doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Forcing cones in old doubles

I have absolutely no idea what those "Other Factors" are but the rest of that statement is pure mathamatics, nothing else. It is as I have "Mathametically" pointed out totally incorrect. I don't really care what type of house he lived in or how he paid for it, that statement is not correct, period. I am not in any way trying to flame him as person or a shooter, just a few "Facts" in his book are not absolute facts.
I did get out the book, the quoted statement is the bottom line of page 70. top line of page 71 reads;

As I have painstakenly pointed the 3/4oz load in the 28 has a longer shot colum than 1�oz from the 12ga & it is being fired through a smaller hole. IF you don't understand that these two statements, Quoted Verbatim, from two succeding paragraphs "Back to Back" as contradictory, then my Friend there isn't much hope for you to understand anything.
Back on page 63 he speaks of Oberfell & Thompson's rule of thumb that that killing ability was based on ounces of shot rather than size of hole. He then proceeds to say "I have found their rule to come close to being correct with perhaps the exception of the 28 gauge which simply kills better than it is supposed to.
He begins the next page with "Ignoring the ""Mysteries"" (these quotes mine) of the 28 gauge temporarily, lets look at the O&T rule of thumb.
He then goes on to show that according to their rule similar effectivness would be obtained by 3/4oz @ 35yds, 1oz @ 40yds & 1�oz at 45yds.
This is based on pure mathamatics figuring the areas of circles from guns producing similar patterns havng similar overall spread & shot distribution within the pattern.
He further adds that small bore guns generate higher pressures & thus deform more shot unless special hard shot handloads are used. Note also at this point he is not comparing the 28 to the .410 but to the larger gauges.
The only Mystery I can find to the 28's supposed extra effectiveness is he is comparing those special hard shot handloads to run of the mill promo type loads in the others. They of course could be equally improved in like manner.
This is just not the type of rubbish I expect when I pay money I had to work for to get something so highly lauded as this book was.
There is a lot of good to the book, if you don't already have something better (I did) but it sure is not in relation to the 28 gauge, that part is pure fable.

Miller, I don't know whether Brister knew what the "other factors" were either, but what he knew from shooting lots of targets and patterns (and birds) was that the 28 simply performed better than he would have expected. There's something about the combination of that shell in that bore that just seems to work particularly well. I've shot straights at skeet with the blasted thing, and I'm not Brister. And I've watched way better shots than I am shoot skeet with a .410, and I'm convinced it'd be pure luck if I ever shot a straight with one of those.

You're interpreting what Brister says as: the 3/4 oz 28ga load and the 1 1/4 oz 12ga load are mathematical twins. Don't think that's what he's saying. I read that as Brister saying that those two loads are examples of particularly "well-balanced" loads--based on performance, not mathematics. There's something about both of them that makes them work particularly well in their respective bores. That something, obviously, cannot be defined by mathematics. I think you would have left much out of his book, had you written it, and entitled it simply "Shotgunning: The Science". He's saying it's not all science; some things happen that you don't expect based on mathematics, the performance of the 28ga being one of them. And as both a skilled hand with the shotgun and an experimenter, I think he has sufficient credentials to say that there's some art in the whole business. Hence, the title of his book.

Larry, that's Math, there's simply no way you can make anything else of it!!!

Also there is nothing you can apply that equally fits both the 3/4oz 28ga & the 1�oz 12ga loads. If these two loads balance one another then so does the 7/8oz 20 & the 1oz 16. If you can't define what's equal how do you know it is. I have read articles by equally well know authors lauding the 12ga, the 16ga, the 20ga & the 28ga. I learned a long time ago you have to sift through a lot of chaff to get a little of the grain.
Regardless of how good or knowledgeable on gets they can still have little personal prejudices & hangups. I think the whole gist of the matter is Brister considered the 28 a "Small Bore" & "Expected" it to shoot simialr to the .410. When it shot much closer to the 20 as it was "Supposed To" he thought it somewhat Mysterious. There is however no mystery about it, that's what its supposed to do.

Miller, he does NOT say that the two loads "balance one another". That's your interpretation/assumption. He's not trying to say anything that "equally fits" both loads . . . other than that they both perform very well. A 6 pound gun can be well-balanced, as can an 8 pound gun. Does not mean they balance each other, which obviously they do not.

Nor--going back to your previous post--does he compare anything to a 28ga "special hard shot handload". His photo on p. 65, of an 89% pattern--shot at 35 yards, target speed 40 mph--is clearly marked as a standard Remington factory load. Might have been an even better pattern in a harder shot handload, but that's pretty darned good already--and since string is taken into account in that pattern, there's obviously not a lot of deformation taking place, or if so it's not impacting the pattern very much. His specific reference to using hard shot is aimed at the poorly-performing .410: "Put very hard shot in a .410 and it starts to behave."

The smaller the bore, the more shot deforms--all things being equal. But the standard 3/4 oz load in the 28ga does not seem to deform much shot. Too bad he did not compare it to a 3/4 oz 20ga load along with the .410. But if we're looking just at difference in bore size and "balance", from a mathematical standpoint, consider this: There's a little over twice as much difference in bore diameter between a .410 and a 28ga as there is between a 28ga and a 20ga. Yet the dropoff in Class B skeet averages is only 1% from 20 to 28 . . . but 10% from 28 to .410. Mathematically, it would seem that either the .410 ought to be a good bit closer to the 28 than that, based on relative bore diameters, or else there ought to be more difference between the 20 and the 28. Which would seem to reinforce Brister's point that it takes more than math to explain things, perhaps especially so where the 28ga is concerned.

Larry; ""READ"" that statement on the bottom of page 70, just one more time.
"Apparently the 28 standard load & the 12-gauge are both balanced loads in terms of the length & weight of shot column relative to bore diameter".
Larry, "THAT AIN"T TALKING ABOUT GUN BALANCE" that's talking about load balance. But they simply do not share a similar balance relative to the points he cites.
As to the 28's position relative to the 20 & the 28, bore dia is not the determing factor here but bor capacity. this is relative to the square of their diameter not to their diameter. This why a 1" pipe will deliver 4 times as much water at the same pressure as a �" pipe having half its diameter.
Bore capacity of the 28 is 80% that of the 20 while the .410 has only 55% that of the 28 (or 44% that of the 20). So yes the 28 is "Supposed" to shoot much closer to the 20 thn the 28. Of course considering the standard loads of the three gauges of 7/8oz, 3/4oz & 1/2oz the 28 is loaded heavier relative to its bore than the 20 & the .410 even heavier.
Effectives which might appear even broder than this would indicate can easily be accounted for, that at skeet range the 28 even in skeet boring is within its effective range, while the .410 is not. Increasing the effectiveness of the 28 then would not be expected to show a significant improvement, reducing it would.
How many 28's do you see at handicap trap?? That you see goes beyond the effective range of the 28.
While the Art & Science of Shotgunong was a very appropriate title of this book & I will add Bob did a very good job on the art aspect, the ballistics are the science part, this is where in several instences & this topic in particular is where he fell somewhar short.
This doesn't really take a rocket scientist to understand.

Meaning no disrespect to Bob Brister, I'd like to point out that being an outstanding shot does not make you an infallible "authority". I know several outstanding shots who "know" all the wrong things about the things we all talk about everyday. Nor does having written a book or two. A lot of what's in any book is just opinion.

Thanks, Miller . . . I got that he wasn't talking about gun balance. You still don't get that he's not talking about balanced TO EACH OTHER--as you stated in your previous post. Nor, once again, does it have anything at all to do with "mathematical balance". Take off your math cap and, if possible, put on your shooter cap. What the man is saying is that the standard 3/4 oz load performs very well in the 28ga, as does the 1 1/4 oz pigeon load in the 12ga. He's talking about results on PATTERN paper (and on targets, and on birds), not on MATH paper.

Read the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted, and it should remove all doubt (if you can lose the calculator for long enough). Referring to "two mysteries in shotgun ammunition" that a Remington employee cannot fully explain: "One is why the 28 gauge is so highly efficient for the shot load it throws and the other is why the 12-gauge pigeon load of 3 1/4 drams of powder and 1 1/4 ounces of shot will pattern beautifully in almost any barrel." There you have his meaning: not balanced with each other, not balanced mathematically by the ratio of the bore size to the length of the shot column. It's all about performance . . . which, after all, is really the bottom line for most shooters.

Jim, I think Brister's book backs up opinion with a good bit more experimentation (and experience) than do many gun books. Some other writers . . . I think they try to look sharp with their words and their mathematical computations to compensate for their lack of capability with a shotgun.

"Jim, I think Brister's book backs up opinion with a good bit more experimentation (and experience) than do many gun books. Some other writers . . . I think they try to look sharp with their words and their mathematical computations to compensate for their lack of capability with a shotgun."

No disagreement there. My point is just that everything that finds its way into print does not necessarily make it gospel. Likely all "gospel" is not necessarily so, either.

Lary;
Since I am such an absolute Idiot & you being so Smart, then would you please explain to me just what this expression means, without applying any Art or Mystery, just plain common Horsesense logic that even I can understand.
Now I did not use "Balanced to one another" that's totally your words. What I said was to quote his words that they were balanced in terms of shot wt & column length in relation to bore DIA. Now DENY that's what he said.
That "in terms of the length and weight of shot column relative to bore diameter" makes it a mathamatical ratio, PERIOD, there's simply no geting around it. As has been well shown the statement as made is simply not correct.
So just what does the 3/4oz 28ga & the 1 1/4oz 12ga loads possess that makes them superior to all other loads in all other gauges. Inquiring minds want to know??? Don't give me no mystery, I just want the Facts Man, Nothing but the Facts.
If I'd wanted to deal in the Occult I would not have bought a book with the word SCIENCE in the title.

That's not your quote, Miller?

You also chopped off the end of Brister's quote . . . you know, the "and other factors" part. Since the "other factors" are not clearly defined, then you can't apply math . . . because you don't know what other factors are involved. (Sorry, neither do I . . . and Brister's dead, so unless you can find a medium that can ask him, we're SOL on that score.)

So, first of all . . . back to YOUR quote: Brister's sentence does NOT say that the "two loads balance one another". Nor does he say, anywhere, that those loads are the very best there are. What he does say--or actually quotes the Remington guy in saying, and seems to agree with--is that "the 28 gauge is so highly efficient for the shot load it throws" (89% pattern on a target moving 40 mph at 35 yards is pretty darned efficient, I'd say!); and that "the 12-gauge pigeon load of 3 1/4 drams of powder and 1 1/4 ounces of shot will pattern beautifully in almost any barrel". Well, I've patterned that load in a few different barrels with different chokes, and it has always looked very good in comparison to other loads through the same barrels (talking pattern % here). And a couple other now-deceased writers named Hill and McIntosh both selected it as their favorite pheasant load. No "magic" involved, Miller . . . just a performance-based evaluation rather than one based on nothing but math. Personally, I'd expect to find such evaluations in a book that has "Art" as well as "Science" in the title.