Are you a ballistics expert Larry, or do you just think you know more than the ballisticians who develop ammunition for Winchester? If you place the same standard upon yourself that you do to other people, you would have to disqualify yourself from giving your opinion on ballistics and ammunition performance. I'm pretty sure you will find my question to be a problem, even though you recently questioned the ability of craigd and myself to critically analyze and question obvious junk science pertaining to lead ammunition bans. My education wasn't enough for you, so show us YOUR beef.
Keith, ammunition performance is something that can be OBSERVED. In my case, if I'm comparing loads, I start by tearing a couple apart and doing a pellet count. I've found, for example, that the "book" figure of 225 US 6's per ounce can vary significantly from one brand to another. I've counted around 200/oz in some; close to 250 in others. My conclusion, based on observation, is that you cannot comment accurately on pattern density as a % by relying on "book" values for an accurate pellet count. Obviously, if one load has 250 pellets vs another than has only 200, the load with 250 stands an excellent chance of delivering more pellet strikes within a 30" circle. But even there, one can be surprised--which is why you need to shoot patterns and count holes. For example, Kent used to make a very hot 16ga nickel plated lead load. I tested some in 7 1/2, 1 ounce, and compared to other loads with 1 1/8 oz 7 1/2. I was surprised to find that the Kent load, starting with a deficit of something like 40+ pellets vs the others, delivered more hits in the 30" circle than did the 1 1/8 oz loads. So stuff like that can be observed. Doesn't make me a ballistician, but you don't need to be a ballistician to count pellets and shoot patterns.
Now if you're going to tell me that you and Craig based your conclusion of "obvious junk science" based on observation vs whatever you may consider to be "logic", then you have a point. So tell me about all the sick or dead ducks that you examined, necropsied, checked for the presence or absence of lead shot, tested for lead levels in the blood or bones . . . then you're showing me some "beef". Otherwise, all you have is a "beef" with what you contend to be junk science, which does not seem to be based on observation. You don't need to be a scientist to employ the scientific method, but you do need to go a bit beyond "This is obviously junk science because . . .", unless it's "because I've done some testing and made observations, and here's what I've found."
As hunters and shooters, we can all discuss ballistics from a standpoint of "here's what works for me". Or we can get a bit more scientific by shooting patterns, examining various loads, etc. Far from me to tell people who shoot pheasants with 4's that they don't work or that they're a bad choice if those loads work for them. All I can say is that I've never used anything larger than 5's, and 6's seem to me--based on experience gathered from a few thousand pheasants I've shot--will work quite well if you're not shooting a lot of birds beyond 40 yards.
Last edited by L. Brown; 02/25/16 09:44 AM.
