make it so (and no hunter would want to), a 20ga gun is not the handling equal of 12ga gun.

The clearest opportunity for that would be on a skeet field where a tubed gun would come the closest to using equipment that was identical except for bore size.And since it has been demonstrated countless times that 1/2 ounce is sufficient to break 100x100 skeet targets, how many would have to be shot at with 3/4 ounce before one could believe .630 vs .730 can make a difference? Makes my head hurt to ponder it.

I'm gonna leave now and go separate the fly poop from the black pepper.

A bunch of us at my club shoot 3/4 and 7/8oz loads at all the games. I believe less choke is needed with 3/4oz 12ga loads. Myself and other shooters have broke birds solidly out to 45yds with skeet chokes using 3/4oz loads. From what I've read the patterns will be better with a larger bore because the shot column height is less meaning less set back when fired so the shot at the back of the column isn't deformed as much. I shoot just old SxS's and in my 10 gauges I use 1oz loads. Before chokes were invented, the muzzleloading pigeon ring shooters used less powder and shot for the second shot to get tighter patterns. I don't pattern either, maybe should, but if I'm on at 35 or 40 yds with 3/4oz in the 12 the birds break very good.

You will break a lot of the presentations at 45 yards, with a skeet choke and 3/4 oz. load .................. but you will NOT break a lot of them, too. Just too sparce a pattern with that for 45 yards.

SRH

My short answer is "NO"------------Choke and load speed are the factors of consequence. What you kill will never know what bore size was in use if you had a proper load and choke for the game.

There are only so many pellets in any given load and if they are managed properly there is no difference to the target.

have another day
Dr.WtS

My bad. by hole I was referring to the gauges. So if I understand all of you who were nice enough to respond, the 12 should have a better potential to throw better patterns than the 20 or 28. In addition my faith in the 3/4 is confirmed by other users observations. Thanks, Mark

What are you using as the standard for "better" patterns?

DDA

Should be a higher % of pellets in the 30" circle for a given load, 12 vs smaller bores. All being equal. But there's a lot of ground to be covered in the "all being equal" department. For example, are you starting with the same # of pellets? (Reloaders often drop a little light.) Is the choke the same? Mark, I have a few 3/4 oz 12ga factory 8's from RST. I'll have to give them to you and see how they compare to reloads. Then we can try 28ga factory 3/4 oz vs reloads. We'd probably use up a lot of paper . . . but not a bad way to pass an afternoon if the weather is decent.

Ah, yes! Well on the way to proving nothing and generating yet more BS to apply to the discussion. Most commendable! and totally fitting for this forum I must say.

have another day
Dr.WtS

"So if I understand all of you who were nice enough to respond, the 12 should have a better potential to throw better patterns than the 20 or 28."
Absolutely not. A totally erroneous assumption

"Better Pattern" of course depends on what a person wants from said pattern. My personal Ideal pattern would be one having absolute uniform spread, the width of that spread of course determined by choke. We all should be totally aware that pattern does not exist & is not apt to.
The real question here is NOT pattern percentage inside the 30" circle but rather the distribution of the shot which are inside.
Some promote the larger bores as giving more uniform patterns while others promote the smaller bore on the "Fact" that by having a higher percentage of the shot in the central core they will actually ou range a larger bore firing the same shot load.
I will say I have not counted enough pellet holes to say positively one way or the other. I have fired 1 oz of shot with great success from 12, 16 & 20.

Rocketman, my all being equal, would be all 3 gauges throwing the same % . My guess is since was the shorter shot column of the 12 would give a more uniform pellet distribution over the 30" circle. WtS , I'm more than open to consider other opinions, thatis why I asked.

The bigger the bore, the smaller the % of the load on the outside of the shot column, thus less likely to come into contact with the bore, thus less likely to end up deformed and as "flyers". Anyhow, that's the theory. Likely however--given plastic wads--that there won't be a lot of difference, assuming you're close to the "all else being equal" point.

Larry, I think a bigger factor is you don't have so many pellets on the bottom to run into the upper ones. The front ones draft the rear ones but slow rapidly, letting the rear crash into those ahead. With shot collars bore deformation is a small factor.

You are exactly right, Joe, about shot collars (cups) and shot deformation.

SRH

Afraid I must disagree a bit. All patterns will have a Rayleigh distribution (the Rayleigh distribution is, indeed, a Gausian distribution, one of several). That distribution will hold from muzzle until the shot hits the ground. There is no such thing as "uniform" in a pattern. There is no core, either. The highest concentration ( pellets per square inch) of pellets will be at the center and will "taper off" (although not a linear taper) as you move away from the center. As the pattern travels away from the muzzle, the shot "feeds" away from the center toward the edges such that the Rayleigh distribution is maintained. % in some size circle is OK to compare one pattern to another for choke effect, but tells you little about the actual pattern. "Better" is the pattern with the largest diameter of lethal dose within your targets square inch area.

You will likely be able to tell difference among bore sizes of equal choke as they will have slightly lower choke effect for smaller diameters. Larger diameters will be able to achieve slightly "fuller" choke effect.

I have to disagree on shot drafting and crashing into each other. The wakes of those tiny lill' spheres are going to be very turbulent and I do doubt one being able to follow another for any but a very short time/distance.

DDA

Not all shotgun patterns adhere to the theoretical model.

These 3 patterns were shot with the exact same number of pellets, through the same, fixed-choke barrel at a distance of 50 feet.

IMO, one is better than the other 2.

Ok Mike, you must now reveal to us the variable that resulted in such significant pattern differences.

I'm guessing the middle one is a factory Polywad SpredR; the right one maybe a Mike Campbell spreader reload.

If you pattern from different loads/guns etc even if all put the ame percentage of shot in the 30" circle, you will find if you then draw a circle containing half the area (21.2") concentric with the 30" circle they will not all have the same percentage inside that central area.
Another factor other than bore scrub is an ounce of shot will have a column length in an unprotected bore of about .690" in 12ga, .837" in 16ga & .970" in 20ga. Thus the lower pellets in the column have a heavier load to move upon firing. The reduced diameter by use of a shot cup will of course lengthen these columns proportionately.
The column lengths cited were from old Hercules/alliant loading guides. They did not state the size shot or the hardness. Both would have an input on the exact length, but as long as the shot was consistent it would vary proportionately. As I stated earlier I have not counted enough pellet holes to say positively just what effect the actual bore size has on pattern but I do know that not all patterns have the exact same central thickening.
People who concentrate on extreme long range shooting consider central thickening an advantage, most of us consider it a disadvantage & prefer to lessen it as much as is possible.
My personal opinion is this is most apt to occur with the shorter columns of a bigger bore.

Couple of years ago the FITASC shooters had to go from 1 1/4oz of shot to 1oz. Most bitched about what it would do to scores. The scores stayed the same. International games only allow 7/8oz of shot. And I've read a couple of articles in SC's magazines about how 3/4oz of shot patterns. In one the man claimed at skeet ranges the pattern was too tight unless the velocity was upped to 1300fps or fiber wads were used. Mike, was the velocity or wads changed ?

Mike, while your patterns are not part of the original question or theory they are quite interesting, and show the ability to change patterns and chokes in a fixed choke gun by load manipulation. Please share how this was accomplished.

I'd be like totally fascinated to know WTF that is supposed to mean? And which particular Hogwarts Physics theorem is employed?

And there is seemingly a confusion between choke as marked, choke in thou of an inch, choke as % of bore dia, and most importantly choke as in performance. Y'all might want to pick one so all y'all are talking about the same thing. And you might want to give a look at Neil's methodology and actual analysis for some clues about how to present whatever "data" you come up with.

just thot

have another day
Dr.WtS

I have to admit that topics like this on this forum are among the most amusing to be found anywhere tho the trapshooters and shotgunworld press hard for top spot. Keep up the good work!!

Wonko, Why sugar coat your evaluation of the membership here? Just say what's on your mind man.

Oh, let them have their fun, Wonko. At least it keeps these nutters out of the bars and pubs on a Wednesday afternoon while us normal people eat hamburgers and get shitfaced with Don Ernesto and his proofreader before the ballgame.

*Don Ernesto and his proofreader after the Don just finished another book*

proofreader: Looks like a best seller, Ernie. What say we give it a quick look for typos and whatnot.

Don Ernesto: Fack that. I'm going to get drunk.

proofreader:(casts a weary eye at The Don) Hang on. Let me grab my hat.


_______________________
Go Tigers! Go Wings! Die Philadelphia with a BC twohander to the face!

I don't understand. This seems like a comment about the shape of the shot column, at a particular location in the bore. It doesn't seem like a choke comment. Maybe things happen to the contents of the shot column when they are arranged in a different way, and the force is applied in a different way to make the shot clear the muzzle at the same velocity for the same weight. Aside from advertising, there seems to be an intention for hard, plated and buffered shot. Is passing through the choke all that matters.

I don't see what was so hard to understand about that. When the wad hits the base of the shot column in firing the shot in front which has to me moved is held back by inertia. When you put the same weight of shot in a 20 ga as is in a 12 ga the column is 40% longer, put it in a 28ga & it is 75% longer. That means the shot down next to the wad have a lot more weight ahead of them to move. Trying to fire an ounce of shot from a 28ga would mean that hard premium shot, & pobably buffering as well was of far greater importance than firing an ounce from a 12ga.
No this has nothing at all to do with choke.

Well, I see only one question in the original post, calling for a "yes" or "no" answer which nobody gave. After awhile, these things morph from a survey into a conversation.

As to my patterns, Larry nailed it.



He and I have shared the topic of spreader loads several times....though never on Shotgunworld. I've had some meaningful discussions on Trapshooters, but far fewer lately since Neil Winston has been gone. Otherwise, I've shared my spreader load experiments and techniques here and on 16ga Society.

What I find most interesting about spreaders is that I can, in fact, exert some predictable control over what is otherwise a completely random event. It's that randomness in a "normal" shotgun pattern that allows for statistical analysis.
Pattern # one is a conventional load of 1 ounce of 8's fired through a conventional barrel. Patterns 2 & 3 are still 1 ounce of 8's, same powder charge and same nominal velocity. The difference is #2 utilizes a spreader insert loaded in a certain way and #3 utilizes an insert loaded differently. I'd venture I could further modify the loads to give in somewhat predictable fashion other patterns that vary in width between #1 and #2.

At that stage, don't you think the shot might behave as a solid mass rather than individual pellets, especially in a shot cup?

Another question could be, after they leave the shot cup, are the pellets still round. Maybe downrange predictability depends on the integrity of the shot after it separates from the barrel and the wad.

Mike,

Thanks for posting the pictures. This is very important to me as I shoot fixed modified chokes at sporting clays, and use spreaders for presentations that are both very close and very fast, like stupid close rabbits, which poor target setters insist are "fun". My bet would be that the pattern in the middle is with the SpredR insert totally on top of the charge, and that the right pattern is with the insert having a small layer of shot on top of it. I use them both ways, too, but usually put a layer of shot on top to keep patchiness out of the center of the pattern. On second thought, does one of them have holes in the disc on top of the insert?

SRH

Well all I was really saying was that for a given amount of shot the shorter & fatter the column the shot will be much more prone to exit the barrel "ROUND" rather than "Squashed". Still don't see what's so hard to understand abut that.
Best Shotgun advice I ever read was to decide how much shot you wanted to throw, how heavy a gun you were willing to carry & how much recoil you could tolerate.
Once you reached a reasonable compromise on those three point, select a gun with the biggest hole down the barrel which met those criteria.

Stan--When I've fooled around reloading spreaders in the past, I've use the hole technique vs layer of shot on top. It's one that Jay at Polywad recommends. Mine is a slight variation: 3 semicircles cut in the periphery of the disc with a one hole paper punch. Seems to produce an even, more open distribution and eliminates the weak center you sometimes get with a solid disc.

Good idea, I've seen that done, but never tried it myself. If I ever get my pattern plate up I have lots of experimental loads to try like that. I'm just tired of messing with paper. I load part of my shot on top of the insert and have been getting very good results out of my .020" choked MX8.

SRH

What squashes it and where is it squashed? On the top of the shot, on the bottom or both? It seems to me that, if this is the case, the top layer of shot would be squashed on the bottom, the bottom layer would be squashed on the top and the intermediate layers would be squashed on both top and bottom. Yet, I have seen perfectly round unsquashed shot in birds. I really don't understand your theory and question its validity, but I could be wrong. I can see that the shot in contact with the bore could be misshapen altho shot cups should limit that. Anyone else have any thoughts on the squash theory?

Stan,

You, Larry, I and others discussed spreaders at length a couple of years ago. Glad to hear it's working for you in your clays gun...silly rabbits was my motivation for investigating the technique.

Complete with pictures....

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=335998&page=1

Thanks for that lInk. I reread it and it refreshed some things that had slipped my mind. One thing for sure. I'm a solid believer in disc and post inserts with some shot on top. And, thanks again for posting that pictorial on using the 9000G to do it. It's been a big help for me.

I won a little local tournament last Saturday with the .020" x .020" MX8, and those spreaders were just the ticket on two very close rabbit stations.

All my best, SRH

One wonders how those little round shot got to that bird.
Surely I was not suggesting they were hit a terrific blow by the rapidly burning powder to "Kick" them on their way. Man if you don't understand that I don't think you even know how a shotgun works. Most of the deformation of the shot will of course occur to those at the bottom of the shell, they have to push the ones in front of them. The round ones were the ones which didn't get deformed & flew the straightest thus killed the bird.

Mike, good photos that show what can be done out of fixed choke barrells. I believe in spreaders for extremely close targets just like I believe in tight chokes in large bore guns with light shot loads. Believing in your equipment is half the game. Let's you focus on the target forget about the gun and load.

Boats

Amen, and amen, Boats.

SRH

Well, it's not a theory. It is a proven fact that setback causes shot to be misshapen. Also fact that the shot on the bottom of the load are more prone to be misshapen than those on top. Antimony helps to lessen that, as does collapsible wad columns and, IMO, moderate muzzle velocities. I just don't believe shot will be misshapen as badly started out at 1100 fps as they will at 1350. Simple physics.

SRH

100% correct Stan.Truly I though everyone was aware of this.
The more velocity & the longer the shot column the more important premium components become.

Sometimes the wheel needs to be reinvented . . . or memories refreshed. It's like a number of the "Finding Out For Myself" series of articles Sherman Bell has done in Double Gun Journal. Much of what he covers (like using shells the fired length of which is longer than the chamber in which they were fired) was covered by people like Burrard and Thomas in British publications, but not necessarily well-known on this side of the pond. Refresher courses (or reminders of previous discussions) can be valuable.

I was gonna ignore this thread because it just got too stupid to believe, but WTF I got a couple min. IIRC the term simple physics was invoked. Was that a reference to traditional Newtonian Physics or some other brand? Can some actual examples be provided? And some documentation about the bottom being more deformed? - especially since they are not even touched by other shot on one side? Things like acceleration/velocity vs deformation rates. Some illustrative calcs of the load differentials top to bottom and the relation to deformation and whatever limits there may be to that.
I'm certain that this bottom load thing will prove to be a seminal component of shotgun ballistics in times to come and providing some real world scientific analysis to it at this point can only lead to furthering world peace and eliminating hunger everywhere.

have another day
Dr.WtS

If you could talk in a way that was not so perfectly condescending I would discuss this with you, Charles. But, you can't. And, I won't. Suffice it to say that I was not talking about the very bottom layer of pellets, but the ones on the bottom in general as compared to those in the top part of the column. And, yes. I could provide evidence, which I will not.

Go find somebody else to belittle with your arrogance.

SRH

"AMEN"

It would seem about 5 pages is as far as a thread can go before it starts to implode. I have learned a lot from this and hoped to continue. Those of you that have scientific facts to present please do. If you feel the Cliff note version is more appropriate please do so. I freely admit to having streak of laziness and hate counting little holes, I've had enough of that. Info is welcome the rest isn't very entertaining. Mark

Tom Roster:

There has been imported into this country for years electrolysis process, nickel-plated lead shot from Italy for reloading and in certain Italian-origin factory lead loads. The plating is excellent as is the sphericity of the lead core. Unfortunately, these pellets have universally measured quite low in antimony in my tests. The end result to any lead pellet with a low antimonial content, whether plated or not, is to suffer a high degree of setback deformation during combustion.

Layne Simpson:

Adding antimony to shot makes it harder, and the more antimony added up to a point, the harder it becomes. The harder the shot is, the better it is able to resist setback deformation during firing, .....

Bob Brister:

The modern plastic shot cup wad protects shot from barrel-scrubbing deformation, but not from ignition setback, forcing cones, and choke pressures ------------ Hard pellets can resist such pressures; soft ones may deform, particularly rearward rows of pellets at the time of ignition. .

SRH

Stan, I'm sure that Mr. Brister must've been in error.

Seriously, good quote.

I beg to disagree, I believe Brister is correct

I am on the road this week and next and do not have access to my Library, but feel comfortable with my response.

Larry said that in jest, old colonel. He believes Brister is correct, too.

Just for funsies here, let's hear someone who does NOT believe in lead shot setback deformation tell us why they think steel shot patterns so much tighter, out of the exact same barrel and choke, than lead. Steel shot is not subject to setback deformation, thus not nearly as many "fliers" on the periphery of the pattern.

SRH

Hmmm, now that doesn't sound too entertaining. Actually Stan, thanks for taking the time to offer examples.

Since when do unsupported imaginings need to be respected? Condescending? Guess again. Try dismissive of BS.

I didn't say there was no deformation - what I said was that this bearing the load/bottom load differential is BS no matter the gauge making something out of nothing. The "evidence" given above is nothing more than opinions and suppositions regardless of who said it. Including no reasonably scientific evaluation of whatever effect may be expected and how that might be of some demonstrable consequence. If you want to play the discovering the physical universe game you should learn first how to do that in a framework that provides some verification of whatever it is you are after.

Just because you think it doesn't make it real

Just because you believe it doesn't make it true.

have another day
Dr.WtS

Extremely high speed photography showing photos of the shot charge at the muzzle might help explain this, but what happens before the ejecta leaves the barrel is only supposition. I kinda agree with wonko (for a change) on this.

He called a bs flag, fine, but only Stan provided sources to investigate.

It is a proven fact as far as I'm concerned, that a single lead bullets' nose will deform back towards the base on firing, and the nose will show deformation after it clears the muzzle even though it didn't touch some wad material, other shot or the barrel.

Wonko joked about Newton and science. If a hundred, or pick a number, shotcup pellets made the ride down a barrel unmolested. Why wouldn't the leading surface of a perfect sphere deform back to some degree of out of round. Then again, there's decent evidence that the individual pellets do get affected, by unevenly applied physics, on their ride down a bore.

If someone were willing to accept the high speed photo evidence of shot after it left the muzzle, and not willing to accept any setback concept, then it must be the choke? Why would we get deformed flyers out of a cylinder bore? Wouldn't it be fairly easy to confirm how true the pellets were before loading the test shells, and couldn't we take a couple apart to make sure our loading technique didn't damage the shot?

We've now got theories that the bottom pellets get deformed, that the leading pellets get deformed and that the pellets in contact with the bore get deformed. It's a surprise that any round pellets remain. Just to add fuel to the fire, does it make any difference as to the size of the pellets?

Interesting images of deformed, and not so deformed shot here
http://shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=307860

Purposefully non-round shot is the 'newest thing'
Hevi-shot
http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/262799-non-toxic-shot/
Winchester HexShot
http://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2011/9/9/winchester-blind-side/
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/02/06/winchesters-new-blind-side-shotshells/

Re: shot stringing

Ed Lowry, ballistician and the director of research at Olin-Winchester, spark shadowgraphs in "The Effect of a Shotstring" American Rifleman, November 1979

Yes, very much so.

Tom Roster:

It is a fact that the larger the lead pellet being employed, the lower the antimonial content needs to be for that pellet to have the same degree of resistance to deformation as a lead pellet of a smaller diameter. Thus it is a common practice among American shotshell manufacturers to generally adhere to the following table for antimonial content in lead shot they call “hard”:

Shot Size

Antimonial Level

Buckshot

½ to 1%

No. BB to 2

1 to 2½%

No. 4 to 6

3 to 4%

No. 7 to 8

5 to 6%

No. 8½ to 9 for
skeet shooting



3%





Therefore, for example, it takes about a 6% antimonial level to make a size No. 8 lead pellet as resistant to deformation as larger buckshot-sized lead pellets containing only ½% antimony. Regarding the above table, just where the shot size break occurs and just what the actual amount of antimony added per pellet size and load type may be, can vary from U.S. manufacturer to manufacturer.

SRH

I forget the absolute number off hand but lead deforms (Upsets) at a bit over 1400 psi times the Brinell Hardness number. The "Blow" of the burning powder hits the load from the back, therefore that's where the worst upsetting occurs. To upset the front after it exits the muzzle it has to have enough air resistance to exceed the deformation Threshold. A too Hard cast bullet fired from will lead the breech of the barrel in the cone because it Does Not upset & the gas cuts by it causing the leading. In the shotgun of course the wad is supposed to be sealing the gas from eroding the shot.
Maybe I've not studied all the "Books" some have but a lot years of fooling with a lot of things of a mechanical nature I have gained a bit more common Sense than a few here seem to have. Lay a short fat lead rod down on its side & another long a lick on one end slender one of the same weight. Hit them both a lick on one end with a hammer which covers their entire face & see which one deforms the most & where it occurs.
By the same token a shot load with a long shot column has more resistance per square inch to being moved than does a shorter column.

Hey guys: Let's not forget appropriate political correctness. Those pellets aren't deformed. They're just differently formed.

That is good

As noted in earlier posts the deformation at the base of the ahot load demonstrably occurs.

The point Wonko makes, or so I understand, is even if it deformation does occur, it makes no difference is wrong, just as the point that shot stringing makes no difference.

Deformation leads to longer shot strings and longer shot strings mean less density and in addition less uniformity of dispersion. I realize that the shot string (cloud) is moving fast, but it is not that fast that the targets speed is negated completely. The pictures in Brister's book clearly show this.

How can those pictures of shot strings on moving targets be disregarded?

And let's not forget a theory is a supposition. All of which provide excuses for my misses. Long live pattern theory.

Long live the one or two flyers for me, probably accounts for more feel goods than the best patterns could.

Pattern theory involves Pachinko fizzicks as Oberfell & Thompson realized long before anyone came up with PAM, which was predated by LDA [Latent Dirichlet Allocation], but still well after the penultimate werk done in Oklahoma by a couple of guys having a lot of fun earning their doctorates.

IOW, rather than get into a Bayesian inference or getting into the posterior of distribution, hard data remains vague, but one can recognize the footprint easily enough .. on a grease plate.

He called a bs flag, fine, but only Stan provided sources to investigate.
Not a data source, just more opinions.

It is a proven fact as far as I'm concerned, that a single lead bullets' nose will deform back towards the base on firing, and the nose will show deformation after it clears the muzzle even though it didn't touch some wad material, other shot or the barrel.
Maybe at light speed as a near plasma
Why wouldn't the leading surface of a perfect sphere deform back to some degree of out of round.
Maybe at light speed as a near plasma
It is a fact that the larger the lead pellet being employed, the lower the antimonial content needs to be for that pellet to have the same degree of resistance to deformation as a lead pellet of a smaller diameter.
No - lead has the same resistance to deformation regardless of shape or size but a larger pellet will suffer less surface AREA deformation as a consequence of GREATER SURFACE AREA in relation to contact area with other pellets

By the same token a shot load with a long shot column has more resistance per square inch to being moved than does a shorter column.

Just back from Hogwarts refresher course? I'll bet you think that somehow influences inertia. So two objects of the same material and same mass but different shapes will resist acceleration at different rates. I think that violates all three of Newton's Laws of Motion

I realize that the shot string (cloud) is moving fast, but it is not that fast that the targets speed is negated completely. The pictures in Brister's book clearly show this.
Yes it is. No they don't. Not running down Brister - he tried. If you care to calculate how long it takes for a shot string to pass a given point and how far a target moves in that time guess what happens?

tw - "Pattern theory involves Pachinko fizzicks as Oberfell & Thompson realized long before anyone came up with PAM, which was predated by LDA [Latent Dirichlet Allocation], but still well after the penultimate werk done in Oklahoma by a couple of guys having a lot of fun earning their doctorates.

IOW, rather than get into a Bayesian inference or getting into the posterior of distribution, hard data remains vague, but one can recognize the footprint easily enough .. on a grease plate."

At last, a cogent comment. Tip o'the hat to tw

'bout it for me thanks for playing
I always enjoy seeing the physical universe redefined

have another day
Dr.WtS

Hi Doc,
I made sure that I mentioned that my bullet nose example satisfied myself. I brought it up because it can be pretty straight forward to factor in the various forms of base damage and contact damage. I believe my example can affect how true the bullet flies at much lower speeds than in your opinion.

What I find fascinating is you can make consecutive comments about how surface area can matter, and then not.

If they're all spheres, there are going to be less of the bigger spheres, so there will be a lower number of points contacting. If you think that's where they'll distort, and to the same degree as a smaller sphere, then maybe there will be a LESSER surface area of damage to the bigger sphere. Do you think that's why someone mentioned that the industry may go to higher antimony for smaller shot sizes?

Also, haven't you ever noticed that it takes more pounds pushing on the lesser square inches of a smaller bore to end up with the same velocity? I agree with you, maybe tw has it figured out the best, but is it facts like yours or opinion like ours.

I can't believe that I'm doing this.

I have never seen, nor have I ever heard of the ammo industry being concerned about lead nosed bullets, traveling at several times the velocity of shot, deforming in-flight.

I did say there was less total surface area deformed on large pellets as a simple consequence of size.

"Also, haven't you ever noticed that it takes more pounds pushing on the lesser square inches of a smaller bore to end up with the same velocity? "

A nothing less than astounding statement. Does the formula F=MxA ring a bell?

And a final note to all you squashy people, a hint: Newton's Third Law of Motion.



have another day
Dr.WtS

Thanks for all your posts and comments. Please continue as needed.

Me neither wonko, I can't believe it.

When did I ever write 'industry'. If you want, I can read it to you, I was hoping you might be able. I revisited it because you revisited it, nothing more stated or implied.

As to your f=ma. Again, you're off track. So what if you can recite a generic formula. How does it calculate deformation of the pellets? I'm with cpa, I encourage you to continue.

Thank you for pages 5 through 9 of this thread. If not for the discourse contained therein, I might have forgotten that I was at DGS

WTS comparing ballistics for large lead masses (bullets) imparted with greater energy and rifled rotation with far smaller and more fragile lead pellets travelling slower is not completely valid. While lead bullet deformation is different from shot even with lead bullet casting the hardness of the lead alloy is a considered factor, this is because deformation is a factor here as well. Even artillery projectile surfaces are a considered factor in the development of indirect fire accuracy.

You constantly use the term BS, a great way to argue rhetorically, but fundamentally flawed in reason and not helpful.

Deformation does occur, it is a signicant factor in patterns as is shot stringing and it has been demonstrated by writers already cited. It is obvious to me that those who believe the opposite are not to be convinced.

My only regret in this discussion is throughout I have been travelling in North Carolina and do not have my library at home in Kansas in hand to cite in specific quotes. That said, I doubt they would convince some anyway.

The bore area of a 12g is 75% larger than that of a 28ga.
Put an ounce of shot in both & the column will be 75% longer.
To move that "Mass" with the force applied to only 57% of the area requires either a higher pressure per Sq In, longer burn time or in most cases both. Yes per square inch the longer column give more inertial resistance to moving. That doesn't contradict any of the "Laws" you have cited. I may well be a "Dumb Country Boy" & not as highly educated as you are but I am Not totally Ignorant.

I spoke at length with Tom Roster this afternoon by telephone. I was really appreciative, and little surprised, that when he answered he took the time to talk, but he did. I asked him if anybody had ever done scientific testing on lead shot loads to determine if lead shot deformation, due to setback at ignition, was greater in any area of the shot load than any other area. I told him I thought I remembered reading about some such testing many years ago, and had searched the 'net for the last several days trying to find such, but had struck out. He said that someone had indeed done that, about 30 years ago, and that someone was him. What he did was basically this: Tom, who doing a research paper at an institute of technology somewhere, painted lead shot, from the same bag, three different colors. He then loaded it into a regular shotshell load in three layers ..... one color for the bottom third of the shot column, one third for the middle, and one third at the top ... each layer a different color. He then fired the loads (more than one) into a tank of water. (He paused to remind me that water will NOT deform a lead shot pellet when fired into it). Then, he recovered the pellets and segregated them by color. He said it was VERY obvious that the pellets that were on the bottom of the load were much more deformed than the one-third layer above it, and that the top third were the least deformed.

I had remembered reading about this test long ago, but could not put a finger on who did it and when, could not find evidence of it on the 'net, so did not mention it earlier in this thread. It just so happens that the one I called was the one who actually did the testing. Tom said the tests were not ON the net, because the net had not been invented when he did the tests, and he had never put the results on there.

He went on to tell me about two other tests he had done concerning lead shot pellet shape ballistics, but they do not pertain to this particular issue.

I refused to discuss this with the arrogant, and ill mannered individual who has replied several times here, but this may be interesting to some other cogent, and truly, sane board members here. What the other individual thinks of it really doesn't matter to me.

SRH

I was just thinking last night of such an experiment altho I wasn't aware it had been done. Didn't realize water wouldn't deform the shot. It would be interesting to take high speed, high resolution color pictures of such a load when fired thru various chokes.

It doesn't take a lot of deformation, as I understand it, to create more drag and cause the pellet to move to the rear and/or the fringe of the shot string. I have looked at high speed photography "stills" of the shot string and it is impossible to see deformation due to the poor resolution of such photographs. Tom has very strong evidence that the roundest pellets are the ones in the front and the core of the shot string. The more deformed the pellets, the more to the rear and the fringe of the pattern are their positions.

If you disagree with his findings, and can show cause where his experiments were faulty or faked, I suggest you call him yourself. He has plenty credibility, after decades in the shotshell ballistics field, to not need my defense.

SRH

Stan;
Thank so much for this report. I had really forgotten all about this test but since you brought it up I do recall seeing it & about the different colored shot layers. Just another of the bits & pieces I have stored to memory but can't always bring to mid just here I picked up different bits of info. This certainly goes right along with several of us have been saying all along with some actual testing to verify.
As you say of course there are those who still won't buy it, but a lot will.

Relax. I said nothing about disagreeing with his findings nor anything about his experiments being faulty or faked.

Thanks much also Stan. I doubt all would accept it as fact, but still you've shown us one place to look. Did he mention what caused that lower third of the shot column to show more distortion? I suppose if we assume they're all distorted the same, and crack open the ole text book, then some equal but opposite force acted on the top third. But, except for the blowup pictures, there doesn't seem to be much holding the shot in barrel when a shell is lit off.

I did not intend that last statement about disagreeing with his findings to be toward you, cpa. But, reading back over it I see that it certainly looks like that. It was originally directed at those who doubt any findings, by researchers, that don't agree with their own. I did not do a very good job of expressing myself. My bad.

SRH

Thank you Stan for your research with Tom Roster.

No problem, there was really a lot of luck involved. I thought I remembered someone doing that test many years ago, but didn't remember enough to post about it. I figured if anybody would know if some kind of test like that had been done it would be Tom. It was just kinda like a burr under my saddle, if you know what I mean, until I found out.

I am thankful to Tom for decades of no-nonsense shotshell ballistics research and study, and to Dave for providing us with this forum to discuss it.

All my best, SRH

Stan, that's a test I hadn't heard of before. Certainly looks to be pretty solid evidence that the rear pellets deform more. Thanks for doing some digging.

There would seem to me to be NO mystery as to why the deformation occurs more in the rer pellets than the front ones.
When he shell is fired the pressure "HITS" the shot in the rear. The rear shot have the weight of all those in front of them to move while the front ones are only pushing air.
Take a lead bar & lay it down on its side. Smack one end gud'n hard with a hammer. see which end is swelled, the end where you hit it or the other.
Forget all the scientific theory that has been spouted & use your brain a bit. Tom's experiment that Stan has quoted has verified this but this is what would have been expected all along.
That 1400 something psi per Brinell hardness number I quoted earlier for the deformation of lead is actually 1422 psi. I first encountered this in reading about cast bullets in revolvers where it was stated the bullet should not be so hard as to resist bumping up to seal the chamber throat. Not sure about the spelling but the 1422 psi was cited from Veral/Vernal Smith. A bit of research shows this is actually the figure in determining Brinell Hardness which is based on Kilograms per Sq MM. 1 Kilo per 1mm converts to 1422 lbs per Sq In. thus if you smack the shot with a 10K psi load the shot will have to have a Brinell Hardness of 7 to resist deformation.

Wonderful and non-quantified. It's VERY obvious to me that it was well intended and VERY obvious that it must have been fun. It is also VERY obvious that some real science was thot about but it's VERY obvious that it was not realized. I think it's VERY obvious that it is necessary for quantifiable data be obtained and usually upon analysis that makes some justifiable conclusions VERY obvious.

Aside from a number of other aspects of the methodology that I'd be curious about, it's VERY obvious to me that I would like to know if post-shooting, after the pellets were segregated on the basis of the paint color was the paint removed and the condition of the pellets assessed (altho VERY obviously not quantifiably) or was the painted surface the subject of the findings?
inquiring minds and all that, y'know

And to the person that thinks the shape of a mass affects its inertia - I'll agree that you are not ignorant since that contention in the light of the 21stCentury (really, the 17thCentury) is just stupid.
Sir Isaac Newton also observed this:
"I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people."

have another day
Dr.WtS

The shape of a mass affects its coefficient of drag. So a 1/480th of an ounce piece of lead in a thin plate shape will have much higher drag than a 1/480th of an ounce piece of lead in a tear drop shape. But both would have the same mass, inertia, and momentum, everything else being equal. If both left the muzzle at 1200 fps the plate shape would then slow down much faster than the tear drop shaped mass. Both had the same inertia before the shell was fired and the same momentum at the muzzle. After that the tear drop mass would maintain its velocity and momentum at higher values than the flat plate mass because its drag was less than the plate.

The shot at the bottom of the shot column are under more stress for the same reason the pressure at the bottom of the ocean is much higher than the pressure at the surface. Acceleration of the shot column taking the place of the earth's gravitational field in the ocean.

I thought this was about what shot does when it clears the muzzle of a shotgun. Are you thinking that an ounce of #8's that are fired off in the direction of the sky put a few hundred little asteroids into a predictable orbit? I checked all the scientific links and logical conclusions that you provided, and it still doesn't seem quite right. What am I missing?

"What am I missing?"

A life?

Did you know Isaac Newton's kid brother Robert (aka Bobbie Figs) invented a cookie?


_______________________
Figs! Huh!! What are they good for? (making delicious cookies)

Little known fact - Bobby Figs, with the assistance of Isaac, invented a time machine. That's why the cookie came so many years later. I ran into Bobby twice. The first time at an Exploited concert in London and then at a comicon. He was doing JabbatheHut cosplay. Cool dude for his age.

have another day
Dr.WtS

little asteroids hahahaha that is really funny

WTS, your argument is resembles a Monty Python skit of simply repeating "no it's not"

It is worthless to endeavor further with your simply negative response. Your call, as I see it, to provide the actual lab data may seem witty, but is specious, as you have failed to do the same to support you VERY arguements.

This has become another thread descended into foolishness and not worth bothering with, I wish you well

Inertia holds it in the barrel. The shot continually accelerates until it clears the muzzle. Being acclerated by the wad, the inertia of the shot causes a force on the wad toward the breech. The pressure from the hot gases from the burned / burning powder causes an opposing force on the wad and pushes the wad, and thus the shot, towards the muzzle. The force on the powder side of the wad is much greater than the force caused by the inertia on the other side of the wad. This differences accounts for the extreme acceleration of 0 to 1200fps in two and one half feet.

"Your call, as I see it, to provide the actual lab data may seem witty, but is specious, as you have failed to do the same to support you VERY arguements."

I'd be happy to do that very thing and since there is NO Real Data available you and whomever else is interested in real data just gather together and send along about $50K to cover my time/equipment costs. No Problemo.

have another day
Dr.WtS

Wonko;
I'll just save my $$$$ & continue to accept what has already been proven over a century or so of use & Ignore your "Insane" babblings. It is of course one thing to be able to quote a few formulas & altogether another to be able to understand how to apply them. It is quite obvious you have no idea of the actual application of the formula you so freely cited.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm confused and would like you to explain with science why the force on a smaller gauge shot pattern is greater than on a larger gauge. I think we all probably agree that Newton got it right, and force = mass x acceleration. Given that the mass of small and larger gauge 1 oz. loads is equal, they have equal chamber pressure and assuming they both have the same muzzle velocity out of the same length barrel, are you saying that the smaller gauge accelerates faster? what would happen if you used a thicker shot cup and loaded a 20 gauge shot column in a 12 gauge shell with the same load as the 12 gauge (assuming you adjust the load slightly for the increased weight of the new shot cup)? Would the force be different than the 12 gauge loading?

cpa the pressure at the bottom of a 1000' column of water is ten times higher than the pressure at the bottom of a 100' column of water. The reason is that there is 900' more of water stacked on on the bottom (and water is practically incompressible).

Stand a 12 gauge empty cartridge and a 28 gauge empty cartridge on their base on a table. Fill each with 1oz of #9s. The 28 gauge shot column will be taller/longer than the 12 gauge. Suppose the 28ga column is twice as tall/long (I don't know what it would be).

When you accelerate that shot from stationary to 1200 second in a fraction of a second that shot is under huge acceleration, or Gs, as they say in aerobatics and at NASA. A "G" is one earth gravitational field. The water columns in my first example were under one "G". The shot is experiencing dozens or hundreds of Gs, again I don't know the number. But the shot at the bottom of the shot column is pushing the next layer of shot which is pushing the next layer shot which is pushing the next layer of shot. Just as in the ocean the "pressure" of the shot at the bottom of the shot column is experiencing a much higher pressure the the shot at the top of the column.

Edit: And the taller/longer the shot column the more the pressure on the bottom layer of shot.

And how does that relate to force = mass x acceleration and the statement that small gauges experience more force than larger gauges which is what I understood the earlier post to say. Of course a 1,000 ft column of water has more pressure than a 100 ft. column because it has more mass. Are you saying that the acceleration of the longer shot column is greater than the shorter column even though both reach the same velocity at the end of the barrel? I believe that is the only way you could experience greater force as the mass of the shot columns are the same. The analogy of the ocean isn't valid because of the mass difference. Again, f=m x a per Mr. Newton. There is no provision in the formula for differences in shape of the mass. Again, if you loaded a 20 gauge shot column in a 12 gauge shell using a thicker wad to make up for the larger bore, would that have more force than the orginal 12 gauge load? If so, what would cause the greater force given that mass and acceleration have not changed.

cpa its not just the mass, it is the mass and the height. Suppose in my original example the two columns, 100' and 1000', were each in pipe with 1 square foot cross section. Suppose that I pour the water in the 1000' column into a pipe with a 50 square foot cross section. Then that water column would only be 20' tall. Then the pressure at the bottom of that 20' column would be lower than the 100' column, even though the 20' column had ten times more mass.

Same with 1 ounces of shot in the 28 gauge and the 12 gauge. In effect, the water is deeper in the 28 gauge and so the pressure at the bottom of the column is higher.

I think we're talking about force applied to the shot charge which is subject to Newton's law - not water in a column. Per square inch the pressure in the 20' column would obviously be less because there is less mass above it - 240 cubic inches versus 1200 cu. in. In the shot columns, both have the same mass, and volume - they simply have different height. Likewise the 28 gauge shot column in your example has exactly the same mass as the 12 gauge. It just has smaller area, but the cubic inches of shot and mass are the same.

You are correct that the work done on the shot by accelerating one ounce of shot to 1200 fps in the 28 gauge is the same as accelerating one ounce of shot to 1200 fps in the 12 gauge.

(work is calculated by multiplying force times distance).

But again, in reference to the stress on the shot in the bottom layer of the one-ounce shot column, everything else being equal, the 12 gauge shot will be less stressed than the 28 gauge shot.

Three physically identical acrobats standing on the gym floor have the same weight on their two feet. But stack them up, feet on shoulders, three high and the one on the bottom has three times as much stress on his feet as the one on top. But the mass remained the same in both cases.

"the 12 gauge shot will be less stressed that the 28 gauge shot."
That's a whole different statement than made earlier. Your analogy of acrobats is lacking, I think. When they are on each other's shoulders, the mass on the bottom feet is three times as much as the mass on the feet if there is only one person standing on the feet, assuming all weigh the same. Come on, Mike. You know the water column and the acrobat argument are bogus as the mass changes.

By me?



In my analogy there were two cases:

1st case. The three identical acrobats are all standing on the gym floor.

2nd case. One of the identical acrobats is standing on the gym floor, a second acrobat is standing on his shoulders, and the third is standing on the second acrobats shoulders.

In both cases the three acrobats have the same total mass. But even though the mass is the same the acrobat standing on the floor in the second case has three times as much stress on his feet as the acrobat at the top.

No, I don't think by you. Sorry if you thought my initial comment related to your post.

Not if you add the stress of feet 1, feet 2 and feet 3. Then it is the same. Of course the stress on a person with three times the mass is greater, just as it would be if acrobat 1 weighed three times what the others weighed. But it wouldn't make any difference if they all weighed the same, but were taller in one instance than another. Three six feet acrobats on top of each other don't exert more stress than three five feet acrobats, assuming they all weigh the same.
Actually I suspect what we're really talking about is force per square inch, not total force which is what the earlier poster stated, I believe. Assuming equal force (m x a), and a smaller area then force/sq. in would be greater.

But we are talking about stress deforming the bottom layer of lead shot but not the top layer. So, in case 2, the bottom acrobat's feet have three times more stress than the top acrobat's feet and so his feet are more likely to be deformed than the those of the acrobat on top. I repeat, the bottom acrobats feet are supporting the weight of three acrobats, the top acrobat's feet support just one. But the mass of the three acrobats is the same in both case one and case two.

In my analogy the three acrobats are identical.

But you're still comparing apples and oranges. The top acrobat with mass =1, the bottom acrobat with mass =3. Of course the bottom acrobat's feet would experience more stress.

In Case 1 and in Case 2 the three identical acrobats have the same total mass. Suppose the identical acrobats weigh 150 pounds each. In both cases you have 450 pounds total weight. But in Case 2 one of the acrobats has three times as much weight (450 lbs) on his feet as he did in Case 1 (150 lbs). Yet the weight on the gym floor is 450 pounds in both cases.

Since you concede that the acrobat on the bottom has more stress on his feet can't you concede that the shot at the bottom of a shot column would receive more stress than that at the top of the shot column? That that shot at the bottom would have more weight on it than the shot at the top of the column during an acceleration that takes it from stationary to 1200 fps in a fraction of a second?

Obviously correct, but you're not talking about total stress on the gym floor - you're talking about the stress on that poor bottom fella's feet. I'll definitely concede that resting in a shotgun shell, the top pellets experience less stress than the bottom ones. That hasn't been what we were talking about.
Again, back to shot columns, I think we're actually talking about force per square inch, which would be greater the smaller the cross section of the column assuming total force is the same. That is different than the statement that total force is greater for a longer column.

Well, what about when all three stand on the floor, as in Case 1? Each acrobat is carrying 150 pounds on his feet. No acrobat has 450 pounds his feet. But the gym floor carries 450 pounds of acrobat. Stack them up and the gym floor still carries 450 pounds of acrobat. The gym floor provides 450 pounds of force in the opposite direction of the weight of the three acrobats both in Case 1 and Case 2. But only in Case 2 are an acrobat's feet subjected to 450 pounds.

Yeah, that's correct, but so what? The force on the gym floor is spread out over three footprints instead of one, but you weren't talking about stress on the gym floor - you were talking about stress on that poor guy's feet. That's not the same.

Well, actually they are.

So if we moved those acrobats to a rocket and controlled that rocket's motors so that there was a constant 5 G acceleration then those acrobats in Case 1 would each carry 750 pounds on their feet and that bottom acrobat in Case 2 would be carrying 2,250 pounds on his feet. And that rocket floor those acrobats were standing on would in Case 1 and Case 2 be providing 2,250 pounds of force to acrobats feet.

The force accelerating those acrobats (both cases) is analogous to the force accelerating the shot in a shot cup. The quantities are different but the algebra is the same for acrobats or birdshot.

In a 12 gauge shot cup the one ounce of shot is not as deep as in the 28 gauge shot cup. So the bottom layer of shot in the 12 gauge shotcup has less stress than the bottom layer of the shot in the 28 gauge shotcup.

As I've said, the force per square inch would be greater in the 28 gauge, but the total force would be the same. It would appear that that would also be correct for the rocket propelled acrobats as in case 1 they would have cross sectional area of three sets of feet and in case two the area of of only one set. I believe this began as a discussion that total force in smaller gauges is greater than force in larger gauges, and you have conceded that total force is the same in a 28 as a 12. It's been fun.

"As I've said, the force per square inch would be greater in the 28 gauge, but the total force would be the same." AGREED

"It would appear that that would also be correct for the rocket propelled acrobats as in case 1 they would have cross sectional area of three sets of feet and in case two the area of of only one set." AGREED

"I believe this began as a discussion that total force in smaller gauges is greater than force in larger gauges, and you have conceded that total force is the same in a 28 as a 12."
I'm not conceding because I never argued that the work (force times distance) applied to 1 ounce of shot to accelerate it 1200 fps was anything but identical in the two gauges. But I do argue that the bottom layer of shot in a 28 gauge one ounce load is subjected to higher stress/force/pressure than the bottom layer of shot in a 12 gauge one ounce load.

Pressure times area equals force. The pressure from the burning gunpowder is higher in a 28 gauge (compared to a twelve) but the area of the wad is smaller in a 28 gauge. Pressure times area equals force.

" It's been fun" Agree!

Here's the kicker, you did not agree with this a few pages back when doc wonko made fun of the fact that more pounds could be shown to push on less square inches of a smaller bore to end up with the same velocity for the same weight of shot. I'm gonna call it weight rather than mass because I don't believe shot is fired in Newton's zero gravity vacuum.

Also, if you're conceding that some different force is acting on the shot that's closest to the PSI's of the ignited powder, doc wonko might turn on you and bite.

I also firmly believe that it takes more force to get an ounce of shot out of a 28 ga. tube than it does to get an ounce of the same shot out of a 12 ga. bore. To end up with the same velocity, I believe more friction needs to be overcome as the bore gets smaller, not just inertia. Fun in a weird kind of way.

Hence the higher pressures witnessed in the smallbores.......???

So you put a guy on his back, legs and hands up, like an upside down dog…

Then you have him support an 8’ dia. piece of plywood on his hands and feet.

Then you spread 30lbs. of square shot (so it does not roll off) evenly on the board.

Then you ask him to lower the board and push up as fast as he can, and then ask him on a scale of one to ten, how hard it was.

Take the same guy on his back, except with a 4’ dia. piece of plywood (of a thickness that equals the same weight of the 8’ dia.) and place the same thirty pounds of square shot on the board.

Then you ask him to lower the board and push up as fast as he can, and ask him on a scale of one to ten, how hard it was.

All things being equal, he used the same energy and force (other than the extra air resistance for the larger dia.)

In other words, he did not have to be stronger to push the smaller dia. board that was carrying the same weight/mass.

Right?

CraigD - "that more pounds could be shown to push on less square inches of a smaller bore to end up with the same velocity for the same weight of shot. "
More pounds are not pushing on fewer square inches. The same pounds are pushing on fewer sq. in. Thus, total force the same, but force per sq. in is less.
Some other questions come to mind. How far up the shot column does the "force" cause the pellets to become deformed? What happens if, instead of a column of individual shot pellets, you have a lead cylinder of the same weight? When, and if, does a shot column begin to behave like a solid lead cylinder?
There are fewer pellets in each cross sectional area of the smaller gauge, so fewer pellets on the "bottom". Does this decrease in number have an effect on total deformed pellets? If both the small gauge and the large gauge were fired from a cylinder bore, would you get a greater dispersion from the smaller bore because of deformed pellets becoming outliers from the main pattern. Think about what happens if you carry this to absurd extremes - that is, bore size is decreased until it equals pellet size or increased until you have just one layer of pellets.
I think there is much that is not known about the process. There is no shortage of opinions, anecdotal evidence and some non-controlled empirical evidence. I'm biased toward theoretical constructions validated by evidence from controlled repeatable experiments, which is what I think Wonko was saying.

When I wrote my arguments here I always tried make them apply to just the shot. You can get into the mass of everything being ejected - shot, wad, burned powder and hot gasses. You can get into the energy expended in deformation of the wad, the deformation of the shot, the heating of the shot, the heating of the barrel, the opening of the crimp, bore friction etc... But the great bulk of the work is expended overcoming the inertia of the shot charge in order to accelerate it from 0 to 1200 fps.

cpa we are interested in the deformation of shot because it is accepted that deformed shot affects patterns and causes shot stringing.

In your example of a barrel with a bore diameter equal to diameter of a single pellet, say #8 and one ounce, the bottom pellet of that shot charge would be under much higher stress than a shot on the bottom of a shot column of 1 ounce of #8s in a 12 gauge. Just like the feet of the bottom acrobat in Case 2.

Isaac Newtons laws of physics, at the velocities we are talking about, are the theory, and much of the modern technology has developed using them. People like Bob Brister and John Olin and Tom Armbrust have done the empirical experiments that validate shot stringing and shot deformation. They proved that harder lead shot (with antimony) strung less that softer shot. The theory being that it deformed less and so had a lower coefficient of drag than shot that was more deformed. The painted shot test proved that the bottom third of a shot column deformed more than the top layer. So the experimental confirms what the laws of physics predict.

If you build a shotgun where one ounce of #8s will cover the bottom of the wad in one layer you will have much less stress on that single layer shot compared to your shotgun with a diameter of one #8 pellet shooting one ounce of #8 shot. I suppose the shot column in the cartridge could be 6" long!

In your theoretical shotgun with a bore diameter equal to a #8 pellet the pellet at 1/2 the length of the total shot column length will see the 1/2 of the stress of the pellet at the bottom of that shot column.

Mike, I don't think it as cut and dried as you believe, nor have many of the ideas been "proven" by controlled repeatable experiments. Probably time to put it to bed, as the horse has been beaten long after it died.

Shot stringing has been validated experimentally by John Olin and by Bob Brister. The effect of hard shot and buffering on shot stringing has been validated by Brister and John Olin and Company. Could you point out what it is that John Olin did wrong or Brister did wrong?

You do accept Newtons laws of physics for the velocities we are talking about, right?

I've never had any disagreement with shot stringing, although the exact process probably has some variability and unknowns lurking about, and the consequences are subject to debate. After all, a shot string six feet long @ 900 fps will all reach the target in .0067 seconds. A bird flying across at 35 mph will only move about 4" during that time if my quick calculation is correct. If you have a 30" evenly spread pattern, that is pretty inconsequential. My whole discussion was based on disagreement with the comment that the force required to move a 1oz. load in a smaller gauge was greater than in a larger gauge. You have agreed that is the case.

I thought this was settled up front? It did get a little convoluted when the word pounds was comingled in different applications.

I think we agree that it takes some force to distort shot. Earlier high speed photos show not only shot stringing, but, as pointed out, flyers that left the shot string, regardless of choke. Maybe meaning that something happened to the integrity of some spheres before they cleared the barrel.

As to pellet packaging in a shell, we know what happens when all the pellets are squished together with no voids, it behaves like a single bullet. It's easy to look up how spheres like to align themselves. Chances are, if the force on them is equal as you mention, then the total distortion to the shot in any form will be equal. As the good doc mentioned pages ago, spheres that have a higher percentage of their surface area damaged are less likely to fly true. Maybe the spheres that have less points contacting them will have all of the force created distortion concentrated on those lesser contact points. The doc made a very generous offer to run tests for a fee, but he already offered foregone conclusions for free.

cpa:

The energy/work applied to ounce of shot to accelerate it from 0 to 1200 fps is the same whether it is applied in a 12 gauge or a 28 gauge. There may be minor differences in the efficiency of the energy used to apply that energy to the shot charge but they are most certainly very small.

The shot at the bottom of that 28 gauge shot column will experience more stress than that shot at the bottom of the 12 gauge shot column. Thus the 28 gauge shot is more likely to be deformed.

There are tables that show how long it takes a given size shot to travel a given distance, based on a particular muzzle velocity.

It seems that it is the nature of most firearms enthusiasts to always strive to increase the effective range of their chosen weapon. Over the last 150 years, in pursuit of that goal, choking was developed. Then progressive powders allowed an even larger charge of shot in the same gauge. Shot cups and pie crimping were developed with the aim of getting more effective range from a given shot charge and muzzle velocity.

So if I don't have any "fliers" losing velocity and drifting out of the pattern before they arrive at the target I have more pattern density. Given the correct choke I now have extended my range.

#9 shot runs out of penetrating power before it runs out of pattern density. #4 shot runs out of pattern density before it runs out of penetrating power.

Shot stringing lowers pattern density at the target and thus the maximum effective effective range for a given combination of shot weight, muzzle velocity, and choke. If you don't think so imagine a shot string fifty yards long.

If you load one ounce of hard 5% antimony shot into a modern plastic shotcup in a shot shell and then optimize the choke selection you can get a longer effective range than if you pour 1 ounce of the same size soft lead shot onto a fiber wadded shot shell and then put a shotcard on top of that and roll crimp it. Again with an optimally selected choke.

I shoot mostly trap and bobwhites (over pointing dogs). I am not worried about shot stringing or extending range. But I find the theory and the experiments and the discussions and articles about it very interesting and follow them closely. I shoot competitive trap but I don't win, place, or show very much. I only shoot 1-1/8oz of #8s with a muzzle velocity of 1145 fps (2-3/4DE). But I buy the cheapest shell I can because I believe, at my skill level, shot stringing isn't responsible for any of my misses. My favorite trap choke is mod.

My favorite load for bobwhites is one ounce of #8s. Again I don't worry about shot stringing. My favorite choke for bobs is cylinder. But I don't worry if about the length of the shot column whether I am shooting that one ounce of a 20ga or a 16ga or as 12ga.

But if I was shooting for big money at pigeons or hoping to shoot bunker trap in the Olympics or hoping to win my Regional ATA championship I would pay much attention to shot hardness, bore diameters, and overall shell quality. Because shot stringing affects maximum effective range and quality of patterns.

I thought I had made a post on this earlier this AM, then had to leave. It's not here so obviously didn't go.
Based on figures in an old Hercules loaders manual for a shot of unknown size or hardness the give .288 Cu In as the volume of 1 oz of shot. In a 12ga bore of .729" this gives a column length of .690", in a .550" dia 28 ga a length of 1.212" or 75.7% longer.
Now if you truly believe that Force, Mass & Acceleration is the total story, then drop 23 grains of Red Dot in a 28ga hull, put on necessary wadding & top it with 1 oz of shot & a good tight crimp & Touch'er Off in an old decrepit gun of dubious quality, folks have been doing it for years in 12 gauges & after all the Force is the same, the Mass is the same so Acceleration should be the same. Only difference is a matter of applying it over .2376 sq inches of bore rather than.4174 sq in. After trying this simple little experiment "IF" you still have fingers to type with & can see the keyboard report your findings back to us.
The "inertial" resistance to being moved incidentally is the same in the 1oz 28 gauge load Per Sq In as it is a 1 3/4oz 12ga load for they have essentially the same column length.

The difference is obviously pressure. F=Mass x Acceleration and Pressure = Force / Area. So if total force stays the same but area is reduced then Pressure has to be increased. This is what has been said all along. The total force is the same for both loads, but Force per sq. in or pressure increases for the smaller gauge.
"Force is the total impact of one object on another. Pressure is the ratio of force to area over which it is applied. A force is defined as a push or a pull that makes an object change its state of motion or direction."
I'm going to try to not respond anymore as we're still beating the dead horse.

Well CPA that's what I've been saying all along. Nobody is arguing the "Formula" is wrong, it's just applied differently in a larger bore versus a smaller bore, due to the different area it's applied over. It should be patently obvious that if the same load of shot is put in the small bore as the large bore there is more likelihood of deformed shot in the small bore.
If you try to shoot the same shot load you can get away with a softer shot in the larger bore than you can in the smaller bore. That's all I have been trying to say all along but The "Formula" has been constantly thrown up at me saying that Wrong, but it's true & has been established for more than a century

And, if anyone is interested in just how (un)important hard vs soft shot is to the most of us, kindly read chapter 17 of Jones. The basic difference would be comparable full choke patterns for the soft at 40 yards and 44 yards for the hard. If you were shooting for big money or braggin' rights, hard is the way to go. Otherwise, don't worry about it.

Soft and hard shot both have typical Rayleigh distribution patterns. Soft shot patterns bloom quicker but at less than about one half a choke constriction difference. Choke constriction, by the way, is the control over how quickly a pattern blooms - not more, not less.

DDA