Dave McCracken
Moderator In Memoriam
There's been talk about a Golden Age of Shotgunning, back over a century ago. Then, shotgunners could shoot winged stuff from Passenger Pigeons to Whooping Cranes to their heart's delight. A million ducks came off the Chesapeake each year and were shipped to New York restaurants at $6 per pair.
Maybe it was Golden, but they had extreme poverty in many cases and half the population was dead by 40.
But, a case can be made that the The Golden Age of Shotgun Ammo is now.
Back when I started caring about such things in the late 50s, roll crimps and cardboard cases were the rule on shotgun fodder. Wads were fiber, cork and cardboard, and the shot kinda skidded along the bore when fired. And that shot was oft just dropped and chilled pure lead, soft enough to deform if looked at.
Field loads of the day were heavy, to ensure that they'd function in cold weather in the overoiled and undercleaned autos of the time. There was probably also some mental advantage to them, kind of a "If it hurts this much back here it must be a killer load at the other end" mindset.
Pop discovered that a trap load oft worked better than his old standby, the Western Long Range load of 1 1/4 oz of 7 1/2s or 6s for pheasant and also doubled on quail nicely. Looking back, I'd venture to say hard shot was the difference. Antimony was more expensive then than now and most shot was as innocent of it as a baby of sin.
And them about the time I hit high school, Winchester and Olin pioneered the one piece plastic wad. The Heavens opened up, the choirs sang Hosannahs, the sun beamed brightly and we found that 1 1/8 oz loads in field loads beat the old 1 1/4 oz ammo and the trap loads were better yet.
Of course, the one piece wad helped enormously because the shot was shielded and protected in its fast trip up the bore, The other major cause of deformation was setback at ignition, where the weight of the top layers of shot contributed to the weight obvious under acceleration to the bottom layers. Under multiple G force acceleration at launch, this squashed pellets so they didn't fly as well as the rest and were lost to the pattern.
Anyways, I've been delighted in the performance of my 7/8 oz handloads this last couple years. Even at 35 yards plus,they grind targets to a fine powder if I hold up my end of things.
The International trap folks use 24 gram loads, a hair under 7/8 oz. Those folks routinely make shots at that exacting and rapid game that are scarce to be believed by us mere mortals.
I'm delighted with the results. But, it kept bothering me that less is more. I think I've got it figured out.
The core of any shot pattern has lots of pellets in it. If we compare the inner 24" of two patterns, using all the same stuff except one load has 1 1/8 oz and the other 7/8 oz of identical shot, propelled at the same speed, we'd probably find that part of the pattern was just as dense with holes regardless of whether the 1 1/8 or 7/8 oz loads was used.
With protection from the bore equal in both loads, setback deformation would leave the bottom pellets in the heavier load squeezed flatter so they'd be out of the pattern PDQ.Without that squeezing, there's as many pellets in the TARGET with the lighter load, and that's where it counts.
Questions, Comments?
Maybe it was Golden, but they had extreme poverty in many cases and half the population was dead by 40.
But, a case can be made that the The Golden Age of Shotgun Ammo is now.
Back when I started caring about such things in the late 50s, roll crimps and cardboard cases were the rule on shotgun fodder. Wads were fiber, cork and cardboard, and the shot kinda skidded along the bore when fired. And that shot was oft just dropped and chilled pure lead, soft enough to deform if looked at.
Field loads of the day were heavy, to ensure that they'd function in cold weather in the overoiled and undercleaned autos of the time. There was probably also some mental advantage to them, kind of a "If it hurts this much back here it must be a killer load at the other end" mindset.
Pop discovered that a trap load oft worked better than his old standby, the Western Long Range load of 1 1/4 oz of 7 1/2s or 6s for pheasant and also doubled on quail nicely. Looking back, I'd venture to say hard shot was the difference. Antimony was more expensive then than now and most shot was as innocent of it as a baby of sin.
And them about the time I hit high school, Winchester and Olin pioneered the one piece plastic wad. The Heavens opened up, the choirs sang Hosannahs, the sun beamed brightly and we found that 1 1/8 oz loads in field loads beat the old 1 1/4 oz ammo and the trap loads were better yet.
Of course, the one piece wad helped enormously because the shot was shielded and protected in its fast trip up the bore, The other major cause of deformation was setback at ignition, where the weight of the top layers of shot contributed to the weight obvious under acceleration to the bottom layers. Under multiple G force acceleration at launch, this squashed pellets so they didn't fly as well as the rest and were lost to the pattern.
Anyways, I've been delighted in the performance of my 7/8 oz handloads this last couple years. Even at 35 yards plus,they grind targets to a fine powder if I hold up my end of things.
The International trap folks use 24 gram loads, a hair under 7/8 oz. Those folks routinely make shots at that exacting and rapid game that are scarce to be believed by us mere mortals.
I'm delighted with the results. But, it kept bothering me that less is more. I think I've got it figured out.
The core of any shot pattern has lots of pellets in it. If we compare the inner 24" of two patterns, using all the same stuff except one load has 1 1/8 oz and the other 7/8 oz of identical shot, propelled at the same speed, we'd probably find that part of the pattern was just as dense with holes regardless of whether the 1 1/8 or 7/8 oz loads was used.
With protection from the bore equal in both loads, setback deformation would leave the bottom pellets in the heavier load squeezed flatter so they'd be out of the pattern PDQ.Without that squeezing, there's as many pellets in the TARGET with the lighter load, and that's where it counts.
Questions, Comments?
