http://randywakeman.com/NoBarrelDamageNoTox.htm

I can't figure out for the life of me why Kent has to load their tungsten matrix so hot. I'm not blowing off the top of a mountain to get to the coal.

"Speed kills", a lesson learned by many a snow goose hunter and pass shooter the hard way after lead was banned & the early steel shot wasn't very exciting & was too oft undersized for the intended purpose. More recently, you see where some entities are advocating quite high velocities w/light loads on dove(!)and that's using smallish lead shot. I don't find that necessary, being an advocate of larger shot for putting birds in the bag w/minimal damage, admittedly not the most popular view.

It also happens that particular Kent ammunition has a good reputation because it works well on the intended game. Hard to knock success.

Personally, looking at down range ballistics of spheres, I find it makes more sense to take shots within a known killing range at MV's of around 1200fps w/a shot size adequate to insure breaking the bird down when hit. That requires restraint and not taking many shots that others would. Few of us are exacting judges of distance, myself included.

In these days of 1700 FPS steel that's relatively moderate. Whatever they are doing, I do love that SUPER EXPENSIVE Kent TM.

Since tungsten equals or exceeds the density of lead why not just offer a line of TM shells that replicate the older lead shells used by waterfowlers prior to the ban? Safe to use in older shotguns? With those chamber pressures they're developing? Maybe the shot is. I use them sparing in my 80+ year old Ithaca. I wouldn't have to if they offered those line of shells that duplicate the old lead waterfowl shells.

That's another thing, why the widely differing figures on the density of tungsten compared to the density of lead?

Tungsten matrix pressures are not published by Kent on their website, that I can find.
Tom Armbrust has published one pressure measurement on one loading that is right at SAAMI maximum for 12 gauge. This suggests that this ammo is suitable only in guns proofed to modern US standards.

Does anyone have further pressure tests of Kent Tungsten Matrix cartridges?

The difference in density of "tungsten" loads is that there are differing alloys with differing percentages of tungsten. The higher the density or purity the higher the cost. The highest commercially available density in a shell is 15 g/cc in Federal shells. It is not suitabe for older guns because of its hardness and the pressures in that shell. Winchester's version is about 12-13 g/cc and not suitable for older guns. Pure tungsten is about 19 g/cc. Gil

E-mail Kent and they'll tell you what the chamber pressures are. I did it a few years ago but lost the e-mail.

But even if tungsten that is used in shells that have differing alloys with differing percentages of tungsten is equal to the density of lead you don't need ultra velocity to achieve a clean kill. They killed geese before the ban.

So I don't know exactly what Kent is thinking because they produce a shell that has shot that is 'safe' to shoot in older guns but increase the chamber pressure to a point where no one will shoot Kent's shells in their older guns then you are not really marketing to people who have the older guns. Your marketing to people that have the newer guns which are already steel safe and they could care less about a safe shot to use in the shotguns. They'll say screw it and just buy the cheapest steel loads they can find.

See what I mean? So what is Kent thinking or doing? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

One thing for sure. They are not "shooting for" the low pressure market. It is miniscule in comparison to the waterfowl market overall.

SRH

I agree totally Stan.

And wouldn't they be pricing themselves out of the market by their own marketing strategy?

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

What pressures were the 1-3/8, 1-1/2, etc. ounce lead loads running in the '50s and '60s? I seem to remember those loads were up there in pressure as I was reloading. Have any improvements in powder technology yielded lower peak pressures?

Good point. I guess if we are to continue this discussion we need the numbers for both the older lead shells and the newer Kent TM.