Jenrick
Member
BSA1: If we're talking #4 birdshot, I definitely stand by my statement that it has too little mass for sufficient penetration in a human. Birds are built a lot lighter then humans (think a Mazda Miata versus a '65 Chevy), and it takes more mass to penetrate to the important part. If #4 birdshot worked that well for game, why don't folks use it for deer hunting? After doing some more research and reading on #4 buckshot, it is probably at the very bottom of the viable shot sizes in terms on penetration. Any intervening barriers, or adding some distance to the engagement (say 10-15 yards), would probably see inadequate penetration. Additionally one of the issue with lighter shot is that it has to be driven faster (more recoil) to get the same depth of penetration that heavier shot would. All things being equal a larger shot size can penetrate the same depth as lighter shot with less velocity, and hence less recoil.
I will say I'm intrigued enough from researching though, that I'll request we test #4 buckshot to see exactly how it does.
I6turbo: The Federal tactical shells we tested use the flight control wad. The example linked above is actually about the worst pattern we've ever seen with them (which is still pretty dang good). We routinely get all 8 pellets on the body at 50 yds, and I'd take a full exposure shot at 35 yd any day of the week, as I know the pattern is going to keep all the pellets on the target.
-Jenrick
I will say I'm intrigued enough from researching though, that I'll request we test #4 buckshot to see exactly how it does.
I6turbo: The Federal tactical shells we tested use the flight control wad. The example linked above is actually about the worst pattern we've ever seen with them (which is still pretty dang good). We routinely get all 8 pellets on the body at 50 yds, and I'd take a full exposure shot at 35 yd any day of the week, as I know the pattern is going to keep all the pellets on the target.
-Jenrick