I tried three brands of slugs in a Mossberg 500, rifled barrel with cantileverd scope mount, Sightron scope set to 4X, using a front rest. I'm expecting to need no more than 100 yards, so I worked closer in, zero'ing the scope at 25 yards.
Question: The results for one brand (Rem Buckhammer Managed Recoil) seem to differ greatly from manufacturer data. Anyone else observe this?
Tested:
Remington Buckhammer Managed Recoil 7/8 oz (382 grain) 1275 fps muzzle
[this slug is intended for rifled barrel] $5/5
Winchester Supreme Elite DualBond 20 gauge sabot $10/5
Hornady SST 20g Sabot (FTX projectile) 250 grain 1800 fps muzzle $10/5
[I could not tolerate the recoil of the regular Buckhammer. My momentum calculations suggest the above rounds have similar recoil, and that it is similar to the recoil of a 7-onehalf shotshell. That, I can tolerate.]
THe 25-yard zero of the Buckhammer managed recoil (2 shots right on the horizontal line) and the Winchester sabot appeared identical, however, at 75 yards the Win sabot was still about at same elevation (3 shots) while the Buckhammer Managed Recoil was some 6-8 inches lower (3 shots). BIG difference.
With the same scope setting, the Hornady SST sabot slug was 1.5 inches high at 25 and [therefore] it was 6 inches high at 75 yards. Had the scope been readjusted to zero the Horndady better at 25, it would have likely been real close at 75.
To match the observed performance of the Rem Buckhammer with a ballistics program required a ballistic coefficient of a measely 0.02!!! Does this sound reasonable? The printed data on the Buckhammer managed recoil suggests WAY WAY flatter trajectory [graph on package suggests 6 inches low at 100 and only a third of this at 75, with scope pretty much zeroed at 25 and 50 yards]. This matches a BC of about 0.09, with a 75 yard outcome of 2.5 inch low....but I cannot find a way to massage my 25/75 data to fit a BC of 0.09. My results suggested much more drag.
The Hornady was well matched by the JBM calculator using the 0.452 caliber 250 grain FTX 450 Bushmaster projectile, suggesting that with a batter choice of zero, I would be easily able to hold elevation fairly constant well past 100 yards. The Winchester was well matched by assuming the Win SuperX Jacketed Hollow Point .452" 260 grain (0.177 G1 BC), 1800fps -- also very flat to past 100 yards.
However, these are pricey rounds, and the Win has the advantage that it shares a 25 yard zero with the half-priced Rem Buckhammer. Much cheaper to get the initial sighting in at 25 yards withe the Rem Buckhammer, then switch to the sabot. Allows easy rechecking as well.
I'm clearly not as good a shot as an expert, as my 3-shot groups were more like 5 inches at 75 yards, and there was little difference between the brands.
The energy delivered by either sabot is way, way more than my predicted energy of the Buckhammer, if my data are correct, at any distance beyond say, 10 yards.
Question: The results for one brand (Rem Buckhammer Managed Recoil) seem to differ greatly from manufacturer data. Anyone else observe this?
Tested:
Remington Buckhammer Managed Recoil 7/8 oz (382 grain) 1275 fps muzzle
[this slug is intended for rifled barrel] $5/5
Winchester Supreme Elite DualBond 20 gauge sabot $10/5
Hornady SST 20g Sabot (FTX projectile) 250 grain 1800 fps muzzle $10/5
[I could not tolerate the recoil of the regular Buckhammer. My momentum calculations suggest the above rounds have similar recoil, and that it is similar to the recoil of a 7-onehalf shotshell. That, I can tolerate.]
THe 25-yard zero of the Buckhammer managed recoil (2 shots right on the horizontal line) and the Winchester sabot appeared identical, however, at 75 yards the Win sabot was still about at same elevation (3 shots) while the Buckhammer Managed Recoil was some 6-8 inches lower (3 shots). BIG difference.
With the same scope setting, the Hornady SST sabot slug was 1.5 inches high at 25 and [therefore] it was 6 inches high at 75 yards. Had the scope been readjusted to zero the Horndady better at 25, it would have likely been real close at 75.
To match the observed performance of the Rem Buckhammer with a ballistics program required a ballistic coefficient of a measely 0.02!!! Does this sound reasonable? The printed data on the Buckhammer managed recoil suggests WAY WAY flatter trajectory [graph on package suggests 6 inches low at 100 and only a third of this at 75, with scope pretty much zeroed at 25 and 50 yards]. This matches a BC of about 0.09, with a 75 yard outcome of 2.5 inch low....but I cannot find a way to massage my 25/75 data to fit a BC of 0.09. My results suggested much more drag.
The Hornady was well matched by the JBM calculator using the 0.452 caliber 250 grain FTX 450 Bushmaster projectile, suggesting that with a batter choice of zero, I would be easily able to hold elevation fairly constant well past 100 yards. The Winchester was well matched by assuming the Win SuperX Jacketed Hollow Point .452" 260 grain (0.177 G1 BC), 1800fps -- also very flat to past 100 yards.
However, these are pricey rounds, and the Win has the advantage that it shares a 25 yard zero with the half-priced Rem Buckhammer. Much cheaper to get the initial sighting in at 25 yards withe the Rem Buckhammer, then switch to the sabot. Allows easy rechecking as well.
I'm clearly not as good a shot as an expert, as my 3-shot groups were more like 5 inches at 75 yards, and there was little difference between the brands.
The energy delivered by either sabot is way, way more than my predicted energy of the Buckhammer, if my data are correct, at any distance beyond say, 10 yards.
